The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1854-06-21


the laS. YbaF COMMITTEES do net feel them.
selves called upoa 70 enter into The discussion
0fIbess eOatFOvertFd questions They in
v0lVe tbs same grave issues shirhproduced
ths agitation. tbs sectional sifilss and the
IaAIfal struggle Of 1880. As Congress
slremed il wise sad prudent 70 Eefrain from
reeidiBg the matters in controversy then,
either by afirpiag or rrpealing The Mexican
laws. or BY an Sel declaratory Of the true
inteal Of the Constitution, aud the extent Of
she proiscli0a Hiisrded By Il 70 slave proper
W in the Territories, 50 soGT committee are
not prepared noE TO recommend n departure
IroIn the course Parsaed on the memorable
uecasion, either BY affirming or repeating The
sighIh section OF the Missouri ACT, or by sa
act dselaratoFy Of the meshing Of The consti-
tuition in respect TO the legal points in dis
pute Report Of Mr. Douglas to the Senate
accompanying the Nebraska bill, January l.,
1854 ,sI..
Ii further evidaRee were needed, we bave
alsu the arguments Of tbe official organ OF
the Administration To ehe same effect,
'We have expressed our cnriial approval
cf the bill lutrodaced by Mr.. Douglas, pro.
vIding a territorial government for Nebraska,
IL will be remembered that the ILL. As pro-
posed To be amended By Mr.. Douglass &C en-
acts aud applies to Nebraska tbs clause oa
slavery adopted in the compromise of l850.f
That clause is silent Us 10 the question %
slavery during the territorial CONDITION Of
the inhabilants. but expressly recognizes and
asserts their right 10 cQpr1 INTO the Union
as a State. sither win or without the institu-
ton Of slavery, As they may determine in
then constitution. Two propositions have
sSsn made in the Senate, one by Senator
Dixon, a whig, and the other by Senator
Sumner, an AbolitioniSt. which Indicate that
tae HebFasks bill. 70 proposed by Judge
Douglas, is to be vigorously assailed. Er.
Dixon proposes to amend it By clause eY-
pressly repeating the act ot $40, commonly
known rs the Missouri compromise. = @%
l. is still true that Wing SenatDr and an
sbohtioa Senator have proposed amendments
which bring up the Mssoui compromise.
We are free TO declare that we should have
been contents 20 see the question thus presen-
ted left where the compromise Of 1850 and
the bill of Judge Douglas both left it. + 4
But We accepted the acts of 1850 as they
were passed, and approved their passage rs
FINAL compromise, and in the same spirit
we have been content with the perpetuation
af that compromise as proposed by Mr..
Douglass Nebraska bill. We have never
yielded to the Missouri compromise any 9TH
or obligatory force than that which attaches
TO solemn covenant, entered into by two
opposing parties for the preservation of am.
icable relations. To such considerations we
haye felt bound to yield as ready an acquies-
cenee IS If the compromise was the law Of the
land, not only in form, but in substance and
reality. y y We have been readyto waive
the legal question. and to abide faithfully by
its terms. n We are free 10 express our
strong aversion to Lhe rsepening fthe slave
Ty question, and we still believe that true
wisdom that this can be best avoided by
standing firmly upon the compromise Of 1850
"a a hnal adjustment. y Upon a
calm review Of the whole ground. we yet see
no such reasons for disturbing the compro-
mise Of 1850, ~ could induce us to advocate
either OF the amendments proposed to Mr..
Douglass hill."-- HasbiagtOn Union, .'anu.
arg 40, 1854. jgag aHH5s}.ntg., 4.
do not cite these witnesses to strengthen
the case. 1t is strong enough without them
aud is no stronger with them. do trAth
ar to show that in the race to stultify the
Democratic party they do NOT stop at stull-
tying themselves. sa ea# a a.
Ehe substitute offered by the chairman af
the Committee on Territories Mr.. Richard
son declares that the Missouri compromise
line should be imperative and void. Tor the
reason that it is Inconsistent with the priv C-
piles of aaa intervention by Congress in the
subject of slavery in the States and TerTito-
ries, as recognized in the Legislation of 1850.
That. ii true, would DO no reason, for the
Missouri compromise line relates to one part
of our Territory, that of 1850 to another and
different portion. They do not come in
collision. but both stand as Law, irrespective
of each other. You might as we'll say, that,
because the Unitsd States and England set
tied the northeastern boundary question by
u EaEticular line, and afterwards settled the
Oregon question by another and different
one. therefore the first line ought to be oblit-
Grated. With due Difference, this is very
bad logic. lasesss aa ss lie .a
That the Missouri compromise is inconsis-
tent with the principles of the Legislation of
1880 deny. So far from it, it is one Of the
principlestof that Legislation. The legislation
OF 1850 settled the question of slavery in t.
liah and New Mexico, by delegating power
10 the Territorial Legislature to establish or
prohibit slavery, subject ia the revision,
however, of Congress. Over that portion Of
territory cut of from Texas it re-enacted the
Missouri restriction. Yes, sir, the Missouri
compromise was in terms recognized and re-
enacted over all the territory gut off from
Texas. and that territory is equal in area to
kve or six OF the States of this Union. There
we're I've principles in the compromise Of
1850 relating to slavery,in the Territories.
10 vii: kiqd OF nonrintervention, and The
Missouri restriction, which is, Esatatis aIatap-
dis. the. Wilmot proyiso. or the ordinance of
aI787. yT0g.sy thst The Missouri compromise
should bssenderea imperative because it is
sasaasiaient with that u 1850, is the same
- to say that the latter should be declared
imperative because it IS inconsistent with it.
self; which would, OF course, be absurd.
assE know that il has been declared by the |
author NJ lhis bill, in the other end Of this
Gspitals th9s the clause in the New Mexico
biIlnre -enceiRgithe slavery restriction Of the
Missouri acts waslpnt there at the instance
5sof Mr.. Mason, ofsNirginia. for the purpose Of
securing the 5fpll number qt States to be for
fned oBl Of Texas. notwithstanding her rel
Ap&ed boundaries, and thai he had no design