Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-05-12
PUBLIC PRINTERS INTERFERENCE.

Of Intermediates, and Who might not be able |
TO meddle al all with our business, were il !
not for the ministration Of our bounty.
speak Of our public printers, who get their |
daily bread, (and that buttercd on both sides,)
by our daily printing, and who require the
democratic members of the House, under the |
instant penalty of political damuation, to give
their adhesion to every bill which they call
and that in every change it
may undergo, although more changeable
than the moon. For that class Of ntermed
dlers | have no parliamentary law TO admin
ister nor any quotation from Burke to reply
nothing but little fable to read, the value
Of which, as in all good bles lies in its NOR
al. 1t is the French, and entitled Lane et
son moitre" which, being done into English,
signifies, "The ass and his MASTER" and runs
thus:
"An ass took it into his head to scare his
master, and put on lions skin, and went
and stood in his path. And when he saw
his master coming, be commenced roaring, as
be thought, but he only brayed, and the mas
ter knew it was mis- ass; So he went up to
him with cudgel, and beat him nearly to
death"
This is tie end Of the fable, and the moral
of it is, "a caution to all asses to take care
how they undertake to scare their masters"
Much laughter and applause.
Mr. Chairman, this House will have fallen
far below its Consttu ional mission, if it suf
fers itself TO be governed by authority, or
dragooned by its own hirelings. am man
of no bargains, but act openly with any man
that acts for the public good, and in this spir
it offer the right hand of political friend
ship to every member Of this body that will
stand together 10 vindicate its privileges, pro-
tect it's rcepectabty. and maintain it in the
high place for which ii was intended-the
MISSOURI COMPROMISE NOT MERELY STATUTE
The question before us is to get rid of the
Missouri Compromise line; and to lawyer
that is an easy question. That compromise
is in the form Of statute, and one statute is
repealable by another. That short view is
enough for lawyer. To a statesman it is
some thing different, and refers the question
of It's repeal, not to law books, hut to reason
of State policy, to the circumstances. under
which it was enacted, and the consequences
which are to flow from its abrogation. This
compromise of 1920 is not a mere statute, tc
last for a day; it was intended for perpetuity
and So declared itself. 1t is an enactment tc
settle controversy, aud did settle it, and
cannot be abrogaled without revivng tina,
cont! oversy.
1t has given the country peace for above
thirty years. How many years of disturbance
will its abroga,ion bring? That's the states
mans question; and without assuming to bt
much OF a statesman, | claim to be enough
so to consider the consequences of breaking
settlement which paciied continent.
remember the Missouri controversy, and how
it destroyed all the social feeling and all ca
pacity for beneficial legislation, and merged
all political principle in angry contest abou
slavery--dividing the Union into two parts
and drawing up the two halves into opposit
and confronting lines like enemies on the fe
of battle. do not wish to see such time
: again; and therefore am against revivin
them by breaking up the settlement whic
quoted them.
THE fuREE SLAVERY COMPROMISES.
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 wa
A the partilioning between the free and slav
0 States OF great province, taking the chal
= acter of perpetual settlement, and classn
- with the two great compromises which CAV
. us the ordinances Of July lS, 1897, and th
e Federal Constitution Of September l7th,
the same year. There are three slavery con
Y promises in our history, which connect then
t selves with the foundation Of this Union
t First, the territorial partition ordinance {
J. 1887, with its clause for the recovery of fl
IS gitive slaves; secondly The contemporaneor
}. constitutional recognition Of slavery in II
It States which CHOOSE to have it, with the Fl
If gitive slave recovery clause in the same i
S slrumeni; thirdly the Missouri partition liz
d of 1920, with the same clause annexed, f
,f the recovery Of fugitive slaves. All three
IS these compromises are part and parcel OF Il
n same policy. and neither of them could ha,
4 been formed without the other, nor neith'
o Of them without the fugitive slave recover
h clause Incorporated in it. The anti SLAYER
d clause in the ordinance of 1887 could NJ
q have been adopted. (as was provided by
three years rrjeclion,) without the fugiti'
is slave recovery clause added to it.
II The Constitution could not have bee
i formed without its recognition of slavery
y the States which choose it, and the guaran
q free States. The Missouri Compromise cou
If not have been settled without partition
v Louisiana between free and slave soil; al
that partition could not have been mat
[. without the addition of the same clause
q The recovery of fugitive slaves. Thus
" three compromises are settlements of exi:
=. ing questions, and intend to be perpetual =
e They are all three Of equal moral validit
,e The constitutional compromise is guarded
" higher obligation in consequence of its
h corporation in that instrument; but it in
,e way differs from the other two in the circu
$. stances which induced it. or the consequt
ces which would 6ow from its abrogalion
n A proposition to destroy the slavery comp
ii misses in the Constitution, would be an op
=. proposition 10 break np the Union; tn
Of tempt TO abrogate tie compromises Of Z
AS aud 1920 would be virtual attempts to d
+. troy lhe harmony Of the Union, and prep'
v it Tor dissolution by desifoyiag the confder
= and affection in which it is founded