Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-18
THE NEBRASKA QUESTION.

l.... rsiEhsBukG IVA FEBRUARY III, 1904.
GENTLEMEN The question on the contested provision
in the Nebraska bill is not question Of extending or re-
strcng the sphere of negro slavery or of the slave
power The true question is question f it be ques
on) Of pghted faith Are the States committed to the
Missouri compromise! The question not whether Con-
gross is bound by the compact Whether Congress had
the power to make that compromise not is not mate
rial to the true Question: which is the States bound 5
u snd must they good faith obserpens If the Congress
in 1920 had power to adopt it, then it ought to be
pealed, if nothing has interviewed to sancy it and give
1t stability If the Congress did have the power adopt
it. then it must be admitted that Congress has the power
to repeal in case they deem it unwise or unjust
unless something has interviewed to sancty and to
mand its permarency and perpcuity. Have subsequent
events when consider the compromise as an act
Congress- whether with without rghtful authority
adopt it. interviewed to exalt it into transaction which
honoraby repe the touch of Congress? One fact stands
forth and demands to be heard-let him who has ears
hear let him who has conscience apply that fact-e
Missouri compromise line Of 36o 30 extended through
zds This was not done by Congress Alone but by the
essential consent of Texas she being sovereign State
1t is not noedfu to consider whether Congress had the
power to make this contract Texas regarded Congress
as having the power and the States Of the Union did not
nerpose at the tme have they since by any
the geographical line Indicated It was not new con-
cepon in S45 that negro slavery should not exist in
Texas on the north of that line owing any popularity
IN the climate or other condition Of Texas The line was
extended alone in Difference to the
ment entered into when Missouri admitted as State
into the Union. That line withal was so extended with
scarcely dissenting voice in the Congress 1s45 That
contract by which the line of 36o 30 was extended
through Texas was contract between the General Gov
eminent and the then Independent State of Texas Put
ting aside the fact that the States then composing the
Federal Union have NOT by any sovereign act of theirs
or Of any of them disannued that contract and the
controlling consideration remains that the General Gov
ernmen being Of the contracting parties has right,
if there is any faith in treaties any moral reliance in
contracts to annu that contract to declare it nope
rative" unless by distinct of her separate
veregn power in her reserved rights the State of Texas
shall agree to annul that contract This contract with
Texas was not merely that negro slavery be prohibited
the north side of $50 SO but distinctly prohibited the
north of that line commony known the Missouri com
promise line" So it is that if the Missouri compro-
mise, as Louis McLANE said, at best the assump-
ton of doubtful power resisting people, it is
nevertheless true that the General Government has
reafrmed that compromise, not resisting people,
but when consentins sovereign State was high con-
tracing party If this contract may be annulled much
more clearly to the right to do it. may the legislation
of 1850, the same subject of slavery, be annued.
Must we be always at and in storm and the States
be driven by the General Government like pale sate
tes around some ilboding star The States in virtue
of the sovereign power in the people, not moving
the subject Even the State Legislatures are quiet on
the subject. PUBLIUS