Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-24
The Nebraska Bin.

and Ewing Of Kentucky in the House. Below
we give an abridged report Of Mr.. Badgers
speech:
Mr.. Badger said he had strong and insupera-
hle objections that part of the substitute as It
was reported by the Senator from Illinois, which
related TO the Indians, because If did not provide
etiectually for the maintenance of the phghted
faith of the nation with respect to those tribes
which had been induced TO go west OF the Missis-
sippi, and the solemn guaranty That they should
never be disturbed in the quiet possession OF their
homes Had the bill remained in the shape IN
which II was when reported. no earthly power
could have induced him 10 vote for IL. but since
then the amendments made by the Committee on
Indian Affairs had changed the features OF these
provisions and he was satisfied that now all rea7
Sonable precautions ad been taken that could be
taken To prevent any deprivation Of lJidiaa rights
bv the bill; Now il gives the Indians the free viii
Ia choose whether 90 remain OF negotiate as they
pIease The scarcity Of population had also
appeared 10 him an objection TO organizing
these territories. but upon reflection and IN view
ofthe extraordinary annual emigration IRON En-
rome that objection enc ut time only aud
would exist bat for short period IL was said
by the opponents If this bill that II was 10 repeal
the Missouri Compromise. that the Missouri Com
promise was a solemn compact between the dif-
ferent parts of the Union, aud TO violate i would
be a breach of faith. He thought he could show
that the Missouri Compromise had been formerly
rr1ndiated IN principle and effect and that the
declaration that il was void and imperative was
perfectly correct and ought TO be made
The Missouri Compromise was 10 be found ~
the last section of the act suthersing the people
of Missouri to frame their state 6oyernment
and declaring thai upon her pieseating her con
sti,otion she would be admitted The last sec
tion provided for the prohibition of slavery
north Of IS 30 and implicitly permitting II south
of that line The Senator from Connecticut ar
gued this prohibition a. applicable TO the terrific
rial organizations. not 10 the states formed oct
of them He thought differently lie could not
help relieving tina; the trainers of that compro-
mise fally intended that the prohibition should be
for ever throughout all the territory ut the United
States north Of 50 30 whether included within
Territorial or State organization. Its authors did
sot stop here. They intended that the prohibit
ton on one side of that line, and the implied per
mission on the other should apply to all the ter
ritory of the United States, then and forever
1t was intended as a settlement to apply 10 all
snrritory then owned, or thereafter to he owned
bv the United States. Tint this was the mani
lest intention of the line was evident from the
Texan resolutions. Texas was part OF The
the Louisiana cession, vet upon her annexation
fhe Missouri line was taken up matter of
course and run through Texas, including slavery
north of il, and admitting 1t implicitly south Had
the L. States any territory other than that OF
have been applied TO the whole of il. No one
pretended now that any act of Congress prohibit
ing or introducing slavery into State, or de-
elrring in advance of n State organization that
slavery should not be allowed in such State,
would be anything more than vain idle aud an
imperative measure. But the men of 1870
thought differently, and intended to exclude
slavery north Of 81 30, forever. whether under
territorial or State organization, and il being
qually clear that the Legislation of 1850 was
bnsed upon the principle of Congressional non
intervention and freedom of the people of the
territories, il would have to he admitted that tho
Missouri Compromise was wholly inconsistent
with the principle of the Legislation Of Is50.-
The amendment adopted yesterday perfect
" correct in stating them 60 be Inconsistent
Tie result Of this Inconsistency is, that the prin-
ciple ON which the Missouri Compromise act is
predicated was wholly rcpudated by the Legs-
lation of 1850, and being ought TO be declared
void and imperative. The South had never ask
ed nor ever sought anything but the recognition
of the Missouri line and during s1S and 1850 it
was peremptorily refused. 1t was absurd, there
fore, to ask the South TO stand by a compromise,
the recognition of which had been refused and
the principles Of which had been repudiaed by
solemn legislation. Within one year after It's
adoption the Missouri mpromise was disregard
ed. BY il il was agreed that upon forming the
State Constitution Missouri should be admitted
into the Union. Her admission was part Of the
bargain Upon her presenting her constitution
in form admitted to be Republican, the Senate
passed bill for her admission; that bill re
jected by the House on the ground that she had
provided in her Constitution against the immigra-
ton of free negroes into her limits. AT that time
a similar law was in force in Massachusetts,. This
excuse, however, was sufficient for Northern
Representatives to refuse her admission. Final
ly, an act was passed, the like of which he ven
tured to ertcould not be found in the legisla-
ton of any nation in the world. Itprovded that
the Legislature Of Missouri should first by n sol
act declare that she would never pass law
under the authority of her Constitution, which
would be in conflict with the Constitution of the
u States.
Mr.. b. then referred to the proceedings on the
Oregon bill in I5is and the Compromise acts of
1850, showing that throughout the whole South
had uniiedly proposed. sustained voted for, and
asked nothing hut the Missouri line of 36 80. II
was refused. IL was somewhat remarkable that
the Senator from Ohio, who had spoken SO fer
yently of the holiness of the Missouri Compro-
mise, did, during 1850, vote against every propo-
sition to recognize that line.
He tMr. b. would say 10 Senators from the
North, that there but little use in their put
ting themselves to any trouble about the cond-
ton of the slaves at the South. Slaves they
would in all probability continue. He could see
no harm or injury to any one in allowing the
same number of slaves now within the states to
be ditfused over greater extent of territory -
To conine slaves within an impossible barrier,
was to compress them to the injury and inconve-
nence OF masters and TO the real misery and
suffering of slaves. Slavery as an institution
would never go anywhere but where the soil and
climate rendered the cultivation of cotton, sugar,