The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-18
The Nebraska 0lestion--Hsghly Important
Movement Mt Washington.

crisis upon the Nebraska question. Mr.. Cut
ting, it appears, has hit upon substitute for
the bill before khe House, in the form of
q compromise resting upon the principles
of the acts of 1850, in reference to the
Territories of Utah arr, New Mexico. This
| substitute, it is believed, without violent
| ly expunging the Missouri restriction of
| 1920, from the statute book, will answer every
| practical purpose of the present BILL in submit
ting the question Of slavery or freesoil in Kan
sas and Nebraska entirely to the judgment Of
the people Of those Territories, even to the ex-
tent Of repeating OF ratifying the Missouri
| restriction.
1t is scarcely necessary to remind our read
| ers that the first bill of Judge Douglas upon
| Nebraska, provided for the organization of but
one Territory-Nebraska; that it did not pro-
pose the direct repeal of the Missouri line, but
turned over the question of the constitutional
ity of that law to the Supreme Court of the
| United States. The administration, through
its Washington organ, approved this bill, and
deprecated the direct repeal OF the Missouri
compromise as unwise and impolitic. But
few days elapsed, however when the motion
for repeal, by Mr.. Dixon, a wing, of Kentucky,
effected most surprising revolution in the
position of the administration upon this aues-
| ton. A mixed consultation was called at the
White House one Sabbath day, Of members Of
| the Cabinet, the Kitchen Cabinet and of both
houses of Congress, the result of which was to
so the whole figure, and make the direct abro-
cation Of the Missouri line democratic admin
istration measure. The subsequent vacilla-
tons, exhortations and threatenings of the
Presidents organ and its echoes, in connection
with the New Hampshire and other elections,
and the excitemep. in the North upon the sub
ject, have brought us to this present crisis of
hot evaporation between the friends and enc
mics Of the bill in and out of Congress. We,
are upon the eve IF the passage Of the bill, and
yet there is no guarantee afforded that it will
either redeem the administration or reunita
the democratic party, or quiet the agitation
upon the negro question, as readily as could be
desired.
Hence. We presume, the substitute proposed
by Mr.. Cutting for the bill before the House.
Taking the Senate Committee on Territories at
their word-that the Missouri compact was
practically superseded by the principles" of
the legislative acts of 1850, commonly called
the compromise measures-Mr. Cutting simply
proposes to leave the question of slavery to
the people of the new Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska, including the recognition or
practical repeal Of the Missouri line as to them
may seem most expedicnt and proper. And
why Lot? The Missouri restriction was an IN
constitutional act. 1t has been thus far sub
mitted to as az eXtra-oonstitutional proceeding;
but thirty-four years of submission do not make
il q whit the less unconstitutional than it was
upon the day Of its passage. Transcending, as
it docs the compromises, the grants, the reser-
vations the spirit and intent Of the constitution,
he law is null and void of itself. To propose
is repeal is to admit its validity; and this the
South have never admitted. They have acqui-
essed in the law as sectional bargain, extort-
cd 10y the political necessities of the times. They
would have continued to submit had the North
agreed to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific.
so as TO give to the South portion CT Calfor
MIA. Tie South proposed 1.-THE Offer was re-
iected. The Missouri compact was thus super
so5od by the principles Of the legislation OF
1850" resting upon the fundamental doctrine
Of popular sovereignty.
in the progress Of those Instructive discus
sions in the Senate upon the great question of
providing laws for the Territories acquired
from Mexico in the treaty of Guadalupe Hi
dalgo. there was most interesting debate one
day between Mr.. Calhoun and Mr.. Webster,
upon the local laws Of said Territories rsrsus
the constitution Of the United States. Mr
Calhoun contended that over the Territories &C.
quired from foreign country as over all other
parts Of the United States, the federal constitu-
ION was the supreme law Of the land--tha per
SC, it superseded all local laws in the Terri
tories in conflict with it, and that, as the Next
can laws prohibiting slavery in the new Terri
tories were in conflict with the constitution.
which admits the equal ghts Of the people OF
all The States 70 an inheritance in, and to W.. ns
occupation Of, the Territories, these Mexieah
laws Of prohibition were null and void, because
they put the people of the South under the ban
Of exclusion from this common property Of all.
Mr., Webster, on the other hand took the
ground that the local Mexican laws OF the Ter i
ritories acquired continued TO exist until super
seeded ty express legislation; that, consequent
~, the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the
acquired Territories should continue good til
set aside by repeal, or the authority to repeal
them, in an act OF Congress.
Both these great statesmen, we apprehend
were right. Their respective applications OF
the law do moi clash in our Judgment, when
We come to analyze them. The Territories are
the common property Of all the States. Con-
gross, in behalf Of the States, has been given
he temporary sovereignty over this property,
subject to the constitution. Under ibis supreme
law he people Of al the States, with all their
property, Of every description have the right
TO enter into and occupy the Territories; for