Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-05-05


ON both sides, by our daily printing, and who
require the Democratic members of this
House under the instant penalty OF political
damnation, to give in their adhesion to every
hill which they call Administration, and that
in every change it may undergo. although
more changcablc than the moon. For that
class of Intermediates | have no pnrliamcn-
tarv law to administer, nor any quotation
from Burke to apply-nothing but a little
fable to read, the value of which, as in all
rood fables, lies in its moral. 1t IL In French,
and entitled - Lane ct son Maitrc, which,
being done into English, signifies the - Ass
and his Master and runs thus - IN ass
took it into his head to scare his master, and
put on lions skin and went and stood in the
path and when he saw his master coming
he commenced roaring. as he thought, but he
only braycd, and the master knew 1t was his
ass 30 he went up to him with his cudgel
and beat him nearly to death" That is the
end of the fable and the moral of it is a
caution to all asses to take care how they
undertake to scare their masters. Excessive
laughter. Long continued cries of g Not
bad :" Good, - (" Good. d" lla, ha ~ Mr.
Chairman this House will have fallen far below
its constitutional mission if it suffers itself
to be governed by authority or dragooncd by
its own hirelings. am a man of no bar
gains, but act openly with any man that acts
for the public good and in this spirit offer
the right hand of political friendship to all the
members of this body that will stand together
to vindicate its privileges, protect its respect
ability and maintain it in the high place for
which it was intended-thc master branch OF
the American Government.
The question before us is to got rid of the
! Missouri Compromise line, and to Il lawyer
that is an easy question That Compromise
| is in the form of Il statute, and one statute is
| remarkable BY another that short view is
| enough for a LAWYER. To statesman it Is
something different and refers the question
| of its repeal. not to law books, hut to reasons
of State pulley; to the circumstances under
which it was enacted, ami the consequences
| which are to flow from its abrogatiOn. This
! COMPROMISE of lS2O j. not Il mere statute, to
last for day, it was intended for porpctulty.
and So declared itself 1t is an enactment to
settle a controversy, and did settle it, and
cannot be abrogated without rryiving that
controversy 1t has given the country peace
for above thirty years how many years OF
disturbance will its abrogatlon bring That
| is the Statesman 5 question: and without as
>uming to be much Ola Statesman, | claim To
! be- enough SO. to consider the consequences Of
! breaking "A settlement which pacliicd conti-
nent. / remember the Missouri controversy,
and how it destroyed all social feeling. and
all capacity for beneficial Legislation and
merged all political principle in AN angry con-
test about Slavery; dividing the mon into
| two parts. and drawing up the two halves
into opposite and confronting lines. like enc
mics ON the field of battle. do not wish to
! see such times again, and therefore ! am
against rryiying them 10y breaking up the set
| tlcmcnt which quictcd them. The Missouri
! COMPROMISE of lS2o was the partltionng be
tween the Free and the Slave States of Il great
Province, taking the character of Il perpetual
| settlement, and chasing with the two great
compromises which gave MS the Ordinance OF
July Is. l7S7, and the Federal Constitution
of September H. of the same year. There
! are three Slavery Compromises in our history,
which connect themselves with the foundation
and preservation of this nion. First. the
Territorial Partition Ordinance of u.s.. with
its clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves
secondly. the contcmpurancouS Constitutional
Recognition of Slavery i'll the States which
chose to have it, with the fugitive slave re-
coyerv clause in the same instrument; third
the Missouri partition line OF $50, with the
same clause annexed for the recovery of tug
tive slayrs-all three of these Compromise
are part and parcel of the same policy, an'
neither Of them could have been formed with
ont the other, nor either of them without thu
Fugitive Slave clause added to it. The Con
stitution could not have been formed withou
its recognition of Slavery in the states whc
chose it. and the guarantee OF the right t
recover Slaves fleeing into the Free States -
, The Missouri Controversy could not have bee
settled without a partition of Louisiana be
tween free and slave soil, and that partitio
could not have been made without the add
| g . bo oil for bp 4,
fugitive slaves-thus all these Compromise
are settlements of existing questions and ir
, tended to he perpetual. They are all thrc
of equal moral validity. The Constitutions
r ! mpromse is guarded by higher obligatio
, in consequence of its incorporation IN tina
: instrument, but in no way differs from tn
other two in the circumstances which induce
it, the policy which guards It, or the cons
. ouenccs which would flow from its abrog;
, ton. A proposition to destroy the SLAYER
Compromise in the Constitution would be a
open proposition to break up the Mon Il
attempt to abrogate the Compromises of l7'
and 1920 would be a virtual attempt to d
= strov the harmony of the | MON, and prepa
' it for dissolution, by destroying the con
: dence and affection in which it is founded
, The Missouri Compromise OF $50 is co
tinuation of the ordinance of l7s7-its g
7
l. of the Mississippi, and no way differing fro
e it either in principle ur detail The ordinan
d of l1s7 divided the then territory of Il
= United States about equally between the FIR
If and the Slave States, The Missouri Compr
p mise did the same by the additional terrific
m of the United States as il stood in lS2O, al
~ in both cases il was done by act of Cungrc,
Ii and was the settlement of difficulty viii
ne was to last forever. | consider them ho
A. with their Fugitive Slave recovery causea
r. the similar clause in the Constitution, u> pa
is and parcel of the same transaction. diitrrc
o. articles in the same general settlement I
of Anti-Slavcrv clause in the ordinance of l.
ld could not have been put in, as was proved
n its three years rejection without the fu
he tive Slave recovery clause added to it. !
he Constitution could not have been formed vii
A. out the recognition of Slavery in the Ntat
I'll which chose it, and the right of recover
50 slaves fleeing to the Free States. The VI
m souri, controversy could not have been >rttI
IS except by the prohibition of Slavery in
is upper half of the Territory of Iou>iar
he and that prohibition could not have hcrn
Lo tanned without the right to recover the iu
nu tive slaves from the part made free. II
n, the three measure, are one. aud the ordinu
,,- of u.s. father to the other two. 1t Led
he the adoption of the fugitive slave clause
non the Constitution, and we may say to the t
of motion of the Constitution itself, VIII
AN could not have been adopted without t
ks. clause, and the recognition of slave proper
us in which it WAS founded.
ion This vital fact result, of itself from the
rt, tory of the case In March of the year Il
red the Virginia delegation in the then Cungl
es Of the confederation, headed by Mr.. 1cf
to son and Mr. Monroe, conveyed the nortaw