Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-17


Compromise laws Of lS5O-as If any one had
ever heard OF supersedeas Of one local law by
the mere principles OF another local law, en-
acted Tor an altogether different region, thirty
| years afterwards On another day we were
told, by an amendment of the recital, that the
| Compromise of 1920 was not superseded by
the Compromise Of 1850 at all, but was only
inconsistent with " it-as it local act
which was irrepealable was now to be abro-
gated, because il was inconsistent with sub
sequent enactment, which had no application
whatever within the region to which the fiIsI
enactment was confined. On third day the
meaning of the recital was further and finally
elucidated by an amendment, which declared
that the first irrepealable act protecting Ne
braska from slavery was now declared :" in
operative and void, /" because il was inconsist-
ent with the present purposes OF Congress not
TO legislate slavery into any Territory or State,
nor TO exclude it therefrom.
But take this apology in whatever form it
may be expressed, and test its logic by simple
process.
The law Of 1920 secured free institutions in
the regions acquired from France in 1903, by
the wise and prudent foresight Of the Congress
OF the United States The law Of 1850, on the
contrary, committed the choice between free
and slave institutions in New Mexico and
Utah--Territories acquired from Mexico nearly
| fifty years afterward-to the interested cupidity
or the caprice of their earliest and accidental
/ occupants. Free Institutions and Slave Insti-
tutions are equal, but the interested cupidiiy Of
the pioneer is a wiser arbiter and his Judgment
| surer safeguard, than the collective wisdom
/ Of the American People and the most solemn
and tme-honored statute Of the American
| Congress. Therefore, let the law Of freedom
in the territory acquired from France be now
annulled and abrogated, and let the fortunes
and fate of Freedom and Slavery in the region
acquired from France, be, henceorward. de-
termined by the votes Of some seven hundred
camp followers around Fort Leavenwor,h, and
the still smaller number of rappers, Govern
ment schoolmasters, and mechanics, who at
tend the Indians in their seasons Of rest from
hunting in the passes of the Rocky Mountains
Sir, this syllogism may satisfy you and other
Senators; but as for me, | must be content to
adhere to the earlier system. Stare super
antiques Uias.
There is yet another difficulty in this new
theory. Let it be granted that, in order to
carry out new principle recently adopted in
New Mexico, you can suppant compromise
in Nebraska, yet there is maxim Of public
law which forbids you from supplantng that
compromise, and establishing a new system
there, until you first restore the parties in interest
there to their statu quo before the compromise
to be supplanted was established. First, then,
remand Missouri and Arkansas back to the I'M
settled condition, in regard 10 slavery, which
they held before the Compromise of 1920 was
enacted, and then we will hear you talk of
resembling that Compromise. You cannot do
this. You ought not to do il, if you could
and because you cannot and ought not 10 do il,
you cannot, without violating law, justice.
equity, and honor, abrogate the guarantee OF
freedom in Nebraska.
There is still another and not less serious
difficulty. You call the Slavery laws Of 1850
a compromise between the saveholding and
non saveholding States For the purposes Of
this argument, let il be granted that they were
such compromise Ii was nevertheless a
compromise concerning slavery in the Terrific
/ ries acquired from Mexico, and by the letter OF
the compromise il extended no further. Can
you now, by an act which is not a compromise
between the same parties, but mere ordinary
law, extend the force and obligation Of the
principles Of that Compromise Of 1850 into
regions not only excluded from il. but absolute
ly protected from your Intervention there by n
solemn Compromise OF thirty years duration,
and invested with sanctity scarcely inferior
to that which halows the Constitution itself?
Can the Compromise of 1850, by mere
ordinary act OF Legislation, be extended beyond
the plain, known, fixed intent and understand
ing OF the parties al the time that contract was
made, and yet be binding on the parties to IL,
not merely legally, but in honor and con-
science2 Can you abrogate a compromise by
passing any law OF less dignity Than COM
promise If so, OF what value is any one or
the whole Of the Compromised Thus you
see that these bills violate both of the Compro-
mises-not more that of 1920 than that of
1850.
VIII ,,o,, ,,,;n,o;, "a o.,,,,,,,v,, ,hot (, ,,,oe
understood by the parties interested throughout
the country, or by either Of them, or by any
representative of either, in either House Of
Congress, that the principle then established
should extend beyond The limits Of the terrific
res acquired from Mexico, into the territories
acquired nearly fifty years before, from France,
and then reposng under the guarantee Of the
Compromise of 1920? know not how Sen
aiors may uote, but do know what they will
say. | appeal to the honorable Senator from
Michigan, Mr.. CAss, than whom none per-
formed more distinguished part in establish
ing the Compromise OF 1850, whether he so
intended or understood appeal 10 The honor
able and distinguished Senator, the senior rep
resentatve from Tennessee, mir. BELL,l who
performed distinguished part also. Did he
SO understand the Compromise OF 1902 ! APP
peal to that very disiinguished-nay. sir, that
expression falls short oil his eminence--that IL
lustrous man, the Senator from Missouri, who
led the opposition here to the Compromise Of
1850. Did he understand that that Compro-
mise in any way overreached or impaired the
Compromise Of 1927 Sir, that distinguished
person, while opposing the combination OF the
several laws on the subject Of California and
the Territories, and Slavery, together, in one
bill, SO as 10 constitute a Compromise, never
theless voted for each one OF those bills. sever
ally and in that way, and that way only, they
were passed. Had he known or understood
that any one Of them overreached and impaired
the Missouri Compromise, we all know he
would have persisted before he would have
given il his support.
Sir IL il was not irreverent. would dare 10
call nm the author Of both or the CompromiSes