Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-06-03


Of 1885, only to be recognised In the formatio
of Territorial Governments since that time Sir To
attempt to show that we have succeeded in obtaining
recognition of great constitutional principle and TIN
this recognition is perfectly compatible with the refus.
to remove all existing restrictions upon slavery will
avail When in 1858, three years after the passage
the compromise established the TerritoriC
Government of Washington which was formed out of pal
of the Oregon Territory, man proposed to Ia
restriction BY which slavery was prohibited in that Ter
rtory.
But after all what sort of repeal of the Missouri com
promise is proposed to be given to US Is it bold, open
end simple annnlment Of acknowledged to b
wrong! No, sir; it is accompanied with the tmid de
caraon that it is not the intention to gsloe SLAYER
into any Territory State, nor to exclude it therefrom
This apologize declaration very much the appear
of affront, while seeming to wipe off an oil
che. If the Missouri compromise was right, why i
should be preserved If it wrong, then it ought Il
be repealed 1t cannot be both right and wrong
1t be said TO be neither the one nor the other. There
no middle ground between right and wrong If you adj
NIT the Missouri act to be unconstitutional unjust,
ought TO be restored to the condition in which that
found 1t is not for Congress to calculate tho conse
quences of repeating act acknowledged to be ndefen
ble If slavery revives, it is not by act It is only
unavoidable result of the anuument of act Sir
have little confidence in the efficacy OF that repentance
which confeses the sin but will not renqush its fruits
But it said by distinguished Senator from Illinois
(Mr DOUGLAS in letter to Northern newspaper that,
Congress allowed slavery to revive, 1t would be egis-
lang tinto the Territory; and he maintained as well MS
consent to the passage Of an by which slavery
| be SO legislated into Territory.
find in the Globe that Mr.. BADGER takes pretty much
the same view. But will give his words. He says:
sir, if the proavery Law, which existed in that Terri
tory when acquired it from France be revived BY the
peal the Missouri compromise act then Congress regivos
then CONGRESS puts again in force then il is the act o. Con-
gresa which truly though indirectly establishes the pro
slavery law there 1t taken Of the way by the Nils
scuri law and Congress, By repeating the Missouri law
revive the other then Congress egsates slavery into the
Territory"
Congress legislate slavery into Territory by repeating
law which had improperly prohibited its continued
stence And yet this is declared by gentleman OF high
and eminent character and qualifications Sir suppose
it should happen from the accidental absence Of FIVE
or ten Southern Senators and some fifteen twenty
Southern members of the House, that majority in Con-
greas should enact law aboshing slavery in the district
of Columbia Suppose that week afterwards, when the
absent members returned and the proper majority
restored bill should instantly be introduced to anul
the law What would be thought Of Southern members
who should declare that they could not consent revive
any law by which slavery allowed protected rs
that would be legisate slavery into Territory and
who should insist inserting clause providing that it
not their intention to do so? l cannot entertain
doubt but that, whatever Senatorial fasdiosity might
prompt, constituents would demand a. epeal-an
Immediate ruthless, unconditional repeal nor would it
to them that their Representatives legis
atng slavery into Territory where it did not exist
Such being the character and object of these bills it
there nothing in them calculated excite
the fears alarm the jealousy OF the North 1t might
rather be expected that the positions of the sections
would be reversed Northern sentiment towards Us must
be hostile indeed if their Representatives areto be
sured and discarded for supporting either of these bills
But cannot will not believe it. There is such I'm
fendlnes Our gallant and generous friends from the
Norhirends TO because friends of justice and the
Consiutionwil be sustained by their constituents
in substantial manifestations Of their good feeling
than in these equivocal concessions.
do not know that the North would oppose the acqui-
sitcn Of Cuba but it would be strange if at future
day, honorable and just treaty with SPAIN providing
for the cesson of that island should be defeated by the
casting votes Of the Senators from Nebraska and Kansas
Sir, if could be sure that Government would be
formed or would be wanted in these Territories for the
next twenty years think should vote against the pas
sage even of the House bill But have said, it is
only question of time and such is the present COM
pcaon circumstances attending this question:
pcaton the causes Of which do not intend to
painthat FOR reasons of sectional and national and
political character it be proper nd necessary
what, under other circumstances, could be done
without hazard to us. .. a.#
But Southern gentlemen appear to have been
deeply impressed with the kindness and condescenson OF
Northern friends They seemed to think that too
much was rendered to them. They oppressed with
sense Of obligation, and they wished to make conces-
sons in return The bill had been discussed for months
Public opinion had been formed upon it. But immediate
before its passage proposition offered and hasti
~ and almost without word of discussion adopted de-
carng that the repeal Of the Missouri restriction should
not be construed to revive put in force any law or
gulaou which may have existed prior to the of the
9th of March, 1920 either protecting establishing abol-
shing prohibiting slavery This is what is called the
Badger proviso What is the history Of this amendment
similar one was first proposed by Senator from Mi
chgan, (Mr. Stuart who pledged himself to vote
for the bill unless it were adopted Another Senator,
Mr. Chase of Ohio, as see from the report said that
among the amendments which he had to offer was the
very which the Senator from Michigan had declared
his purpose to offer On that very day the amendment
was moved by Southern Senator. 1t is in substance
and effect the that prepared by Mr. Stuart for
though also prevents the revival of any law prohibiting
slavery prior to 1920 well any law protecting it,
yet as there never had been law prior to 1920 prohibit
ing slavery that addition to Mr. stuars amendment was
wholly imperative.
1t is said that the effect and meaning of the bill
with the proyso only what it would have been with
out, and that the effect of the whole is that there shall
be tabo rdsaa total absence of all law protecting
relating to the slavery Suppose this So them
the Constitution and all laws not locally inappcabe
extended to Nebraska and Kansas it follows that every
other species of property protected but slaves Is this
equality Is this something to be proud Of? Is it
very honorable position for the South that while every
other man may convey every other subject of property
to that country and there find it protected by establish
ed law the only species of property from which all pro-
lection and all law expressly withdrawn is that in
slaves And is it very clear that without law
regulation, the claim of the would be respected
and enforced? Even though positive law might not be
necessary there least be some regulation Of
rule of society to support the title Of the stakeholder?
But why should this offer be made repeal the for
law 1t viii be recollected that four years ago
uitlessy attempted to induce the majority here to re
peal the Mexican law in order that might have thu
true principle Of nonntervention. Yet, in the face
the persistent refusal of the North to abolish the Mezi
law prohibiting slavery Southern come forward
and tender the repeal Of the local Of this country
Lila n