Washington sentinel., 1854-02-26

foolish excitement-from them and from wha
they can accomplish, apprehend no danger
cannot see that storm-cloud which they would
point out to me so anxiously. see it nowhere
/ have not the facility which they have, and
which their great prototype, the model Of al
ingenious and facile politicians, the renowned
chamberlain, Polonius, had, in seeing q cloud
just when and where, and in just such shape
and of just such size as was convenient and
proper.
Says Hamlet to Polonius:
Do you see yonder cloud, that's amosssn shape
of camel?
Pol. BY the mass, and It's like camel, indeed.
Ham, Methinks, it is like a weasel.
Poi II is backed like a weasel.
Ham. Or, like whale?
Pol Very like whale
have not the facility which some politicians
display in seeing cloud, according to the
emergency, as large as whale or rs small as
weasel. Laughter.
Sir, deny that the establishment Of the
Missouri line ever was constitutional compro-
mise, or any compromise at all, or that it was
permanent measure of peace. 1t was not
constitutional, because it proposed to prohibit
slavery "forever" within those borders. 1t was
not prohibited merely while that country was
to remain o Territory; but the intention was
clearly to extend the prohibition even beyond
its existence as Territory and even after the
Territory shall be brought into the Union as
sovereign States. The language used is clear
and unequiyocal. Besides, that they did not
intend that the restriction should cease with
the admission into the Union of the States, is
evident from the fact that they proposed, and
this House determined at one time, to apply
the restriction to Missouri herself, simultane-
ously with her admission. But even if it be
limited to the duration of their territorial ex-
istence and if, from the vague and general
powers given to the federal government over
the Territories, exerted and applied as they
must be to circumstances not toreseen in the
formation Of the Constitution; if from those
powers the power of legislation over slavery
may vaguely and remotely be deduced, as is
contended by some, it is now generally agreed
that the salvation Of the Constitution, the only
hope of the continued existence of any Consti-
tuition, forbid its exercise.
The gentleman from Ohio Mr.. CAMPBELL
seems to consider it so important to limit the
extension of slavery, to encroach upon and re-
strict the rights and power, growth, and infu-
ence of the people Of the southern States-such
q matter ef's State necessity that we might
act, in such view, with the same warrant,
which, he says, authorized Mr.. Jefferson to
transcend the Constitution in the purchase of
Louisiana. Sir, might say, with far more pro-
priety, and believe the American people have
SO determined, that the necessity of withhold
ing this dangerous power from the federal gov
ernment is SO paramount, even far transcending
that which justified Mr.. Jefferson, that it must
at all events, be denied by the guarantee of a
common-law Constitution generally acquiesced
in, and established upon the supreme law of
necessity.
Says one gentleman from New York, Mr..
FENToN,l it is impudent to question the con-
stitutionality of that act. Did not those who
passed it know what was constitutional2 Upon
the principle involved in that remark, every
law passed, even in a time of the highest ex-
citement, and under the pressure of the greatest
exigency, would be held as establishing con-
stitutional principle forever. Ibelieve the gen.
tleman is democrat What does he think of
the constitutionaity of the United States bank?
more than once chartered, after thorough in
vestigation by the first minds of the country,
sanctioned by every department of this govern
ment, and acquiesced in by the whole country
for a series of years.
The establishment of the Missouri line was
not Just compact This territory was COM
mon property UouSuI iion rIdHSe Wy Ihc GA
penditare of $l5,000,000 from the common
treasury of the United States. Common Justice
required that it should be held, as Mr.. Clay de-
clared, for the benefit of all the people Of all
the States, and it was not an act Of Justice, in
a government like ours, to exclude the people
of any portion of the States from the benefits
arising therefrom. 1t was not a compromise,
because there was no concession to the south.
How did the matter stand? Slavery was abol-
ished, not interdicted for the future, where it
did not exist; it was actually abolished where
it did exist in certain territory north of 36o 30
But what was done south of that line? Nothing
whatever; IT was there left exactly as it stood
before. They claimed the right to fix this ex-
clusion of slavery upon the northern part of that
territory, and to get all they could subsequently
south Of the same line. No slave States should
ever exist north of that line, but as many free
States south of the line as they could secure.
They were to be the exclusive occupants on
the north, and to stand upon an equal footing
with the southern people in the southern por-
ton of the territory. That was the principle
of the so-called compromise.
We had not even the admission of Missouri
by way of compensation, because she was not
admitted at that time. The north resisted, OBJ
stinately and fercely, her admission into the
Union, even after the establishment of the Mis-
souri, line; and it was only by virtue ola sub
sequent compromise that she was admitted.
What was the pretext for this refusal to comply
with what was universally considered one Of the
conditions Of this extraordinary compact? Why,
she had clause in her constitution excluding
the immigration of free negroes-a provision
then standing upon the statutebook of Massa-
chusetts, and one which more than one free State
has since incorporated into their constitutions.
That was the pretext upon which was founded
the renewed opposition to her admission into
the Union. But if she had been promptly
by way of compensation, that was a
mock concession, for it is now generally con-
ceded that it is the right of any State to come
into the Union as free or slave State, as she
may determine for herself; right in this case
doubly secured by the guarantee Of the treaty
of cession with France, and right which has
been exercised by every other State. Conse.
quently, there was no compromise; there was
no concession. 1t could not, in any fair appli.
cation Of the term, be called q compromise.
To have deserved the shadow of that title, il
Il "a L. r AZ