Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-17

BY the condition imposed on Missouri, Con-
gress not only deprived that State of right
which she believed she possessed under the Con-
stitution oil the United States, but denied her the
privilege of vindicating that right in the appro-
pirate and constitutional tribunals, by compel
ling her, "by solemn public act,' to give an
irrevocable pledge never to exercise or claim the
right Therefore Missouri came in under q hu-
initiating condition. condition not imposed by
the Constitution Of the United States, and which
destroys the principle Of equality which should
exist and by the Constitution does exist, between
all the States of this Union. This inequality
resulted from Mr.. Clay's compromise Of 1922,
and is the principle upon which that compromise
was constructed. own that the act is couched
in general terms and vague phrases, and there
fore may possibly be SO construed as not to de-
priye the State Of any right she might possess
under the Constitution. Upon that point wish
only to say, that such construction makes the
fundamental condition" void, while the opposite
construction would demonstrate it to be uncon-
stitutional. ] have before me the "solemn pub
lie act" of Missouri to this fundamental condi-
tion. Whoever will tuke the trouble to read it
will find it the richest specimen of irony aud sar-
casm that has ever been incorporated into a SOL
emn public act. g.-t -- ar.i aag-..l .A. .,,
Sir, in view of these facts desire To call the
VI SeUdlOT HOln VIEW OTk 10 HIdLe"
ment in his speech, upon which the greater part
of his argument rested. His statement was, and
it is now being published in every abolition pa.
per, and repeated by the whole tribe of abolition
orators and lecturers: that Missouri was admitted
as slayeholding State, under the act of 1920;
while have shown, by the Presidents proclama-
ton Of August 10, 1921, that she was admitted
in pursuance of the resolution Of Murch Q, 1881.
Thus it is shown that the material point of his
speech is contradicted by the highest evidence
the record in the case. The same statement
believe, was made by the senator from Connecti-
cut Mr. SMITH and the senators from Ohio
H Mr.. CHASE and Mr.. WADEl and the senator
from Massachusetts Mr. SUMNER. Each OF
these senators made and repeated this statement,
and upon the strength Of this erron ous assertion
called upon us to carry into effect the eighth Sec
tion Of the same act. The material fact upon
which their arguments rested being overthrown,
OF course their conclusions are erroneous and de-
ceptive. ....g.-s , ...... .-
Mr.. SEWARD. hope the Senator will yield
for moment because / have never had so much
respect for him as have tonight. -
Mr.. DOUGLAS see what course have to
pursue in order to command the Senators re-
spect. know now how to getit. Laughter.
Mr.. SEWARD. Any man who meets me boldly
commands my respect. | say that Missouri
would not have been admitted at all into the
Union by the United States except upon the COM
promise of 1920. When that point was settled
about the restriction of slavery, it was settled in
this woy; that she should come in with slavery,
and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase,
which is now known as Nebraska should be for
ever free from slavery. Missouri adopted con-
stitution, which was thought by the northern
STATES to infringe upon the right OF citizenship
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, which was new point altogether; and
upon that point debate was held, and upon it a
new compromise was made, and Missouri came
into the Union upon the: agreement that, in re-
gard to that question, she submitted to the Con-
stitution of the United States, and SO she was ad-
mitted into the Union.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, must remind
the senator again that l have already proven that
he was in error in stating that the north objected
to the admission of Missouri merely on account
of the lree-negro clause in her constitution. |
have proven by the vote that the north objected
to her admission because she tolerated slavery;
this objection was sustained by the north by a
vote OF nearly two to one. He cannot shelter
himself, therefore, under the free-nrgro dodge,
SO long as there is distinct vote Of the north
objecting to her admsson because, in addition
to complying with the act of 1920, she did not
also prohibit slavery, which was the only consd-
Grafton that the south was to have for agreeing
to the prohibition of slavery in the Territories
Then, having deprived the senator, by conclusive
evidence from the records, of that pretext, what
do drive him to! compel him to acknuwl.
edge that new compraLise was made.
Mr.. SEWARD. Certainly there was
Mr.. DOUGLAS Then, | ask, why was il
made! Because the north would not carry out
th A-,I 4hoh host hat tt,r
north did not carry out the first one is the sena-
submit to a new one. Then, if there was
new compromise made, did; Missouri come in un
der the new one or the old one. s....s
| Mr.. SEWARD. Under both.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. This is the first time, in thi:
debate, it has been intimated that Missouri came
! in under two acts of Congress. The senator die
not allude to the resolution of 1921 in his speech
none OF the opponents Of this bill have said it,
/ But it is now admitted that she did not come in
to the Ulion under the act of 1920 alone. Sht
had been voted out under the first compromise
and this vote compelled her to makea new one
! and she came in under the new one; and ye
the senator finn New York, in his speech, de
clared to the world that she came in under tn
! first one, This is not an immaterial question:
His whole speech rests upon that misapprehen
sion or missiatement Of the record.
Mr.. SEWARD. You had better say misappre
| hensiGn.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Very we'll. We will call !
by that name. His whole argument depends
4 upon that misappreheusion Alter stating tina
the act OF 1920 was compact, and that thu
north performed its part Of it in good fai h, HI
arraigns the friends OF this bill for proposing tt
annul the eighth section of the act OF 1920 with
ont first turning Missouri ont of the Union, il
order that slavery may be abolished therein BY
the act of Congress, He says to us, in sub
stance: "Gcntlemen, if you are going to rescint
the compact, have respect for that great law o
morals, of honesty, and Of conscience, whief
compels you first to surrender the consideration
which you have received "under the compact.'-
concur with him in regard to the obligation L
restore the consideration when a contract is re
! Iseinded. And. iffasmuch as the prohibition Il