The daily union., 1854-02-18

the chamber that the amendment made on motion OF the
senator IRON Illinois gives entirely Objectionable
character 10 hs o'li, and Invoked to refuse TO
give II our sanction because Il involves violation OF the
pghted iah OF The nation And Is said that this pro-
vision Is the repeal OF the Missouri Compromise that
that repeal Is 10 violate The common understanding BY
which the different portions OF The Union became bound
to each Other thirty Years ago and that iherefore we
cannot adopt that provision consistently with the pfnc-
pes OF good faith Now, II thai Ia So Tor one, say.
without hesitation, that nothing can DO compensation
for violation OF the principles OF good faiths and.
Then, have TO eonsder whether any such violation ~
/ involved in this provision.
propose chow that i, is not violation Of good
iath that The language OF the amendment. az ncofpo-
rated into The BILL is true tact; that the consequence
deduced from IL in this particular provision, is just COM
sequence; and that The declaration that the Missouri
Compromise ID lnoperavc and void IA the appg0pt1ae
ta-ihod sn3 language should have been used for tho
purpose Of producing the effect designed by the hill sI
10 order TO do thus It becomes necessary 70 weary the
Senate by recalling their attention lille 10 The nature
and history OF the Missouri Compromise.
The nature Of that compromise has been. think, sig-
nally misunderstood Il is ac of legislation, and 10
necessary 10 TO the language n order 10 understand
with cearness its intended effect and operation.
II The last section OF an act passed on the OH day OF
March, 1929, "to authorize the people OF Missouri 10
form constitution and Stale government, and for the
admission OF such State into The Union equal foot
ing with the original States, and prohibit slavery IN
certain Territories" f&Ah 4# 84st
That act authorizes meeting OF the conycnan. n the
month OF June following, 10 consider The propfiey OF
adopting State constitutions and the convention should
deem II proper, 10 adopt Stale constitutions and ii that
constitution should be republican in It's terms according
TO the constitution OF the Uoi,ed States the State 10
he admitted uPon an eIual footing with the original
States ihen at the conclusion, comes this section
That ali that territory oedsd by France the Unted
States. under the Of Louisiana, which lies north of
90 dry 30 min. north latitude, included whin tho linz
s Of he STATE contemplated by l ac slavery and nvolun.
ay serude ohewse than Tor the punishment OF crime,
whereof the patty shall have been duly conviced shall be,
and il heceby, forever proviso fort tho
restoration OF fugitive siavos.J H8l81
Now, sir my honorable friend from Connecticut, Mr.
sMrH in the arsnment which be offered here. SAID that
that was, upon ihe face of intended TO apply
10 the TERRITORIAL organizations and rot to Sates To me
plain that it intended apply all organizations
OF government. whether States Territories In tue
FIRST place, all that territory" What ,erritoryi Not
territorial organization; not portion or district OF c0un.
Try ia whch a political government had been established
under the authority OF the United States but obviously
the word territory used the OF land domain
all that domain which The United States acquired by ces
sion from Louisiana. tFf81Nss l4
Well regsrdto all that territory, all that domain. what
is the provision OF that section That slavery and nvo
un.ary seryude eha be- and s hereby forever prohib
ed Without reference any mutations in the political
condition OF the domain, u s 10 be forever proh6Hed
Again aside from the absnrdiiy OF suppoeing that this
strong emphatic language "forerr prohibited" was in.
tended to until they became Siates how you,
upnn any system OF interpretation, make consistent with
the view offered by the senator from Connecticut the ex-
cepton oil the State contemplated by this act Ii the
acment 10 prohibit slavery IN The territorial po-
cal organlzaons and not 10 the States, how does Il hap
pen that OF the territorial organizations s excepted
the very Sac which that act provides ahould come into
Tue Union ftet@te
But thea, the history OF the times shows us what this
should hot be compelled by her constitution to exclude
slavery The an,sgonisn was between those who said
that Missouri should be allowed 10 do abe pessed and
those who said thai she should be controlled regard
what she should do when she came INTO The Uaon. The
cement effected TO do-shali Not 10 leave to
Missouri privilege which everybody admitted she had,
but 10 leave TO Missouri right which she claimed she
existence OF which night denied, and to relieve her
from toe resnction condition which il proposed
by the opponents OF the extension OF slavery 10 mpoea
upon her admission into the UDon. NAEe
But, Mr. President the meaning 10 be gathered out OF
clear and entirely independent OF the Two sources for
ascertaning the of thus provision il regard the
corresponding provision introduced the Joint vesOu.
lion Tor the annexation OF Texas taAt 9.gi
"New States OF convenient size, exceeding four In
numbrr Ia addition 10 said State OF Texas and having
sotcien population, may hereafter by Inc consent OF said
STATE be iJrrd the territory thereof which shall DO
enIaed 20 admsson under ,he. .provsoas o. The edera
that Of SAID territory lying south Of 36 deg 80 min
proniso ine SHAH DO adaied lnlo ibs Un,on. with OF
without slavery the people OF each Sate asking admis-
orned out of aid territory north Of said Missouri Compro-
mice line, slavery Involuntary serynde, except for ce
shall be,pfohibied."
That is the clear construction put by Congress ia the
year iS45 upon the meaning aud Interpretation o! that
exclusion contained IN the act for the admission oil Mia
souri, passed Ia 1890. The line applies restriction
TO States, expressed by name States, and the other
perpetual restriction upon certain described territory or
domain without The slightest reietence 10 political mua-
lions through which Y might pass
ia tile next place, Mr. President, think IT is abund-
sntly evident That tue Missouri Compromise founded
upon a certain principle. Now, my friend from MssAa-
churlts said that he did not how this lang could
be with used that the eresircon in The eighth
section OF the Missouri bill was Inconsistent ih the
principle OF non-ntevenion established by the sgsla-
hon o 1850. Think my friend errs- understand by
ptncipe any fundamental truth, any original posiuafe
fret position from which others deduced either
principles or rules OF conduct For example, Ii ia obvi-
TINT this principle. postua,e, fundamental truth. or
original position, assumed IN 1870 10 the passage OF
this sc 10 wit; that Congress had power TO establish
geographical ne and 10 permit slavery on one aide and
cude The other and, ufihe that was expetient
that such line should be sseced and such exclusion
and permission attached H. and therefore, oo OF thesA
that statute that above 80 30 slavery should be prohb
iied and with The implication that south OF 90 30 il might
exist That is exactly the view have Of what meant
in the amendment which has. been incorporated
into the bill by the expression, principles OF non-inter
vention recognised by the legislation of iS50' Some
original truth, some proposition admitted or assumed
beioE within The power OF legislation, and some position
OF expedency TO b must always ne sup. oaed The
foundation ppon which the authoritative rule
OF conduct is given in the law. .Els ga
WE'LL then, sir what was the course OF things Here
was an act which assumed fix line TO prohibit slavery
on one side, and bY implication continue II on the 9th
er Ii applied to States well az Territories, and was
intended supposed by the Iramers o that aw 10 be
pc petnsl In s application 70 States we'll Territories
That il he hft CHARACTERISTIC OF It; OF rather ha, il one
characteristics dlviled into two heads. I4 .wUE.
Tie next IL this: Tne Missouri Compromise law in
tended 10 hx il role for all Territories " IL applied
in terms 10 All tnA territory which cedel BY France.
then had whose destiny was 10 be sstued BY act Of
f,4rfl uft.r