Washington sentinel., 1854-04-27

restriction and the laws regulating intercourse
with the Indian tribes Under these cireum-
stances, an act of Congress, simply repeating
| the Missouri restriction, would leave only the
laws regulating the intercourse with the In
dians. A Badger amendment to such an act Of
| repeal would add nothing to it. and take moth
ing from it; for the repeating act itself would
leave Nebraska in the condition of newly dis
covered country, in which no law touching
slavery had ever been enacted.
| The common law rule that the abrogation of
a repealing law revives the original law is
founded on presumed intention. The logic
is this: A law written on the statute-book is be-
| lieved to be wrong by the lawmaking power,
which, in accordance with that belief passes
an act of repeal. If afterwards, the act of re-
peal is annulled, the presumption is, that the
law-making power regretted the act of repeal,
and intended to revive the original law. This
logic is compact enough where there is a naked
annulment; but it falls to the ground at once
when the annulling act is coupled with de-
claration that no such result is intended, but
that its true intent and purpose is wholly and
entirely diferent-to give validity to new prin.
ciples of legislation. If then, there were laws
anterior to 1920, binding on Nebraska, but re-
pealed by the Missouri act of that year, the
reason of the common law rule would not per
init their revival by the unamended provisions
of the Senate's bill. But there were no such
laws, and fthere ever had been, other legislation
of Congress has annulled them without the
aid of the Missouri act
Taking this view of the case, we think that
the true question presented by this feature Of
the original Nebraska bill, and by the bill as
amended turns upon the right and propriety Of
abrogating the Missouri restriction of 1920.
No one who believes that that restriction is un-
constitutional can object with reason to its re-
peal; and it seems to us that those of the south
ern States who oppose the Senate's bill for any
reason whatever touching slavery are pursuing
course which, if successful, must continue an
odious and positive prohibition Of slavery in
Nebraska, by preventing the repeal Of the 9Th
section Of the Missouri act, rather than support
bill because of fanciful overstrained, and un-
founded objections to portions oft.
But it has been asserted-and the assertion
was repeated, a few days ago, by one who in
times past held an enviable position before the
public-that the Missouri compromise line was
forced upon the north by the south. This is q
mere bubble which has been often exposed !;
and we did not think one week ago that we
should ever be called upon to expose it again
The fact is, that Missouri applied for admission
into toe Union, and the north undertook to
prevent her admission as State whilst her
State constitution recognised slavery and by
that course the north forced the line Of 36o 3O/
on the south the alternative being the re-
lection Of the application made by Missouri to
enter the Union with republican form ofgov-
ment. 1t is preposterous to suppose that the
south forced the Missouri line on the unwilling
north, for the north was the strongest. 1t is
preposterous to suppose that the south desired
suchaine, or would have accepted it except on
compulsion.
It is said, however, that even if the act Of
March, 1920, was unconstitutional, it was in
the nature Of compact sacred compro-
mise-sanctifed by thirty years acquiescence.
The fact is not so. 1t was violated Immediate
ly after its passage by the north for the north
insisted in 1921 upon other points, and made
new objections, by which the admission Of
Missouri into the Union was delayed until that
State complied with the provisions of "the
Missouri compromise brought forward by Mr..
Clay.
81, The act of 1920 has never been practically
acquiesced in as sacred compromise, as we
have just stated. It was repudiated as such.
The southalwaysregarded it with dislike, butwas
willing to acquiesce in it as a permanent adjust
ment. Aided by an honest minority from the
north, the southern representatives succeeded
in effecting the admission Of Arkansas against
the efforts of John Quincy Adams at the head
of majority Of the southern representatives.
Since then there is no instance Of a settlement
of slavery difficulties by applying the line Of
36o 3O<. The south was willing to apply it to
Texas, but the north refused The south was
willing to apply it to our Mexican acquisitions,
but the north refused. These facts made the
adoption Of new principle absolutely neces-
sary, and demands the repeal of that which has
never been acquiesced in faithfully.
-$sos<--
THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
WHIGs AT VARIANCE-WHICH
WILL GIVE WAYs
Some time since we called attention to re-
IL IL e.