The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-10
THE RAnGER AMENDMENT.

The amendment incorporated into the Nebraska bin in
the Senate the motion of Mr. Badger and which has
been freely discussed the Badger amendment has been
objected TO by southern making the less
acceptable 10 them than il without il This objection
discussed by Mr. Phillips in his late able speech in
clear foreibe and statesmanlike that in
duced to reproduce his remarks and invite special at
tention TO them. They are as follows
The act Of 1920 with its prohibition having thus excu
ded all other laws this subject and annexed To the domain
law for It's perpetual government without regard TO any
change in It's political condition. the before
proposes boldly to repeal this law or what Is equivalent TO
declare IT imperative and Void and leave the people in
habng the Territory perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their subject only TO
the constitution of the United States To proposition so
just equal constitutional there are my surprise,
dissenting voices from the South; and called upon TO
vote against this because the proso declares
I" That nothing contained ~ Ms shall be CONSTRUED
TO revive put in force law regulation which may
have existed prior TO 9th March 1920 either protecting
tablishing, prohibiting, aboishing slavery
1.-THE question: then, presented to shall reject the
proposition which leaves southern free egrate with
their property into the Territory under the sanction and
lection Of the constitution because does not also contain
rc-cnactment Of the ancient pro slavery laws
g But told by the dissentients that Is
required and that if Congress viii merely content it,
self with simply repeating the eighth section of the Missouri
act, these iaes tcM rerire Of d.emselces
" Here is the fundamental Laws destroyed
only by force Of some creative act.
The first great rule Mr. Chairman the construction OF
statutes is that the of the lawgiver is be de-
duced from view Of the whole and every part Of statute
taken and compared together The real inteno when
curaey ascertained will always prevail the literal
of terms.
Subordinate this is the special rule of the
awthat by the repeal of repeating statute (the law
containing nothing in that manfes the intention Of the
legislature that the former shall continue repeatedly the
original is revived (Dwarrs Statutes p 534)
is therefore only by virtue of the intention contained
in the act asceained by the court according to the
rule already quoted that the ancient law revived
aed and not by force Of any vitality existing the ancient
law itself.
Now, the essential rule of construction just read
only permits the declare revvor when there is
nothing the statute mhich the Intention Of tie tegts
tot~e that The aneie lac shall continue rpoated could there
be doubt to the construction of the act without the
proyo being the true intent and meaning of this act not
tega slavery into Territory State, or to exclude 1t
thereoman expression legally emphatic it had de-
caed it the true intent and meaning Of the act not to
revive the laws respecting slavery existing prior to 1920
When therefore, the Badger provso declared that nothing
contained in this shall be construed to revive put in
force law regulation which have existed prior to
the of 9Th March, 1920 either protecting establishing
prohibiting, abolshng slavery simply auologi
and could have been intended only quiet the apprehn
sion of northern gentlemen whose knowledge of the law
not equal to their caution.
But this only shows the impotence of the provo, and
the bill without it is Intervention against the South, the OBJ
lection would only be removed step further back and
must therefore give further answer.
IT, sir, the bill had contained evidence of intent
the ancient law and simply declaration that the pro-
hibon of the of 1870 thereby repealed deny that
any revvor would have taken places for this would not
be the OF repeal of repeating statute, but repeal
Of prohibory statute In the first implication Of the
intent revive is resistless in the latter case such
tenton necessarily arises Why SIR have the fact
demonstrated this floor that while large number Of rep
resentatves willing repeal the prohibitions few of them
IL any, would vote to re-enact the old laws.
" 1t true the Missouri prohibition operated repeal
upon all the laws then existing for the protection of slavery
ba, did it created perpetual barrier against similar
legislation in the future 1t therefore would follow that
repeal Of this perpetual prohibition necessarily showed the
intention laws which existed the time of the pro-
hibtion, and were destroyed by its influence.
"Whc the construction of statutes the law i.
such have stated the civil law declares that the repeal
of repeating statute shall not revive the former law.
81 win not stop to inquire whether commended that
tho civil law Of Louisiana exists in these Territories and
the act Of 1890 well the act proposed terrific
rial acts in their operation the construction Of the courts
would not be governed by the civilian rule II IL evident
that the had been passed BY territorial egsa
country where the civil law railcd would be
These considerations waive, because great
OF legislation should stand upon broader and grounds
The rules Of the and civil law much less
than they appear do. BY the former court will give
effect to the intention to revive without cypress cords by
the latter the legislature must revive the old laws by formal
re-eadcf1sen.
W
Of Liquidation and the effect and responsibility precisely
the same, whether il flows from necessary implication
preston
The objection therefore, the bill, with or without the
Badger proviso, only this that the South
should the passage the repeating
perpetual prohibition and leaving the people inhabiting
the Territories pass such laws they may under the
ution, deem best, without northern friend viii also
agree the black code Of Louis XIV and other
slavery laws which supposed have existed prior
1870.
Sir the South should have made her stand in 1920 when
these laws then in full force conended, repealed
II the South submitted TO IL then, demand Of
northern establish them For one, win not
ground this reject the proposition rendered by b
patriotic representatives Of the North bill
II we do thereby regain all the ground lost in
1870 shall, least, oberae that hateful sectional line
which thirty years has fesered in the wounded side
Of the constitution.
1T this miserable line, containing, does con-
grcssional impuation against the institutions
States that much Of the abolition agitation in
and OF these halls How strongly this described
by Mr.. Jefferson few months after the passage Of the
act
a But this question like fre-belI in the
night, awakened and filled with terror considered IL
the But this IL reprcve only final sentence
geographical hse, co,nc,di"y h marked principle
moral and poloi. conceived and heid angry
passions Of eiR be oberoed and crery irr
iai'on wH n'crk deeper and deeper
Let them representatives casting from all minor
objections firmly unite for the eradication Of this geo
graphical line fatal to the harmony of the Union and SO
hostile to the spiri, Of our institutions"