The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-01-26
Congressional Non intervention.-The Missouri
Compromise.

The chief merit OF the Compromise OF 1850, so far
relates TO the question OF slavery in the Territories of
The United States consists in the fact that it denies
Congress under the constitution any power either
to esslae slavery into Territory on, Of it, than it
possesses in regard the States This is what mean
BY congressional non-nerventon and this is the vital
and effective principle which the alarming agitation
IN 1850 Quoted and pacfed Its recognition is not
only tribute to OF the fundamental articles OF the
democratic creed-ihat Congress shall conhne s juris
diction TO its clearly defined grants Of powerbut ITS
practical adoption the settled policy Of the
whdraws from the congressional arena the mos, dan
gerous subject which can enter into our political discus
sons In both points Of view il commands itself as the
most reliable basis on which the patriot repose bis
hopes for the perpetuity of our federal Union.
We have always objected to arbitrary line OF sepa.
ration between the free and the slave territory OF the
Union In the first place, we have never been able to
discover in the constitution any authority The par, OF
Congress to designate line and 10 declare that the ter.
rory its north shall be free, and that its south may
recognise slavery In the second place, have
regarded unwise attempt by congressional action
10 control those natural laws which, sooner or later. will
always adjust local and domestic questions according
the interests ofihose Immediately concerned The changes
lion Of our confedeacy in respect The institution Of
slavery ough, 10 satisfy every ha, the laws which
determine its existence or continuance in any locality are
as fixed certain those which regulate the affairs
either Of the motal or the material world But, in the
third place. arbitrary line is especially Objectionable
because TO keep alive those sectional ealouses
and preudices which enter largely into The agitation OF
the slavery question, and destroy the raiernal relations
which constitute our sures, bond OF union The Mis-
souri, Compromise line obnoxious TO all these obec-
lions, besides assuming arbitrarily prohbi, slavery on
the north eide OF the line, whilst il conceded the prnc
pie Of congressional intervention on the south side
This view Of the an,agonism existing between a com
promise the principle OF congressional non-inierven
lon and which establishes arbitrary line and pro-
hibis the existence OF slavery aide OF il. must
make il clear that these two compromises cannot exis,
and operate in the territory. II cannot be denied
that, Notwithstanding the objections TO the Missouri
Compromise, II was acquiesced in and abided by a
covenant OF peace until the acquisition OF the territory
coded 10 by Mexico the close OF the late Mexican
war II is fact OF history, that repeated propositions
to stand by the Missouri Compromise line made aud
rejected during the tendency OF the agitation growing
of Msxiean acquisitions The question then
sary arises In rejecting the acknowledgements line
in 1850, and adopting the principle Of congressional
non Intervention. did Congress 10 limit this
principle TO Utah and New Mexico, and to leave the
Missouri Compromises in existence as 10 all other terri
tory u is not only true tina, the proposition TO settle
the difficulty generally on The line OF &c deg. 30 min
was rejected but il |. also true tina, portion OF the ter
rioy to which the principle Of congressional non.inter
ven,ion applied by the Compromise of 1850 lies
north OF the line OF 30 deg min and therefore
sany, TO that portion OF tina territory. the Missouri,
Compromise was repudiatsd and abrogn,ed But was
that all the force effect Of the Compromise Of 1850 II