Daily national era., 1854-02-08
WASHINGTON, d. c..
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1854.
A DESTRUCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

y
nounced n modification Of the l4th section OF
his Bill, as the result of consultation among
the friends Of the measure. He moved TO
amend the Bill by striking out from the l4th
section the words-"which was superseded by
the principles Of the legislation Of 1850, COM
monty called the Compromise measures and is
hereby declared imperative" and to insert,
(which, being inconsistent with the principle
of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery
in the States and Territories, as recognised by
the legislation of 1850, commonly called the
Compromise measures, is hereby declared in
operative and void; it being the true intent
and meaning Of this act, not to legislate Slavery
into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per-
feotly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of tho United Statss.v
The distinction between the words rs they
stand and those proposed to be substituted, is
without difference. The section now de-
clares the Missouri Compromise "inoperative;"
amended, it would declare it imperative and
voidn The reason now assigned is, that "the
Compromise was superseded by the principles
of the legislation of l85O"-a statement ad-
mitted by the friends of the Bill to be untena-
ble The reason assigned in the amendment
is, that the Compromise is "inconsistent with
the principle Of Non Intervention by Congress
with Slavery in the States and Territories rec
ognised by the Legislation Of 1850" This
averment is just as illogical and untrue as that
proposed to be stricken out;-illogical, because
the Missouri Compromise applied to one Terri
tory; the elegisation of $780, to other Territories
Admitting that the principle of one is Non
Intervention, and that of the other Interven-
tion, there is no conflict or inconsistency be-
tween them, for they apply to different Terri
tories The Ordinance of 1887 embodied the
principle Of Intervention, the act of Congress
establishing a Territorial Government for Mis-
souri,, the principle of Non Intervention: they
were not inconsistent, for each could stand, be
maintained, without subvsrting or impairing
the other; they could not come in conflict with
each other, and, as matter of fact they never
did each was operative at the same time. As
we have already said, the non. assertion of a
power or right in one case, does not imply its
non. existence, or pledge against its exercise
in other cases. The averment is just as un-
true, historically as that proposed to be strick-
en- out: for it not a fact that the principle
of Non-Intervention by Congress with Slavery
IN the States and Territories was recognised by
the legislation of 1892 Slavery ain the
States and Territories was not the question
under consideration, or the question settled.
The only Non-Intervention policy adopted
applied in express terms exclusively to Utah
and New Merieo and to them only, in the act
of becoming States, NOT 10 their Territorial con-
dition. The language is too plain to be mis-
taken.
aThat when admitted as a State, the said
Territory, or any portion of the same shall be
received into the Union with or without Sla-
very, as their Constitutions may prescribe at
the time of admission"
This provision is inserted in each of the
Bills for the formation Of Territorial Govern.
ments in New Mexico and Utah, and it is clear
that il restricts the Non-Intervention principle
to these Territories and to these only in the act
of becoming States. This, the Washington
Union, in it's elaborate editorial Of January
2Oth, expressly declared, as follows:
at will be remembered, that the Bill pro-
posed to be amended by MIR. Douglas reenacts,
and applies to Nebraska, the clause on Slavery
adopted in the Compromise Of 1850. That
clause is silent as 10 the question Of Slavery
during the TERRITORIAL CONDITION OF THE
INHABITANTS, but expressly recognises and as
sorts their right TO enter INTO the Union as a
State, either with or without the institution of
Slavery, as they may determine in their Consti-
tutionsD
In the face Of all this, the amendment now
proposed by Mr.. Douglas and his friends, AYERS
that "the principle of Non-Intervention by
Congress with Slavery in the States and Terri
tories" was recognised by the Legislation Of
1892 q
IL is utterly untrue, and il is difficult TO see
how any Senator, with q decent regard for
truth, can, on a moments reflection, vote for it,
As an incidental consideration, showing the
strange obliviousness of Senator'S we may re-
mind the reader that they have entirely over
looked the fact that one Of the acts in the lcgs-
lation Of 1880, which is averred in their
amendment to have recognised the principle
of Nom Intervention by Congress icifh Slavery
in the States and Territories, was distinct act
Of Intervention with Slavery in the District Of
Columbia, prohibiting the importation Of slaves
into this Territory, either for sale or to be
placed in depot for transportation to the
South. This act was denounced by large
portion Of Southern men as Intervention Of a
most mischievous kind and yet, we doubt not
they are ready now to vote that the principle
Of Non Intervention was recognised by the
Legislation Of 1850! -
We have been told Of the high sense Of hon
or in the South! Publ Il contains shout az
much Of that quality as the North, and neither