Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-18

III
deny that it what it is intended to mean in certain
localities Ah ha! "equiyocal terms" Great states-
manshp, this
think the bill was before us in this form for about
three days when my honorable friend from Kentucky
mr. DIxosa feel under great obligation him for
the service he has rendered usntroduced proposition
to abrogate the 9th section of the act Of 1920 once
This have involved my friend the chairman for
the Territories in pretty serious difficulty and he all at
once concluded to up to the SCRATCH therefore he
reports new BILL dividing the one Territory which he
proposed originally into two and inserting instead of the
2st section Of the bill first reported the following pro-
vision:
That the Constitution and oil laws Of the United States
which are not locally inappcabe shall have the force
ana eneot within the said Territory of Nebraska elsewhere
Wnin inc United State except the eighth section OF the
act preparatory to the admission Missouri into the Union
approved March SIXTH eighteen hundred and twenty which
superseded by the principles legislation eighteen
hundred and fifty commonly called the
and is hereby declared imperative"
Whereupon the honorable chairman delivers himself in
his opening speech as follows
"Upon the other point that pertaining to the question OF
slavery in the Territories was the intention Of the commit
tee to be equally explicit We took principles established
the compromise Of 1850 guide and intended to
make each and every provision Of the bin with those
principles Those established upon the
great government that the people should be
allowed to decide the questions Of their domestic institutions
for themselves only to such limitations and restrc
imposed by Constitution the United states.
instead of having them determined by arbitrary or geo.
graphical line"
That is to say the committee by the 2st section Of
the bill as first reported really intended to aside the
Missouri restriction for has been all the while insisted
that the eighth section of the act of 1920 is in principle
and substance incompatible with the of 1880
The honorable chairman seems to nave forgotten that he
had declared in report in express terms, that the
mittee could not recommend the repeal Of that section
The speech and the report do not jump together very
WE'LL or in other words, he is like Of Shakspeares
characters, the latter end Of whose discourse forgot
was superseded by the legislation of 1862 Whoever
before heard of solemn act Of Congress being suppressed
ed by principles and if superseded where the necessity
of adverting to the subject at ALT
This curious performance to have perplexed hon
orable Senators nearly much the original demon
straon The honorable chairman at length found out
thatt would hardly do; and therefore, he says he
consulted the friends of the measure in other words
he held council Of war and the result of their united
medtations is substitute, which will now examine
In the course Of practice, Mr. President, which
tended over some fifteen twenty years. became
what familiar with the constituting Of statutes, and knew
how their different parts were designated We, who
lawyers have all heard Of the preamble of statute the
enacng clause, the exception or qualification and the
proviso but never before heard of the exordium and
the peroraton of statute or bill.
Here we have the exordium of the proposed amend
ment
(Which THAT is to say the eighth section of the act
of 1920 "being inconsistent with the principle of inter
venton by Congress with slavery in the States and Territo
es recognised by the legislation oflS5o, commonly called
the Compromise measures"
Here the enacting clause
"Is hereby declared imperative and void" ";
Here the peroration: r.# ..
at being the meaning Of this act not to le
gsate slavery into any Territory State exclude it
herefrom but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their in their way
subject only to the Constitution of the United States"
My honorable friend from Massachusetts, (Mr. EVE
RETT) seemed to be greatly perpexed with this singular
affair." and asked with great propriey why you do not
simply that the eighth section " be and the is
hereby repealed? No doubt it would have been done
50 were it not for the political elements to which have
adverted. Probably the honorable chairman Mr.. DoUG
LAs had in his tenderfooted Wings and Democrats
for whom he to have profound soicitude This
looks to me very much like adrot cunning legislation
suspect it apprehended that it would not quite do
to break down the Missouri Compromise at once, by
the ordinary, simple plain enactment Theidea must be
held out that if the eighth section not absolutely
overthrowa by the legislation Of 1850 was in mys-
ferrous way undermined weakened that it is pro-
per now to blow it into the air. 1t about half de-
molished then, and there is call to give it the
coup de grace
What is meant by the expression inconsistent with
the principle of non-ntervenJion " Do you mean to as
that the legislation of 1850 is SO incompatible with
repugnant to that of 1920 to annul the latter We
all know that incompabiity between acts may be such
as that both cannot possibly stand and that in such
the latter will so operate as to repeal the former Will
any one assume the responsibility Of affirming that ncom
pabity has annued the act of 1920? If so, where is
the necessity of your interpositon and if not why
not the measures stand together Can be said than
that the legislation Of 1850 is unlike that of 1920 it
is Is it to put into acts of le-
gsation, touching kindred subjects different or unlike
provisons Must all Territorial legislation be cast in the
same mould? May you not have set of provisions
for one Territory and different set for another? Nay,
not this often Indispensable You therefore arrive at
the conclusion (Which you determined reach any
howl that the eighth section shall be inoperave and
void" without any It is your sovereign will and
pleasure. Further not the words "inoperatve and
void perfectly exploits What occasion is there to de-
clare their t'true intent and meaning" Or, in other
words why have you introduced the peroraon and why
o procedure SO extraordinary?
Sir, this is legislation with excuses or apologies.
You knew that direct repeal and in the ordinary form
would give great shock to public sentiment this coun-
try and therefore the subject must be beogged and be
made to plausible aspect
Can it be possible that honorable and upright gentle
from the South about approve such indrecton
and arfce? We know that legislation like the act of
1870 has ever been to them stumbling block and Of
fence and they may be willing get rid of the eighth
sections but it to that it would better be their
character for frankness to have the abrogaon accom-
pished in the ordinary way and in simple plain terms
Mr. President, in my judgment the extraordinary pro-
ceedngs here depicted proof conclusive that the in
aerthought The ncessan mutations which the pro-
posed legislation has undergone within brief period
show that you have fixed ideas the subject and the
adrotness of the verbage which you throw around the
only operative clause prove an apprehension that the
may after oil turn out quite hazardous Indeed
the whole proceedings have n very bad aspect; and
we are willing that the people Of this country should
believe that the Senate Of the United States has ceased
DC the exalted dgnifed body it formerly we should
reject with indignation imbued with such sim
suar, not to say unworthy, elements.
And here sir, must be permitted to notice the many
ncongruous notes which the organ published in this
y has sounded forth this subject. When the honor