Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-24

course, the mere assertion of such principle
could not suspend an established Law, with
which it was in conflict. Nothing but formal
act could do that But the truth To- the asser-
tion Of this principle which legitimatey APP
piled only to the Territories then under consd-
GRAFTON, even ii stretched to embrace the Terri
tory now under consideration, does not conflict
with the Missouri Compromise The declara-
ton Of is50applies to the people OF Territory
,ohsn they haze been authorized 10 form State
Constitution Missouri Compromise applies
in express terms to Territory an as territorial
condition. There is no conflict between them (;
or, if there be, the declaration war qualified
and limited by the Missouri Compromise, in
stead Of suspending it.
Again, too we re-state the fact, which we
brought out some ten days ago-that so far
from the Missouri Compromise having been
suspended by the Compromises Of 1850, it was
incorporated, and now stands, as part OF
them. aThe organ" the Sentinel, the whole
tribe Of Propagandists dare not deny this.
They choose to ignore it. The Territorial Com
mittee of the Senate does not deny IL; and if
it admit it, it stands convicted by the admission
Of making false statement in this l4th Sec
ton. We shall re-state the point we made, in
the language Of the address of the Independent
Democratic members Of Congress, printed IN
this days Era
aThe statesmen, whose powerful support
carried the Utah and New Mexico acts never
dreamed that their provisions would ever be
applied to Nebraska. Even at the last session
OF Congress, Mr.. Atchison, Of Missouri, in
speech in favor of taking up the former Ne
braska Bill, on the morning OF the Attn OF
March, 1853 said It is evident that the Mis-
souri, Compromise cannot be repealed 80 iar
"a that question is concerned we might as well
agree to the admission of this Territory now,
as next year. or five or ten years hence, These
words could not have fallen from this watchful
guardian Of Slavery, had he supposed that this
Territory was embraced by the pro-slavery
provisions Of the Compromise Acts This pre-
tension had not then been set up lt is pal
pable after-thonght.
aThe Compromise Acts themselves refute
this prctension In the third article OF the
second section Of the Joint Resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States, it is ex-
pressly declared that in such State or States
as shall be formed out Of said Territory north Of
said Missouri Compromise line, Slavery or anvoi-
,ntarq serutude, ercept forcrine shall be Prohib-
tied - and in the Act for organizing New Mex
leo and settling the boundary of Texas, pro
yiso was incorporated, on the motion OF Mr..
Mason. of Virginia, which distinctly preserves
this prohibition, and flouts the bare-faced pre-
tension that all the Territory of the United
States. whether south or north Of the Missouri
Compromise line, is to be open to Slavery 10
is as follows
acProvided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed TO impair or qualify ANY
THING contained in the third article of the
second section of the Joint Resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States, approved
March /, l845, either as regards the number
Of States that may hereafter be formed out OF
the State Of Texas, OR oTHERwIsE'
aHere is proof, beyond controversy, that the
principIe Of the Missouri Act prohibiting Sla-
yery north of So deg 80 min, far from being
abrogated by the Compromise Acts, is ex-
prcssly affirmed and that the proposed repeal
of this prohibition, instead of being an affirma-
ton Of the Compromise Acts, is repeal OF
very prominent provision Of the most important
act OF the series 1t is solemnly declared In
the very Compromise Acts that nothing herein
contained shah be construed to impair or quail
ify the prohibition of Slavery north OF SO deg.
80 min, and yet, in the face of this declare
ton, that sacred prohibition is said to be over
thrown. Can presumption further gof 10
all who, in any way lean upon these Compro-
misses wo commend this exposition"
Is further argument necessary? Honest
men have the whole truth before them-they
clearly understand it. Dishonest men are not
to be influenced by argument. IL they can
vote for the Bill with hope of IMMUNITY, they
will IL not, they will vote against it.
Let the People speak out and say whether
the Missouri Compromise shall be annulled or
not. II they are determined that it shall
stand, let them instruct their Senators and
Representatives, 10 crush the Bill. IL they
are willing il should be abrogated, willing that
Nebraska should be pcopled with slaves, will
ing that the Slave Power should rule from the
Lakes to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, let them sleep on. There are men
enough, If unrestrained, to carry through the
foul conspiracy, especially with all the power
Of the Administration TO back them. For, we
are advised by the organ Of this date, that
athe policy Of the Administration is directly IN
poiped IN this question"
Our readers must excuse our Importantly,
but il is manifest that the question we are dis
cussing is to be the great topic Of the session
il takes precedence Of all others in Importance
and engrossng interest. We should be false
to the People, il we did not devote to il 80 large
space in our columns.
prAcr AVN HoN arRRIT SMITH