Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-04-07
The sentineI,s Questions.

mean to assert that tho low Of 1920 which in
terdicts Slavery north Of 800 80 is consttu-
tional'" Yes, to be sure it does. Slave
holding politicians clamored about it and
said it was unconstitutional. and many of
them and of their co-workers from the free
States, say so now but they much prefer to
get it repealed or destroyed BY act of Con-
gress if they can, to testing its constitution
atty before the Federal Courts, even though
a majority of the Supreme judges are from
Slave States.
Again it asks " does it maintain
that it is a compact and 50 irrepealablc /"
Why of course it is repeoloble. Every body
admits that who is not Ounce. Its repeal
is what the Free Press is contending against
and what the Sentinel, as we suppose, is con-
tending for. But is it a compact !" No
man with an ounce of brains supposes, or ever
implied, that it was treaty, compact or agree
ment (aS any one might prefer the one word
or the other) between two nations or two dis
trict governments ofany sort. A discussion
about the propriety of the terms used by
various writers and speakers on the subject
would be ridiculous here. OF course the act
was 1a,c, not a treaty, and the wmaking
body of the nation has the pouer to repeal it
but that does not give it the right to do so.
To repeal it, considering its terms, its object
and the circumstances under which it was
enacted, would be fragrant wrong on good
faith, and would undermine the national con-
fdence in the public men Of the nation more
than fifty years Of honest efforts could make
good again. Done it may be, but if done and
il the act be not visited with the most signal
condemnation from the people of the nation,
1t will injure the national reputation for in
tegrity and honor more than the violation Of
half dozen treaties between equal govern
ments would do. If treaty were broken, the
injured party might be in a condition to re
turn the wrong on the head Of the wrong
door. In this case no such power remains.
Just suppose, that when the contamination
Of the act of 1920 was determined on, after the
long struggle which preceded it, member
from the Slave States had arisen in his place
and said as follows ITO be sure, we from the
Slave States agree to pass this act under its
unusual and solemn form-we have agreed
to have in it the word forever as the only
limit to the prohibition Of slavery north OF
So 80, in the territory acquired from France,
on condition that Missouri be admitted as
Slave State. But we wish you from the free
States to understand, that as soon as we shall
have secured all below that line to slavery, be-
yond your power Of action in the case and shall
also by its aid have secured to slavery beyond
your power Of resistance, AN immense terrific
ry along the gulf Of Mexico, (all its northern
and third of it's western border in fact, and
| from 300 to 500 miles into the interior,) we
| intend to scout the notion that this law is to
be treated as more permanent than ordinary
| laws.
1t may take us thirty years or 80 to
| do all that, but as soon as it is done, we shall
have the prohibitory clause of this law in
some way destroyed, so that VIC may have a
chance, under all the advantages of our posi-
ton then, to get possession for slavery of the
very territory which we by this law surrender
forcrer to freedom !" What sort ofreception
would such declaration hare met ,c,th
Once more, the Sentinel asks . does il
(the Free Press) intend its readers to under,
stand that Missouri court has just decided
this 4" law" to be constitutional, and a com.
pact that cannot be abrosated I" No OF
course not. Nothing of the sort was said by
US or implied, and that the Sentinel know,
perfectly well or if it don't, by reading oui
article on which it bases its question, it vii
find out SO, and also what our argument was