The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1854-03-10

void, and that we had no remedy, onl
after course Of years; who in the State
I ask ,swould be found dssricOble enoug
so decIpie shaslhe people of Ohio ha,
ihe fulI control Of their Internal affairs
But Ills is a fair exhibit Of Dough-,
scheme fot Nsbraskp, ,oi Nebraska 40,
Kansas, after the Missouri compromis
aclsshall ba repealed, ms Isss=aissss; will
ltbe aid Of souihcrn statesmen 10 do so.
H., II may be- replied, tbstil'is pSoSidedgiI
fihe bill tha, the people shall control ,h
Iqueslion Of slavery; but care is iakel
liliat, hey shall moi lhase this 'fighl during
lthsir Territorial existence. OF what use
lis, This quibble, but for effect and 10 mis-
Head, { '''9l' ,oH s's nog peia Wa ~
ID such ohdchoenis, 1 fsiI1osa feusor
for lie repeal of tie Missouri coinrro
misc. \ With Compromises, SO tarf as They
effect the settlement of. teTiIoties, 7 have
no war. Though the doctrine Of fnal-
tiss'inl legislation 4 cannot sustain. ri
,naliiiesyih legislation have no foundation
10 republican, principles, ID any truly
intelligent theory of progressive legisla'
lion. Nevertheless, in q country like
ours, publicTfaitIi aoughtto9be maintained
between ahe Different sseiioas of bike
Union. Il is essential 10 that harmony
which should chafacteIizs, as far as can
be attained, our common Union-a Union
pest preserved BY legislation just, liberal,
humane, and equitable TO all interests,
giving unjust privilegestol olhone!, soD 9i''
This opening the Nebraska Territory
% slavery encroacament certainly does
not present an adjustment byt people
of The vexed question Of SLAVERY "upon
their oGn responsibility, and inatheir own
Manner and it is ON this pretence thai
in opposition 10 the Baltimore Platform,
SO faf IS The same prolhBits agitation, this
agitation Of iliisiquestiohl has been again
thrust upoh2iEe country; not proceeding
from fanatics in our cities dnd rural dis
,licis, but ffom d high placed legislator
in the United States Senate bsi'4s'
We hear much of The compromises ol
The constitution. Iknow ST no compro-
mise in the United States Constitution
which authorizes legislation by Congress
for the extension Of slavery into free terri
tory, YET am free 10 admit ihaiif the
President and Congress may appoint and
executive and judicialauthor-
ii,ies ofieuilories, actatethe Organization
rof their governments, and may retain q
right 10 nullify yiheirleeislaiion, is use
less TO say that the rigltful and polItic
exercise of these lafge powers shall moi
extend either tonits Introduction hoF ills
exclusion. gI'eBH .s7agRqsw9H gdt He
When The constitution Of the United
States was adopted, The teIriiories oftbe
Union we're comprised by the norih,wes'
territory, in whicls by the ordinance ol
|l787, slavery was prohibited. The force
Of lha. Olsinlnce is now disputed, but
this is "a new doctrine which was moi
held BY The early statesmen IF The Re
public, and is a discovery Of more mos
dem mon, OF ihose slnyery propagandisls
who could notrecollect that the Missouri
Cdmpmmlss was unconstitutional when
Texas was 10 be admitted as slave
State ), but only awake 10 knowledge ,ol
The fact when, free territory is TO be
affected. ,q,i,y s5, X, a...gas,, n
! Senator Douglass, in his speech in
Senate, December "a, 1851, on Foote's
restitution affirming the compromise Of
1850, says in regard 70 the Missouri
Compromise and Texas bae,,sp8 sts.,
saWhen, the stormy agitation arose in
connexion with the annexation, Of Texas,
I originated and FIRST brought forward tllo
Missouri Compromise, as applicabls 2 TO
that territory, and had Tho qualification TO
sec il Incorporated in the bill which an
pexed Texas 10 ihs United iS,aies.a ]
did not deem il q matter OF much mos
meni, as applicable 10 Texas alone, butI
did conceive il TO be Of vast importance
in view Of the probable acquisition OF
New Mexico and California. My pre-,
ference sior the Missouri compromise, was
predicaied on the assumption that ths
whole people Of the United States would
be more easily reconciled 10 that measure
Than 10 any other mode Of adjustment,
and this assumption rested upon the fact
that the Missouri compromise had been
The means of nn amicable settlement oi
a fearful controversy in 1921, Dhich had
been acquiesed in cheerfully and cordially,
BY the people, for more than quarter Of
century, and which all parties and Sec
iions of the Union, prufessed torespeci
and cherish, as a fair, Just and honorable
adjustment | could discoverno reason
for the. application Of the Missouri line
to all the territory owned by the United
Stated in 1921, that would not apply with
equal force TO- IFS extension 10 the Rio
Grande, and, also, 10 the Pacific, SO soon
as we should acquire the country. In
accordance with, these views, 1 brought
forrard the Missouri compromise, at the
sessiopof iS44H5, as applicable 70 Teras,
and had The, satifaction to see it adopted 7
/ Holproceeds, 10 state that the effort TO
apply the Missouri compromise 10 a new
requirement Of territory, no, included in
It's provisions, was afailure, but he had
moi, nor bad any, public man ,whose opin>
y ~ 4