Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-05-02
abe 51aiIg spp.
TUESDAY, NAY ?, 1854.
S p q e G II
HON. THOMAS H. NToN,
OF MISSOURI,
In Opposition TO the Nebraska Bill,
IN the House of Representatives, Friday,
Apra 25th, 1854.
concluded.l

But am not done vet with the beauties of
this mode of repeating law by an exception.
There is further consequence to be detected
in it. The Missouri compromise consists OF
two distinct parts first, an abolition of slavery
in all the ancient Louisiana north and west Of
Missouri secondly, provision for the recoy-
cry of fugitive slaves in the territory made
free. BY the omitted extension OF this sec
tion both these parts are repealed. A tractot
country larger than the old thirteen Atlantic
States, and bordering thousand miles ON the
British dominions, is made an asylum for tugl-
tive slaves. There will be no law to recovera
slave from all that vast region. The constitu-
tonal provision is limited to States; the pro-
vision in the act Of 1887 is limited to the
Northwest Territory the second part of the
Missouri Compromise extended this right to
all the territory north and west of Missouri;
and that being repealed, that right Of recovery
is lost l object to this on the part Of the State
of Missouri-the State to be most injured by
converting all the territory north and west OF
her quite out to the British line; into an asy-
lum for runaway slaves. The blunder cannot
be corrected Cat least in the opinion Of those
who deny the constitutional power Of Con-
gress to legslate on slavery in Territories by
an act Of Congress.
Then comes the reason for excepting the
Missouri Compromise from the extension
which is given to mass Of laws which are
not there, and denied to itself which is there.
If the reason had been because it was already
there. it would have been logical and COM
prehensible reason but that is not the cause
assigned and those which are assigned are
actually numerous and curious, and worthy of
examination. First, because it was superseded
by certain acts of 1850; next, that it is in
consistent with those acts then that IS nope
ratiye; and finally, that it never was there,
being dead in its birth under the Constitution,
and void from the beginning.
Let us look into these reasons, seriatin,, as
tie lawyers say and first of supersession. 1t
is said that the measures of 1850 superseded
this compromise of 1920. Ii so, why treat it
now as still existing, and therefore to be re-
pealed by an exception in order to get rid Of
it? If it was repealed in 1850, why do it over
again in 1854: Why kill the dead But it
was not superseded; but acknowledged and
confirmed by every speaker in 1850 that re-
ferred to the subject, and by every act that
mentioned it, This being matter Of fact, and
proven by all sorts of testimony-parole writ
ten, and record-it had to be given up, (tho'
test fpolitical orthodoxy as long as it stood;)
and something else put in its place. There
upon suppression was itself superseded by
"inconsstent." Out Of the frying-pan into
the fire Inconsistent signifies inability to
stand together-two things which cannot
stand together-from con and sisto. Now,
what is the fact with respect to the compro
misses of 1920 and 1862 Can they not stand
| together? And if not, why knock the one
| down that is already DOWN. 1t is now four
years since this inability to stand together took
| effect; and how do the two sets of measures
| +l ,f
! Perfectly well. They are both on their feet
standing bolt upright-and will stand SO for
ever, unless Congress knocks one OF the other
Of them down. This is fact, known to every
body, and admitted by the bill itself; for if
the first is inconsistent with the second, and
unable to stand, why all this trouble to put it
DOWN. Why trip up the heels of the man
already fiat Of his back on the ground Then
comes another reason-that this compromise
of 1920 is imperative and void. If SO, those
who are against its operations should be con-
tent. tits in the very condition they wish it
useless, powerless, inactive, dead-and no
bar to the progress of slavery to the North
Void is vacant, empty, nothing of it. Now,
if the line of SO deg. 30 MIN is imperative
and void, it is in the condition of fence
pulled down. and the rails carried away, and
the field left open for the stock to enter. But
not yet imperative and void. 1t is an exist
ing substantive line, alive and operating; and
operating efectually to bar the progress Of sla-
very to the North; and will SO continue to
operate until Congress shall stop its operation.
Then comes the final reason, that there never
was any such line in the world-that it was
unconstitutional and void-that it had no ex-
istence from the beginning; and that it must
not be repealed by direct act, for that would
be to acknowledge its previous existence, and
to nullify the Constitutional argument; and,
what is more terrible, involve the authors of
the doctrine in an inconsistency of their own;
and thereby make them, themselves, inopera-
tive and void. And this is the analysis Of the
reasons for the Nebraska bill-that part of it
which is to get rid of the compromise of1S20:
untrue, contradictory, suicidal, and preposter-
Gus. And why such farrago Of utilities,
incongruities, and inconsistencies Purely
and simply to throw upon others-upon the
Congress of 1850 and the innocent Constitu-
tion-the blame Of what the bill itself is do
ing the blame of destroying the compromise
Of 1920; and whit, destroying all confidence
between the North and the South, and array
ing one half the Union against the other in
deadly hostility. 1t is to be able to throw
blame upon the innocent that this falTago is
served up to US.
And what is all this hotch- potch for 1t is
to establish principle, they say-the princi-
pie of non intervention--ofs quatter sovereign
ty. Sir, there is no such principle. The
Territories are the children of the States
They are minors under twenty-one years of
age and it is the business of the States,
through their delegations in Congress, to take
care Of these minors until they are of age-un-
til they are ripe for State Goyernment--then
give them that government, and admit them
to an equality with their fathers. This is the
low, and the sense of the case; and has been
so acknowledged since the first ordinance in
1854, by all authorities, Federal and State,
legislative, judicial, and executive. The
States in Congress are the guardians of the
Territories and are bound to exercise the
guardianship; and cannot addict it without
breach of trust and derelction of duty
Territorial sovereignty is a monstrosity, born
OF timidity and ambition, Matched into exist
ence in the hot incubation of a presidential
canvass, and revolving to the beholders when
first presented. Well do l remember that day
when it was first shown in the Senate. Mark
Antony did not better remember the day when
Cesar first put on that mantle through which
he was afterwards pierced with three-and-
twenty "enyious stabs." 1t was in the SEN
ate in 184S, and was received as nonsense-as
the essence Of nonsense-as the quintessence
of nonsense the times distilled essence
of nonsensicality. Why, sir, the Territory it
self is the property Of the States and they do
what they please with it--permit it to be set
tied or not, as they please; cut it up by lines,
as they please; sell it, or give it away, as they