The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-03

to be found in the doctfihe which was advnr
ced the other day by the Senator from iii
nois, that the compromise acts OF 1850 "st
Perseded" the prohibition Of slavery north {
30 80, in the act preparatory for the admit
sion Of Missouri. Ay, sir, "superseded" is tn
i. Iphrase-"superseded by the principles Of tn
Legislation OF 1850, commonly called n
compromise measures"
1t is against this statement, untrue in fac,
and without foundation in history, that III,
amendment which have proposed is ..direc
ted.
Sir, this is a novel idea. At the time wher
these measures were before Congress in 1850
when the questions involved in them wer,
discussed from day to day, from week to week
and from month to month, in this Senst,
Chamber, who ever heard that the Missour
prohibition was to be superseded! What, man
at what time, in what speech, ever suggested
the itea that the acts Of that year were to
affect the Missouri compromise! The Sena.
tor from Illinois the other day invoked the
authority of Henry Clay-that departed states
man, in respect to whom, whatever may be-
the differences Of political opinion, none ques-
ton that, among the great men Of this coun-
try, he stood proudly eminent. Did he in the
report made by him as chairman Of the Com
mttee of Thirteen, or in any speech in sup
port ofthe compromise acts, or in any conver.
sation III The committee, or out Of the com.
mittee, ever even hint at this doctrine Of su.
persedure! Did any supporter, or any oppo.
nent Of the compromise acts, ever vindicate
| lnr nap1apnp that,, tha urnun1 fbat H.
Missouri prohibition would be affected by
them! Well, sir, the compromise aots were
passed. They were denounced North, and
they wefe denounced South. Did any defen-
der Of them at the South ever justify his sup
port of them upon the ground that the South
had obtained through them the repeal Of the
Missouri prohibition! Did any objectOr to
them at the North ever feven suggest as q
ground of condemnation that that prohibition
was swept away by them! No, sir No man,
North or South, during the whole Of the dis
cussion OF those acts here, or in that other
discussion which followed their enactment
throughout the country, ever intimate any
such opinion.
Now, sir, let US come to the last session
Of Congtess. A Nebraska bill passed the
House and came to the Senate, and was re-
ported from the Committee on Territories by
the Senator from Illinois, as its chairman.
Was there any provision in it which even
squinted towards this notion of repeal by
supersedure! Why, sir, southern gentlemen
opposed it upon the very ground that it left
the Territory under the operation OF the Miss
our prohibition. The Senator from Illinois
made speech in defence of it. Did he in
woke southern support upon the ground that it
superseded the Missouri prohibition! Not at
all. Was it opposed or vndicated by any
body on any'such ground! Every Senator
knows the contrary. The Senator from
Misso ri, Mr.. ATcHlsoN,l now the President
of this body, made speech upon the bill, in
which he distinctly declared that the Missouri
prohibition was not repealed, and could not be
repealed.
will send this speech to the Secretary, and
ask him to read the paragraphs marked.
The Secretary read, as follows:
81 will now state to the. Senate the views
which induced me to oppose this proposition
in the early part of the session.
81 had two objections to it. One was that
the Indian title in that Territory had not been
extinguished, or, at least, a very small portion
of il had been. Another was the Missouri
or, as it is commonly called, the
slavery restriction. twas my opinion at
that time--and am not very clear on that
subiect--th at the law of Congress, when the
State of Missouri was admittedinto the Union
excluding slavery from the Territory of Louisi-
ana north of SO 80, would be enforced in
that Territory unless it was specially rescin-
ded; and, whether that law was in accordarce
with the Constitution Of the United States or
not, it would do its work, and that work would
be to preclude shareholders from Hgoing into
that Territory. But when l came to look
into that question, found that there was no
NJ hope, of repeal OF the Missouri
compromise, excluding slavery from that
Territory. Now, sir, am free to admit, that
at this moment, at this hour, and for fall time
to come, should oppose the organization or
the settlement ofth Territory unless my
and the constituents of the
whole South-of the slave States of the Un-
ion, could go into it upon the same footing,
with equalrighis and equal privileges, carrying
tnat species Ol property Win the" no o'"N'
people OF this Union. Yes, sir, l acknow-
ledge that that would have governed me, but
I have no hope that the restriction will ever
be repealed.
al have always been Of opinion that the
first great error committed in the political his.
tory of this country was the ordinance of 1887,
rendering the Northwest Territory free teri
tory. The next great error was the Missouri
But they are both irremedable.
There is no remedy for them. We must sub
nit to them. am prepared to do 1t. 1t is
evident that the Missouri compromise cannot
be repealed. SO far as that question is con.
cerned, we might as we'll agree. to the ad-
mission ofthis Territory now as next year, or
Eve or ten years hence. - Congressional
Globe, Second Session ssd Cong, uol. 26, page
llls.
That, cir, is the speech oftlfe Senator from
[Mr. AfoHtsoS,1 whose authority,
think, must 60 for something upon this ques!
tion. What does he say. "When came
to look into that question"-of the possible
repeal of the Missouri prohbition-that was
the question he was looking into--"I found
Of N