Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17

answer TO TINS position 10 say, tndt tnose clauses
in the constitution of Missouri were in violation
of the Constitution. Ifthey did conflict with the
Constitution Of the United States, they were void;
If they were not in conflict, Missouri had right
to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary
TO carry them into effect. Whether such conflict
did exist is question which, by the Constitution,
can only be determined authoritatively by the
Supreme Court Of the United States. Congress
is not the appropriate and competent tribunal to
adjudicate and determine questions of conflict be-
tween the constitution of State and that of the
United States. Had Missouri been admitted with
out any condition or restriction, she would have
had an opportunity of vindicating her constitu-
tuition and rights in the Supreme Court-the tri-
bunal created by the Constitution for that pur-
pose.
BY the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress
not only deprived that State ofa right which she
believed she possessed under the Constitution of
the United States but denied her the privilege Of
vindicating that right in the appropriate and con-
stitutional tribunals, by compelling her, 'sby
solemn public act, " to give an irrcvocable pledge
never to exercise or claim the right. Therefore
Missouri came in under humiliating condition
condition not imposed by the Constitution Of
the United States, and which destroys the princi-
ple of equality which should exist, and by the
Consttion does exist, between all the Statesof
this Union. This inequality resulted from Mr.,
Clay's compromise of 1921, and is the principle
upon WHICH tnuL COMPROMISE WIS CuHoL uClcu. i
own that the act is couched in general terms and
vague phrases, and therefore may possibly be so
construed as not TO deprive the State of any
right she might possess under the Constitution.
Upon that point wish only to say, that such
construction makes the Fundamental condition"
void, while the opposite construction would de-
monstrate it to be unconstitutional have be-
fore me the "solemn public act" of Missouri to
this fundamental condition. Whoever will take
the trouble to read it will find it the richest spsc
men of irony and sarcasm that has ever been in
corporated into solenfh public act.
I Sir, in view of these facts desire to call the
attention of the senator from New York to
in his speech, upon which the greater
part of his argument rested His statement was,
and it is now being published in every abolition
paper, and repeated by the whole tribe of aboli-
ton orators and lecturers, that Missouri was ad-
mitted as saveholding State, under the act of
1920; while | have shown, by the Presidents
proclamation of August 10, 1921, that she was
admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March
2, 1921. Thus it is shown that the material
point of his speech is contradicted by the highest
evidence--the record in the case. The same
statement, believe, was madeby the senator from
Connecticut Mr.. SMITH and the senator's from
Ohio fMr. CHASE and Mr.. WADE and the sena-
tor from Massachusetts, Mr.. SuMNER.] Each Of
these senators made and repeated this statement,
and upon the strength Of this erroneous assertion
called upon to carry into effect the eighth sec-
ofthe same act. The material fact upon which
their arguments rested being overthrown, Of
course their conclusions are erroneous and decep-
tive.
Mr. SEWARD. / hope the Senator will yield
for moment, because / have never had so much
for him as have tonight.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. / see what course have to
pursue in order to command the Senator 8 respect
know now, how to get it. [Laughter.l
Mr.. SEWARD. Any man who meets me
boldly commands my respect. / say that Mis-
souri, would not have been admitted at all into
the Union by the United States except upon the
compromise of 1920. When that point was set
tied about the restriction Of slavery, it was set
tied in this way: that she should come in with
slavery, and that all the rest Of the Louisiana pur
chase, which is now known as Nebraska, should
be forever free from slavery. Missouri adopted
constitution, which was thought by the northern
States to infringe upon the right of citizenship
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, which was new point altogether; and
upon that point debate was held, and upon it
new compromise was made, and Missouri came
into the Union upon the agreement that, in re-
gard to that question, she submitted to the Con-
stitution of the United States, and SO she was ad
mtted into the Union.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr.. President, | must re-
mind the senator again that have already proven
that he was in error in stating that the north OBJ
jected to the admission of Missouri merely on ac
count of the free-negro clause in her constitution
| have proven by the vote that the north objected
to her admission because she tolerated slavery
this objection was sustained by the north by
vote of nearly two to one. He cannot shelter
himself, therefore, under the free-negro dodge, SO
long as there is distinct vote of the north OBJ
iecting to her admission; because, in addition to
complying with the act of 1920, she did not also
prohibit slavery, which was the only considera-
a. ~ - L,,, Co.
the prohibition of slavery in the Territories
Then, having deprived the senator, by conclusive
evidence from the records, of that pretext, what
do | drive him to' l compel him to acknowledge
that new compromise was made.
Mr.. SEWARD. Certainly there was.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Then, ask, why was it
made' Because the north would not carry out
the first one And the best evidence that the north
did not carry out the first one is the senator's ad-
mission that the south was compelled to submit
to new one. Then, if there was a new COM
promise made, did Missouri come in under the
new one or the old one'
Mr.. SEWARD Under both.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. This Is the first time, in this
debate, it has been intimated that Missouri came
in under two acts of Congress. The senator did
not alude to the resolution Of 1921 in his speech
none Of the opponents Of this bill have said it.
But it is now admitted that she did not come into
the Union under the act Of 1920 alone. She had
been voted out under the first compromise, and
this vote compelled her to make a new one, and
she came in under the new one and yet the sem
ator from New York, in his speech, declared to
the world that she came in under the first one.
This is not an immateral question. His whole
speech rests upon that misapprehension or mis-
statement of the record.
Mr.. SEWARD. You had better say misap-
prehension
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Very we'll. We will call
it by that name. His whole argument depends
upon that misapprehension. After stating that
the act of 1890 was a compact, and that tho
north performed its part of it in good faith, he ar
raigns the friends of this bill for proposing to an
nuf the eighth section Of the act Of 1890 without
first turning Missouri out Of the Union, in order
that slavery may be abolished therein by the act
ofCongress. He says to us, in substance: "Gen
tlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact,
have respect for that great law of morals, of hon
esty, and Of conscience, which compels you first
to surrender the consideration which you have
received under the compact" | concur with
him in regard to the obligation to restore the con-
sidcration when a contract is rescinded. And,
inasmuch as the prohibition in the Territories
north of 36o 30' was obtaised, according to his
own statement. by an agreement to admit Mis-