Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-05-11

gunpowder hid in the cellar under the
wood. [Laughter.] My answer to such
motion is to be found in the whole volume
of my political life. have stood upon
the Missouri Compromise for above thirty
years, and mean to stand upon it to the end
of my life, and in doing so shall act not only
according to my own cherished convictions
Of duty, but according to the often declared
convictions of the General Assembly Of my
: State. 1t is said that the measures of 1850,
: superseded this Compromise of 1920. If
! so, why treat it now as still existing, and
. therefore to be repealed by an exception, in
! order to get rid Of it? If it was repealed
: in 1850, why do it over again in 1854 p
, Why kill the dead? But it was not sus-
pended, but acknowledged and confirmed
: by every speaker in 1850 that referred to
the subject, and by every act that mentioned
it. This being matter of fact and proven
by all sorts of testimony, written and re-
corded, it had to be given up through test
of political orthodoxy as long as it stood,
and something else put in its place. There
upon supervision was itself superseded by
= inconsistency-out of the frying pan into
= tbs fire! Laughter. Inconsistent sig
y nifes inability to stand together; two things
e which cannot stand together from con and
e Sisto. Now, what is the fact with respect
S to the Compromise of 1920 and 1852
$ Can they not stand together? And if not,
: why knock the one down that is already
: down?
: 1t is now four years since this inability
: to stand together, took effect, and how do
d the two sets Of measures make out together
: at the end Of this time? Perfectly WE'LL
e They are both on their feet, standing both
Z upright, and will stand so forever. unless
d Congress knocks one or the other of them
C down. This is fact known to everybody
= and admitted by the bill itself; for if the
n first is inconsistent with the second, and
Y unable to stand, why all this trouble to put
1t it down? Why trip mp The heels of mar
'e already flat on his back on the ground p
Of Then comes another reason that this Com.
IN promise Of 1850 is imperative and void.-
D. If SO, those who are against its operation
ID should be content. Itis the very condition
to they wish it, unless powerless, inactive
rt dead, and no bar to the progress of SLAYER,
re to the north. Void is vacant, empty. moth
to ing of it.
lie Now, If the line of 36 deg. 80 min. is in.
Id operative and void, it is in the condition O
n fence pulled down, and the rails carried
IN away, and the field left open for the stock tc
e. enter; but the fence is not pulled down yet
as The line is not yet imperative and void
he 1t is an existing substantive line, alive an,
to operating effectually to bar the progress o
in slavery to the North, and will SO continue t.
mt operate until Congress shall stop its opera
en- ton. Then comes the final reason, tha
n there never was any such line in the world
O. that IT was unconstitutional and void; that
We had no existence from the beginning, an
l. that it must not be repealed by direct aci
re for that would be to acknowledge its previ
to GUS existence and nullity the constitutions
In argument, and what is more terrible, nvOlv
cy the authors of the doctrine in an inconsist
of ency of their own, and thereby make them
lis selvs imperative and void.
of And this is the analysis of the reason {
til the Nebraska bill. That part of it whic
'r- is TO get rid Of the Compromise of 1920
on untrue, contradictory. suicidal, and prepo,
a ferrous. And why such farrago of nullite,
I'D incongruities, and inconsistencies? Purel
ed and simply to throw upon others-upon tn
e- Congress of 1850, and the innocent Cor
est stitution. the blame fwhat the bill itself
en- doing--the blame of destroying the Con
ch promise of 1920. and with it destroying a
vi, confidence between the North and the Soutl
+. and orraying one half the Union against II
on other in deadly hostility. 1t is to be ab
m TO throw blame where it does not belon,
it, And what is all this hotch potch for? 1t
,ry to establish pri' ciple-they say the pril
in ciple of non-interventicn, of squatter SOW,
reignty. Sir, there is no such principl
TIL The territories are the children Of the State
ve- they are minors under twenty-One years
i'd ago, and it is the business of the State
of through their delegations in Congress,
The take care of these minors until they are
81, age, until they are ripe for State goverl
air ment, then give them that government az
far admit them to an equality with their father
ore That is the law and the sense of the cas-
les and has been SO acknowledge since the fir
n? ordinance in 1884 by all authority, FEEDER
nu- and State legislative, Judicial and executiv
the The States in Congress are the guardian
ion of territories, and are bound to exercise Il
,,t guardianship, and cannot abdicate il witho