The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1854-03-07


age OF tho lawgivor, whether the sovreQn bo
Democratic, Republican, or Despotic. Is always
the same. II is mandatory imperative. Iftke
iawgiver explains at all in a statute the reason
Is that 1t is his pleasure-sic Uoto, SIC j1beo-
Look at the compromise of 1920. Does IL ple-
ad an excuse for iis defi1apdsi Look at tho
compromise OF 1850, drawn by the masterhand
OF our American Chatham. Does that bespeak
your favor by aquibbling or shutting apologyi
Look at your own, now rejected, first Nebras.
ka bill, which, by conclusive implication, saw
ed the effect of the Missouri compromise. Look
at any other bill over reported by the commit
tee on Territories. Look at any other bill now
on your calendar. Examine all the laws on
your statute books Do you find any one bill
or statute which ever came bowing, STOPPING,
and wrigglng into tho Senate. pleading ali ex.
cuse for its clear and explicit declaration Of the
sosrcign and irresistible will Of the American
people! The departure from this habit in this
solitary case betrays self disirnst, and an attsi
mpt on the part of the bill to divert the pub
lic attention, to raise complex and immaterial
issues, to perplex and bewilder and confound
the people by whom this transaction is to be
reviewed. Look again at the vacillation betra-
yed in tho frequent changes ofthe structure Of
this apology. At first the recital told US that
the eighth section of the compromise act of
1920 was superseded by tho principles of the
compromise laws Of l850-as if auy one had
ever heard of n supersedeas of one local law
by the mere principles of another local law,
enacted for an altogether different region, thir-
ty years afterwards. On another day we were
told. by an amendment of the recital, that the
compromise of 1920 was not superseded by the
| compromise Of 1850 at all, but was only "in-
consistent with" it-as il a local act which was
irrepeniable was now to be abrogated, because
| it was inconsistent with subsequent ofiact.
| ment, which had 10 application whatever with
| in tho legion TO which the first enactment was
confined. On third day the meaning of the
recital was further and finally elucidated by an
amendment, which declared that the first irre-
pealable act protecting Nebraska from Slavery
was now declared imperative and void,' be-
cause II was inconsistent with the present pur-
poses OF Congress not to legislate Slavery into
any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there
from.
But take this apology in whatever form il may
DO expressed, and test its logic by simple pro-
cess.
The law of 1920 secured FREQ institutions in
the regions acquired from France in 1903, BY
tho wise and prudent foresight of the Congress
OF the United States. The law Of 1850, on tho
contrary. committed the choice between froo
and slave institutions in New Mexico and Utah
Territories acquired from Mexico naarly AT.
|
or the caprice of their earliest and accidental
occupants. Free Institutions and Slave Insti-
tutions are equal, but the interested cupidty of
the pioneer is a wiser arbiter, and his judgment
a surer safeguard than the collective wisdom
of tho American People and the most solemn
and time-honored statute Of the American Con-
gress. Therefore, let the law of freedom in
the territory acquired from France be now an
nulled and abrogated, and let tho fortunes and
fate of reedom and Slavery, in the region ac-
quired from France. be, henceforward, deter
mined by the votes of some seven hundred camp
followers around Fort Lavenworth, and the still
smaller number oftrappers, Government school,
masters, and mechanics, who attend the Indi-
ans in their seasons from hunting in the pass
es of the Rocky Mountains. Sir, this syll oQsm
may satisfy you and other Senators; but as for
mo, must bc content to adhere 10 the earlier
system. Stare euper datiguas uids.
There is yet another difficulty i'm this new
theory. Let it be granted that, in order to
carry out now principle recently adopted In
New Mexico, you can supplant compromise
in Nebraska, yet there is maxim of public law
which forbids you from suppanting that COM
promise, and establishing now system there,
until you first restore the parties in interest
there to their statu quo before the compromise
to be supplan,ed was established. First, then,
remand Missouri and Arkansas back to the uu-
settled condition, in regard to Slavery. which
they held before the compromise OF 1920 was
enacted. and then we will hear you talk Of re-
scinding that compromise. You cannot do this
You ought not to do it. :fyou could; and be.
cause you cannot and ought not to do it, you
cannot without violating law, justice, equity,
and honor, abrogate the guarantee of freedom
in Nebraska.
There is still another and not less serious di-
ficulty. You call the Slavery laws of 1850 q
between the slavehoding and nom
slavehoding States. For the purposes of this
argument let il be granted that they were
such compromise. 1t was nevertheless a
concerning Slavery in the Terrific
ries acquired from Mexico. and tho lottcr
Of the compromise il extended no further
Can you now, by any act which is not a com
promise between the sanc parties, but mere
ordinary law, extended the force and oblga-
ton of the principles of that Compromise of
1850 into regions not only excluded from it,
but absolutely protected from your interven-
lion there by solemn compromise Of thirty
years duration, and invested with sancitty
scarcely inferior to that which halows tho Con-
,titution itself!
Can the Compromise of 1850, by nero or
iinary act of legislation, be extended beyond
he plain. known, fixed intent and understan-
ling Of the parties ut the time that contract
vas made, and yet be binding on the parties TO
t. not merely legally, but in honor and con-
science? Can you abrogate compromise by
passing any law Of less dignity than COM
promise? If so. ofwhat value is any one or the
whole of tho Compromises? Thus you see
hat these bills violate both Of tho Comprom-
ses-not more that Of 1920 than that Of 1850.
Will you maintain in argument that it was
by the parties Interested through
mt the country, or by either of them, or by
my representative of either. in either House
4 Congress, that the principle then established
hould extend beyond the limits Of the territories
cquirod from Mexico, into the territories ao.
uired, nearly fifty years before, from France,
nd then reposing under the guarantee Of tho
Compromise Of 1920? know not how Scns-
ors may vote, but do know what they will
ay. appeal to the honorable Senator from
iichigan, Mr.. Cass, than whom none per-
ormed more distinguished part in estab-
shing the Compromise Of 1850, whether he