Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-03-03


They involve the grave issues which produ
ced the agitation, the sectional strife, an
the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress
deemed It wise and prudent to refrain iron
deciding the matters in controversy then, eli
ther by affirming or repeating the Mexican
laws, or by an act declaratory of the tru'
intent of the Constitution, and the extent 0
the protection afforded by il to slave proper
" in the Territories, so your Committee arr
not prepared now to recommend a deparur
from the course pursued on that memorable
occasion, either by affirming or repeating tn
9Th section Of the Missouri Act or by an,
act declaratory Of the meaning of the Con
stitution in respect to the legal points in dis
pute"
This report gives us the deliberate
judgement of the Com. on two impor-
.tant points. First, that the Comprom.
Use Of 1850 did not, by lis letter or by
its spirit, repeal or render necessary
or even propose, the abrogation Of tho
Missouri Compromise and, second
! ly, that the Missouri Compromls,
ought not now 10 be sbrogaled. An,
now, Sir, what do we next hear from
the Committee First, two simila
and kindred bills, actually abrogatine
the Missouri Compromise, which, IL
their report, they had told US ough'
not TO be abrogated at all Second.
/ ly, these bills declare on their face
in substance, that tina, Compromise
was already abrogated by the spirit
of that very Compromise of 1850,
which, in their report they had just
shown US, left the Compromise OF
1920 absolutely unaffected and I'M
impaired. Thirdly, the Committee
favor us, by their chairman, with an
oral explanation, that the amended
bills abrogating the Missouri Com
promise are identical with their pre-
vious bill, which did not abrogale it,
and are only made TO differ in phra-
seology, TO the end that the proyis-
ions contained in their previous, and
now discarded bill, shall be absolute
" clear and certain
entertain great respect for the
Committee itself, but must take
leave 10 say that the Inconsistencies
and self-constructions contained in
the papers it has given us, have de-
stroyed all claims, on the part of those
documents, to respect, here or else
where. (Here there was a burst of
applause in the galleries
The recital Of the effect Of the
Compromise of 1850 upon the
Compromise of 1920, as finally re-
vlsed, corrected, and amended, here
in the face Of the Senate, means, af-
ter all, substantially what that recital
meant as it stood before il was affec-
ted, or else it means nothing tangible
or worthy Of consideration at all.-
What if the spirit. or even the letter
oil The Compromise laws Of 1850 die
conflict with the Compromise Of
1892 The Compromise of 1920
was, by its very nature, Comprom-
Use irrepealable and Interchangeable,
without a violation Of honor, justice
and good faith. The Compromise OF
1850, if it impaired the previous Com
promise to the extent of the loss TO
free labor of one acre of the Terri
tory of Nebraska, was either abso-
lately void, or ought, in all sequent
legislation, TO be deemed and held
void.
What if the spirit or letter OF, the
Compromise of 80 was a violation OF
the Compromise Of 1920? Then,
inasmuch as the Compromise Of 1920
was insiolable, the attempted viola-
ton Of il shows that the so called
Compromise of 1850 was to that ex-
tent not Compromise at all, but n
Fictitious, spurious, and pretended
Compromise. What if the letter or
the spirit of the Compromise of $50
did supersede or impair, or even con-
hict with the Compromise Of 1920
Then that is a reason, not for abro-
eating the irrcpeaIable and inviolablc
Compromise of 1920, but the spuri-
Gus and pretended Compromise OF
1850.
Mr.. President, why is this reason
for the proposed abroga,ion of the
Compromise of 1920 assigned in
these bills al, all II is unnecessary
The assignment Of a reason adds
nothing 10 the force or weight OF the
abro2ation itself. Either the fact al
legged as reason is true or it is mol
true. If II be untrue, your asserting
il here will not make il true. IL il
be true, II is apparent in the text Of
the law of 1850, without the aid o.
legislative exposition now. 1t is un-
usual. II is supplementary. The
language of the lawgiver. whether
the sovereign be democratic, repuh.
llcali, or despotic, is always The same
1t is mandatory, imperative. II the
lawgiver explains at all in a statute
the reason for ii, the reason is that il
Is his pleasure-sic r0t0, SIC .}ubeo.-
Look at the Compromise of 1920 :
Docs it plead an excuse for It's com
mands Look at the Compromise
of 1850, drawn by the master hand
of our American Chatham. Does
that bespeak your favor by quib-
bling or shuiillhg apologyl Look al
your own, now rejected, first Nebras-
la bill, which, by conclusive impIi-
cation, saved the effect Of the Mis-
sour Compromise. Look at any 9th
er bill ever reported by the Commit
lee on Territories. Look at any 9th
er bill now on your calendar; exam
inc all the laws on your statute books.
Do you find any one bill or statute
which ever came bowling, STOPPING,