Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-11-04

adroy coated his bait with promise that II should en-
brace nUe repeal of the Missouri restriction Of 1920
generally regarded the South being unconstitutional
and unjust No wonder that her members caught eager
ly at the promise, coming from such quarter 1t would
have seemed to them like treason to refuse. No
now, since the decease of the great trumvirate
either the boldness the national influence to take the
initiative in exposing the fghtfu lineamens which
concealed behind this spangled veil. Most Of our lead
ing Congressman comparatively young green in their
ambition and seem too much disposed to roll with the
tide rather than attempt to control it. One single note
from the ringing clarion Of CLAY, ponderous blow
from the broad sword of WEBSTER one thrust from the
keen sabre of CALHOUN, either ALL and this Trojan
horse would have been crushed and smothered in it's
inception.
When the bill is published the nation after its pas
sage the definite unqualified repeal has dwndled into
merely inferential reiterave repeal worth nothing
but what to the compromise Of 1850, which had
gained the battle three years before The fourteenth
ton Of this bill declares simply that
The eighth section of the act preparatory to the ad
mission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6
1920 being Inconsistent with the principle of
ton by Congress with slavery the States Territories
by the legislation Of 1885, commonly called the
compromise measures is hereby declared nopratre and
uod."
This is not, does it purport to be, original re-
peal 1t makes the repeal not whit definite than
before. The restriction is directly and unequvocay
declared be void and imperative, but that it is
merely because it is inconsistent with the legislation of
1850, commonly called the compromise measures" The
question is not closed by this section We safer
than before, because might yet be ousted by the
Congress the enacting but not the interpret
ing power With us there tribunals competent to de-
eide between Legislatures and the people, and to set aside
in hour what Congress may have been six months in
enactng The question might be raised whether this
section of the act admitting Missouri as State was
really inconsistent with the legislation of 1850" The
court mgh decide that there inconsistency; and
then where is the boasted repeal Of the Missouri
stricton? If Mr. DouaLAs meant bona de repeal why
couple with the legislation of 1852 Why not make it
direct? Or if the compromise did virtually set aside
the Missouri restriction, why raise the question at all
If to have no more definite settlement than
had in 1850 it criminal and faithless to kndle the
agitation in 1854. Nor is there unit of public sent
ment in the South that the compromise OF 1850
braced the Missouri restrictions unless indeed the South
ern Rights party have changed their opinions. In the
contests of 1851 the Union-men urged acquiescence
the ground that the Territorial bills for Utah and New
Mexico by leaving the people at liberty to establish
slavery high the 42d parallel five degrees higher
than had been allowed by the Missouri act of 1920, did
reach and the restriction of that year. virtually
setting it aside. The argument indignantly de-
ncunced and strenuousy controverted by he champions
of Southern Rights. And yet IL would that what
untrue with them in 1851 is true in 1854 for their
boasted repeal Of the Missouri restriction under President
PIERCE is based upon the admission that the compromise
of 1850 embraced the whole question and it is declared
imperative and void only the ground that it moon
sis,en with that compromise They cannot escape the
dilemma even if they desired
But if the South gained but little in such repeal Of
the Missouri restriction she has still less cause
gratuate herself another clause of this section
of the bill, in these words:
1t being the true intent and meaning of this act not
to legslac slavery into any Territory State to
exclude it thererom but to leave the people thereof per-
ey free to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution Of the
United States
In the first section of the bill the language Of the bills
of 1850 had been employed which left the people
Territory to be received into the Union with without
slavery, their constitution might prescribe the time
Of their admission. The laws of 1850 clearly ignore the
idea of investing the people OF Territorial Government
with power over the subject Of slavery and if Congress
had left the Nebraska bill untouched this subject after
the enactment of the first section the question would
have been SAFE But the clause quoted from the four
teenh section quints at if it does not directly establish
what is termed squatter sovereignty Our own opin-
ion is that it does invest the people Of the Territory
while in Territorial capacity with complete powers
regulate the subject of slavery they choose and places
them full equality with the people of State. II
is useless for say that regard such principle
unconstitutional. Every body knows that Congress
cannot delegate power does not possess ITSELF that
if Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories it
give the people of the Territories any such
right. Well may Judge WILEY P. HARRIS say, he did
say in Congress- that he would undertake show that
the bill deliberately, Intentionally, and undenably
ers upon the Territorial Legislatures power to control
the subject of slavery" Judge HARRIS remarks further
while speaking of the clause have quoted from the
fourteenth sections
" This language obviously designed to indicate
two things first, that Congress intends to disconnect
tef with slavery the Territories and States as though
it had any thing do with the subject any where and,
secondly lodge the power that subject somewhere
else. And where? In the Territorial Legislatures dur
ing their existence and in the States when they shall
be formed 1t is not possible to give the language any
significance unless you ascribe this meaning to it."
We assent most cordially to these sentiments. They
eyince thought and sagacity politician and manly
independence Representative.
Nor does Mr.. DoUGLAs himself after the passage of
his b deny but that he intended to embrace
in the odous doctrine Of sqaatter sovereignty In his
speech at New York. few weeks after, he boasts that
his bill aoped the people of the Territories to decide for
themselves what kind of laws they shall have and what
institutions shall exist in those Territories, the they
aotcoa to do in any cfhe States ofthe Union" This
take to be authoritative exposition of the true