Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-05-11
NJ E ID R "A = * a.
SPEECH OF MR.. BENTON.

pair the Missouri Compromise line of 1920
had been brought into this House by men,
ber from slave State, or under the Ad-
ministratlon OF a President elected from a
slave State, should have deemed it my du
ty to have met it at the threshold and TO have
made the motion which the parliamentary
law prescribes for the repulse of subjects
which are not fit to be considered. Ishould
have moved its rejection at the first read
ing. But the bill before us, for the two
may be considered as one, does not come
from that quarter. 1t comes from free
State and under the Administration of
President elected from free State, and un-
der that aspect of its origin l deemed it
right to wait and hear what the members
of the free States had to say to it. 1t was
proposition from their own ranks to give up
their half ofthe Slavery Compromise of 1920,
and if they chose TO do so did not see how
the southern members could refuse TO accept
it. 1t was a free State question, and the
members from the free States were the ma.
jority aud could do as they pleased, SO stood
aloot waiting to see their lead, but without
the slightest intention to become governed
by il. had my own convictions of right
and duty, and meant to act upon them. l
had come into political life upon that Com
promise. l had stood upon it above thirty
years, and intended to stand upon it TO the
end-soitary and alone if need be, applause
and laughter, but preterring company to
solitude, and not doubling for an instant
what the result would be.
have said this bill comes into Congress
under the administration of q free State
President, but l do not mean TO say or in
sinuate that the President favors the BILL
| know nothing of his disposition toward it.
And if did should not disclose it here
1t would be supplementary, and breach
of the privilege of this House to 90 so.-
The Presidents opinions can only be made
known to us by himself, in message in
writing.
The question be-
fore us is to get rid of the Missouri Com
promise line, and to lawyer that is an ca.
sy question, That Compromise is in the
form of a statute, and one statute is repeala
BILE by another. That view is enough for {
lawyer; to statesman it is something diff:
ferent, and refers the question of its repea
not to law books, but to reasons of Stat,
policy,to the circumstances under whicl
it was eracted, and the consequences whicl
are to flow from its abrogation. This Com
promise of 1920 is not mere statute t,
last for a day. 1t was intended in perpetui
ty, and so declared itself. 1t is an enact
ment to settle controversy, and did settl
it, and cannot be abrogated without revivin,
that controversy. 1t has given the countr,
peace for above thirty years; how man,
years of disturbance will its abrogatiol
bring? Thatis the statesman's question
and without assuming to be much of a states
! man, claim TO be enough so to consider tn
: consequences OF breaking a settlement whicl
pacifed continent. remember the Mis-
souri, controversy, and how it destroyed al
social feeling and all capacity for beneficial
Legislation. and merged all political princi
pie in angry contest about slavery, dividing
the Union into two parts, end drawing u
f the two halves into opposite and confrontin
lines, like enemies on the field Of battle
5 I do not wish to see such times again an,
G therefore am against reviving them b
breaking up the settlement which quete
:, them.
e The Missouri Compromise of 1920 wa
n the petitioning between the Free and Slav
States off great province, taking the char
acter Of a perpetual settlement, and classin
= with the two great compromises which CAV
i us the ordinance of July l3, 1887, and II
i Federal Constitution of September II of Ii
same year. There arc three Slavery Con
promises in our history which connect then
selves with the foundation and the preserv;
ton ofthe Union. First the territorial pa
IN tition ordinance of 1857, with its clause *
u the recovery OF fugitive slaves. Secondl,
lie the cotemporaneous constitutional recogn
.. tion OF Slavery in the States which choo,
re to have it with the fugitive slavery recover
;" clause in the same instrument. Third
The Missouri partition line of 1920, vii
- the same clause annexed, for the recover
of fugitive slaves; all three of these con
promises are part and parcel of the same pc
icy, and neither OF them could have bee
- formed without the other, nor either of the
- without the fugitive slave clause added
it, The Constitution could not have bee
70 formed without its recognition Of Slavery
On on the States, which chose it, and the guara
Al x,rxby 10 ra,oyar .layaa Aaain0 4