The daily union., 1854-02-28

reference 10 the Territories. both north and south OF the
line OF 80 deg 80 min, in utter disregard OF that line as
separation between slaveholdng and n-slaveholdng
communities, Is, IN our judgment, conclusive We deem
the contemporaries lne If all be regarded to
have been Justly exlensble 10 the Pacific lis in our
Judgment susceptible OF the airest proof that il was de-
signed TO be eoextensye the west with our territorial
domains la this just view OF the matter il was no only
dsregaded IN the enacments Of $780, but the history OF
our legislation is full of instances in which il has been
repudaied.
Ia this position OF the facts taking asi view OF this
solemn compact so often violated aud broken by it's
present supporterslooking il with fair estimate of
tbs force and vitality which remained to il after repeated
lnfracons in $780, and weighing well the fact that the
geographical line established by treated 1850 as
mere nulity by Congress-we shall find little reason for
insisting that territorial legislation shall be felered
and controlled by il hereafter II is, as seems to u.s.
but plain dictate OF reason and common that
policy which has SO often been epudated and abandoned
shall no longer impose upon the country legislation
onal and Irritating in its character. tending 10 import
ant and practical results and by large portion Of our
people regarded as unconstitutional and unjust.
What lair minded man does not that Congress is
merely continuing in 1854 its legislation of $780, in pass
ing the important bill under consideration AS Utah
and New Mexico in with full power over the sub
ec OF slavery n,rused to their inhabitants ii is pro-
posed that Kansas and Nebraska shall come in now
The territorial legislation OF 1850 denounced the
North as degrading concession to slavery. But the
country North and South approved Of it. with ieryor
and unanimy before exhibited under our govern
ment upon question Of equal importance. Wings APP
proved OF it, Democrats approved of it, Both of these
great political parties stood upon it, platform TO
which they had solemnly pledged their fidelity. Why
make il PLATFORM if its relations all with the past,
and ii il was to produce results TO the future'
Were the pledges Of candidates and the platforms OF
venons mere declarations Of respect for dead letter.
agreements TO abide by policy. coupled with under
standing that it henceforth to be inoperave'
We are told that this Compromise Of 1850, over which
the whole country reoiced if like new-rsen sun, it
had driven darkness from the land settled principle and
suggested remedy for future confcts that il settled
certain specific controversies, but barren of prece
dents for the settlement of future controversies OF like
character; that il fnalty and therefore finished
nothing and determined nothing; that 1t was a "inaiy"
in this onlythat putting end to nothing, it had come
TO nothing itself. We admit such doctrines. In our
judgment, the Compromise of 1850 imbodied everlasting
ago than they will be in all time TO come Upon those
principles hope TO every future controversy re-
gard slavery the Territories adjusted because thereby
the right Of The people TO be heard in their own affairs
will be recognised unequal and think, unconsi
tutiona Legislation abandoned, and peace and harmony
restored throughout the country