The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-08-06
For the Union
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
There appears be an organized effort abuse and
prejudice the public mind IN reference the passage Of
the Nebraska-kansas bill which has lately received the
official sanction of the President of the United States
What the object to be attained by this systematic attack
upon the bill and its advocates and supporters is may bc
question upon which there is difference of opinion and
before finish what propose say upon the whole subject
you will doubtless learn what is the opinion Of least
one of its friends.
The Missouri Compromise ior is ealled is repealed
and told that il act uncalled for by any
American citizen that il violation Of public faith
that it the repeal of solemn compact sacred
the constitution &C. &c In the first place wish have
it distinctly understood that do not appear apol
ogls for the system Of American slavery that born
and bred at the North and all my early Impressions ed-
cation and sympathy tended to make opposer of
the SYSTEM and to lead do all in my power
lioratc the condition of the slave
| wish it also understood that hold that the South
has equal rights with the North under the constitutions
and that at the North have right to interfere
with the internal -aar of the southern States than they
have to control municipal regulations that at the
North not responsible for the existence Of slavery in the
United States, nor can we remedy it If we would
shall attempt to show that the 9Th section of the act
of Congress approved March g. ls2O-commonly called
the Missouri Compromise and which has quite lately be-
sacred in the eyes of some potcianswas passed
in violation of the constitution, and contrary to the
press tpulaons of the treaty by which the territory
affected thereby acquired Although some are dis
posed to the idea that Congress have power
regulate the internal affairs Of Territory any more than
State still, that not sufficient argument to convince
that they hnve neither is the fact that Congress have
egslaed for the people of the Territories without obec
ton, conclusive in my mind | look to the instrument
ITSELF which clear and unequvoea and needs no second
airy evidence or doubtful differences to explain it.
The second subdivision OF the third section Of the fourth
t.alo 90 A.
power is claimed to legslate for the people of Terri
tory and is as follows The Congress shall have power
to dispose Of and make all needfu rules and regulations
respecting the territory other property belonging to the
United States &c.
Now, hold that all the power conferred on Congress
by this clause of the constitution land is clear and un
eluvoca is to dispose of the territory or land flor ter
ritory, in this place. fans nothing than tract Of
land-see Webstcrs Dictionary and make a needfu
rules and regulations respecting the land owned by the
general governmentas regards surveying, bringing it
into market &e Congress shall have power to dispose
OF whathe people who nhabit the Territories? No one
will argue it. And make all needul rules and regulations
respecting wha-he people and other property?p I'M
possblel
It may be well in this connexion to observe that this
clause Of the constitution is in the article which dele
gates all the Legislature power conferred Congress by
that instrument.
Weare told by distinguished member Of Congress who
boasts of his thirty years view grave senator of the
working of this government that the Territories tht
minor children OF tho States and that the States Jod
ID exercise the guardianship them This carrying
the doctrine further than the English government ever t-
tempted to with her North American colonies. She only
claimed the right 10 exercise the guardianship for
moment insisting that she bound So Is il true
that American citizens governed by ogarcy whose
power them absolute and unlimited and which
in wise accountable 10 them for the manner in which
tha ia Tau af
ton intended have conferred Congress this absout,
power egsate for the Territories how easy matter
would have been for them to have made of plain and
unmistakabe language for that purpose in the case
the federal District &c Article L. section g. subdivision
l6 of the constitution says: To exercise ercire gisla
tion in all cases whatsoever, such District, y
and the like authority all places purchased
for the erection of forts magazines arsenas docyards
and other necdfu buildings Now there is mistaking
this language and furthermore, it appears to be in that
article which alone confers legislative powers How easy
woud have been for the trainers Of the constitution if they
had intended to have given the authority claimed by
under the first referred TO- have inserted in this
eighth section the following and to exercise the like a-
thority all territory now owned or which may be
hereafter acquired This would have been sufficient to
have conferred the power in such terms that there could be
question about it, But they did insert it. from the
very fact that they intended grant any such power
If this clause what is claimed for it. what the neccs-
sity Of the other? For certainly after saying that Con-
gress shall have the nower OF exclusive legislation for the
Territories and other property belonging to the United
States there could be necessity of enumerating in
another clause what included in this The federal Dis
is territory of the United States and the forts MAJ
aznes arsenalu dookyards and other nceas buildings
| are other property
ou' urged that the power TO make laws for the peo-
pie of the Territories exist somewhere otherwise their
persons and property are entirely unprotected answer