The daily union., 1854-02-16
The Missouri Compromise. Meeting at
s e the abe rna Gle E9Hrss.fH

the Tabernacle.
We have al length development OF the views OF a
public meeting OF citizens al the New York Tabernacle
on ihe Missouri COMPROMISE. exhibited in series OF
resolutions. supported by The labored addresses OF
legal genllsmen--the one funeonay OF high Judicial
standing the other an advocate OF popular ceebryboth
OF whom Were doubtless selected the ablest expos
tors ol The sentiments OF that body With equal popre
~ may her structures on The great questions they have
discussed be received because they 10 be considered
from their professional habits Of reasoning any sub
ect having exercised great ability in giving the clear
est Interpretation OF them.
ibis question was announced by the chairman 10 be
.a threatened violation of The Missouri COMPROMISE OF
$780, (beween the North aud Soath,) and whether the
South. having had The full consideration it demanded shall
be allowed vo violate its part OF the compact p and The
complexion OF The proceedings would appear be intended
to awaken appehensons that slavery must necessarily be
the result OF the passage OF the Nebraska b and TO get up
partisan feeling in the North. upon the Hypothesis or
rather the assumed fact that two States are TO be intro
duced into The Union with The badge of slavery eff"
says the 4,h resolution hs great territory were now TO
be snatched from rgh,fl control aud reappropi-
ated for slavery, &c The subject has been argued at
this meeting as well at others. and in the public
donsn, rather than with spirit Of candor to treat i,
plain proposition presented by the bill whether the
people Of the contemplated Territory shall Judge for them
selves to the policy Of slavery free labor, where, it
believed that the early treaties congressional acts and
ordinances, have left il an open question, and with
every presumption, from its position, against the intro
ducion Of slavery The widest range has been taken
10 show what the intentions OF parties were, which are
embraced BY the compromise act Of 1920 and the consli
ution instead Of being governed by the import OF words
which are TO guide future generations when they who
framed those instruments longer here 10 ex-
plain them, The array of honored names which are
placed by the Judge the head OF his argument goes
TO show merely thai, their opinions were favorable
TO the constitutonaiy of the act but considering il
without reference the subjects which have now been
presented TO the public and he then commences with
critical OF the constitution which gives TO Con.
gress the power dispose Of or make all neediu rules
and regulations respecting, the territory or other property
belonging The United States, the common domain OF
all the States, therefore necessarily subject OF regu
la,ion by The United States; confounding the word
property with inhabitants, (who are the proper sub
jects OF law) and using the words "rules and regula
tons (Which the appropriate terms with respect
property synonymous with iaw. and making dis
tnclion between the word "Terilory" and State Word.
could not more clearly Indicate the meaning of clause
independent OF the reasonableness Of such construc
lion, and conformity to certain documents hereafter TO be
noticed As to the right OF Congress, which he contend.
for, 10 impose such conditions they may think
sary, these never exceed what originally
agreed and acted upon when it was determined that one
State OF the Union cannot have any exemption bur
den mo-, inciden, 10 The other States of the Union.
Wehaye late paper shown that the article Of the con
sti,u,ion which authorizes the action OF Congress form
ing States from Territories based upon solemn
engagement made between parties capable
Of contracting The territories of the Ohio ceded BY
the States for the hene Of The Unon and formed
into republican Sates, with the rights OF
eighty, freedom, and Independence as The other States
That the ordinance OF 1857 explicit in declar
ing ha, the States formed therein should be made par
Of the coniederacy, and 10 be admitted when State OF
an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatever; aud we may now. part Of early his
tory bearing on this natter refer to the treaty between
the United States and the French republic, bearing
date The goth April, 1903, Art. 3, whereby !" The in
habi,ans of the ceded territory shall be incorporated il
the Union Of the United States and admitted as
possible according the principles of the federal cons
1
and immunes OF citizens OF the United States," &c
This treaty was confirmed on the 3lst October OF the
same year. There can be no difficulty in comprehend
/ ing the meaning OF the terms here used, which the
Hon. Rufus King, in speech in 1919 on the subject
admitted to be OF the import the words " on ar
equal fooiing,' &C., and the terms of admitting Lou
sana 10 1912 practical observance OF that treaty
for although, Judge Enme,t observes, Congress re.
qurng reasonable conditions," such as the exer
else of religious liberty. right of trial by jury habea,
corpus. and that the Judicial proceedings be in the
English language--hese evidently either in &C
cordance with the privileges OF all the States, or conform
able to the just principles of when applied h.
nation that there hardly be sufficient authority drawn
from this constitute restriction upon them a.
to slavery and other States have been admitted from
that territory (as shall hereafter no,ice) without
that restriction.
We further have shown by the opinion OF Chief Jus.
tice Marshall that il Congress can legsate for Terri
tory, under the constitution. il will not Justify making
laws for STATE, (Which is the effect OF the Missouri
Compromisc,) which Mr. Madison has defined TO be- in
his repor, the Virginia resolutions the people com
posing political societies in their hghes, sovereign capa-
city"
| We may submit what has been said OF it by oul
eminent statesmen OF both parties in in the debates on
the compromise question, when they spoke without ex.