The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-02

carried the Utah and New Mexico acts, never
dreamed that their provisions would ever be
applied to Nebraska. Even ut the last session
Of Congress, Mr.. Atchison, of Missouri, in a
speech in favor of taking up the former Ne
braska Bill, on tho morning of the 4th OF
March, 1853, said: 1t is evident that the Mis-
souri, Compromise cannot be repealed. So far
as that question is concerned, we might as well
agree to the admission Of this Territory now,
as next year, or five or ten years hence These
words could not have fallen from this watchful
guardian of Slavery, had he supposed that this
Territory was embraced by the pro-slavery
provisions of the Compromise Acts. This pre-
tension had not then been set up. Il is pal
pable after-thought
The Compromise Acts themselves refute
this pretension. In the third article of the
second section of the Joint Resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States it is ex-
pressly declared that " in suck State or States
as shall be formed out of said Territory north of
said Missouri Compromise line, Slavery or invol-
untary ssrVi,tde, except orerime, shall be prohib-
tied - and in the Act for organizing New Mex
leo and settling the boundary of Texas, pro-
viso was Incorporated on the motion of MIR.
Mason, of Virginia, which distinctly preserves
this prohibition, and fouts the bare-faced pre-
tension that all the Territory of the United
States whether south or north of the Missouri
Compromise line, is 10 be open to Slavery. 1t
is as follows:
q" Provided That nothing herein contained
shall be construed TO impair or qualify ANY
THING contained in the third article of the
second section of the Joint Resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States, approved
March |, 1S45, either as regards the number
of States that may hereafter be formed out of
the State of Texas, OR OTHERWISE
"Here is proof beyond controversy, that the
principle of the Missouri Act prohibiting Sla-
very north of 36 deg. 80 min, far from being
abrogated by the Compromise Acts, is ex-
pressly affirmed; and that the proposed repeal
of this prohibition, instead of being an afirma-
ton of the Compromise Acts, is repeal of q
very prominent provision of the most important
act Of the series. 1t is solemnly declared in
the very Compromise Acts that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to impair or quail
ify' the prohibition of Slavery north of SO deg
80 min, and yet, in tho face of this dcclara-
ton, that sacred prohibition is said to be over
thrown. Can presumption further go? To
misos, we commend this exposition"
Is further argument necessary? Honest
men have the whole truth before them-they
clearly understand it. Dishonest men are not
to be influenced by argument. If they can
vote for the Bill with hope of impunity, they
will if mot they will vote against it.
Let the People speak out and say whether
the Missouri Compromise shall be annulled or
not. If they are determined that it shall
stand, let them instruct their Senators and
Representatives, to crush the Bill. If they
arc willing it should bo abrogated, willing that
Nebraska should be peopled with slaves, will
ing that the Slave Power should rule from the
Lakes to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, let them sleep on. Thore are men
enough, if unrestrained, to carry through the
foul conspiracy, especially with all the power
of the Administration to back them For, we
are advised by " the organ of this date, that
"the policy of the administration 4, directly in
Uolped IN this question"
Our readers must excuse our importantly,
but it is manifest that the question we are dis
cussing is to be the great topic of the session
it takes precedence of all others in Importance
and engrossing interest We should be false
to the People, if we did not devote to it 80 large
a space in our columns.