Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-02-23


He did not find in those measures the
enactments of non-intervention by Congress
with slavery in those Territories, either as a
principle or measure. On the contrary they
expressly reserve to Congress the right to
dIsprove Of any act of legislation by the
Territories. How could Senators find,
in those specific measures, passed in specific
cases, and referring TO specific territories in
them, described and marked out, the enact
ment of principle which was to act retro
spectively and prospcctively y upon all other
territories then acquired or hereafter ac-
quired.
In the act relating to Missouri, Congress
expressly required of the State, as the con-
dition of her admission, that all public lands
sold in the State should not be taxed for five
years after its sale. States subsequently,
were admitted without the condition. Thus
would it be said that, because Arkansas
could tax the public lands sold in that State
from the day Of the sale, the principle of
this act in any way applied to the compact
with Missouri, or could. be tortured into
such an application.
The ordinance of 1877 prohibited slavery
in the Northwest Territory; shortly after
Congress accepted cession of territory
from North Carolina with an express stipu-
lation that slavery should not be prohibited
therein. Did any one suppose that the ac-
ceptance of that territory, with such a stip-
ulation, by any means established a princi-
pie applicable TO the Northwest Territory,
where slavery was prohibited? If SO, the
ordinance of 1877, being inconsistent with
the act of cession from North Carolina could
with equal propriety, be said was intend
ed TO be superseded or repealed. He un-
derstood the report Of the committee itself
as stating that the acts Of 1850 produced no
such result. The committee state that in
produced no such result. The committee
state that in the case OF the Mexican Terri
tories, it was asserted on tie one hand that
the Mexican law repeating slavery was in
force, and on the other hand, that the law
was superseded by the constitution and laws
of the United States, and that in this case it
was asserted on the one hand that the Mis-
souri, prohibition was in force in Nebraska,
and by others that that prohibition was void
and not in force, and that as Congress in
1850 did not undertake to decide the diff
Guilty then, SO Congress would not do so
now. II Congress, in 1850, did moi decide
the question whether slavery was or was
not excluded by the Mexican laws, Con-
gress left the question as it found il, and il
it left the question as it found it, therefore
established a principle. He was called up
on shortly after the adoption Of the Compro-
mise measures of 1850, in the performance
of literary task, to draw up a narrative OF
the events attending them. He was not in
Congress at the time, nor had he heard the
debates which almost necessarily form part
Of the measure, but he had conversed with
some of the active participants in their for
nation and adoption, and he had read The
debates, and throughout the whole time he
had never heard the least intimation, or re.
ceived the slightest impression from any
, source, verbal or written that their acts hat
any effect beyond the specific territories o.
t Utah and New Mexico. He could not bu
: think that if there had been any other eff
feet intended or supposed TO be accomplish
) ed 10y these acts, the facts would have beer
notorious. Those acts gave the boundarie.
of Utah and New Mexico, and declared
that within those boundaries a certain stat,
of things should exist.
There was nothing said in them that th
: state of things should exist retros pectivel
and prospectively in all the other torritorie
: Of the United States. Those acts woul
not carry the condition of this question il
the limits of those territories to any othe
territories where nothing stood in the way
and how could they carry it to Nebrask
where different state of things was eX
pressly provided for the Missouri Act? l
: it should he said that it was unnecessary t
state, in 1880, that the principle of thos
acts extended TO all other territories, th
Missouri Act notwithstanding, he cou
hardly see the necessity for declaring ii now
= If there was any necessity for it now, ther
! was more necessity for such a declaration
= in 1850. So far as he had been able t
/ read the debates he had not found one wor
E said in either House. that these acts in an
D way, in principle, by analogy or otherwise
t We're intended or supposed to operate o.
e any other territory than that acquired b
e Mexico, and included in those bills 70
S Utah and New Mexico. But he had foun
much the other way. The Compromise c
III 1910 oonsiSte1 in Oot Uotipy in tho Wilmc