Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-05-04

ment and tits juggle worthy of the trick Of
one egg under three hats at the same time-and
under neither at any time. Besides, the Constr
tuition is an organic net an administrative act.
! Il is code Of principles, not of laws Not
clause in il can be excused except by virtue OF
law made under it--not even the clause for re-
covering fugitive slaves.
But am not done yet with the beauties of
this mode of repeating a law by an exception.
There is futher consequence to be detected IN
it. The Missouri Compromise consists of two
distinct parts first, an abolition of slavery in
all the ancient Louisiana north and west OF
Missouri; secondly, a provision for the recovery
of fugitive slaves in the territories made free.
By the omitted extension of this section, both
these parts are repealed. A tract of country
larger than the old thirteen Atlantic States and
bordering thousand miles on the British do
minions, is made an asylum for fugitive slaves.
There will by no law to recover slave from all
that vast region. The constitutional provision
is limited to States; the provision in the act OF
1887 is limited to the Northwest Territory; the
second part of the Missouri Compromise extend
ed this right to all the territory north and west
of Missouri and that being repealed, that right
of recovery is lost. object to this on the part
of the State of Missouri-the State to be most
injured by governing all the territory north and
west Of her, quite out to the British line, into
an asylum for runaway slaves. The blunder
cannot be corrected, lat least, in the opinion of
those who deny the constitutional power OF Con-
gress to legislate on slavery in Territories) by
an act of Congress.
Then comes the reason for excepting the Mis-
souri, Compromise from the extension which
is given to a mass of laws which are not there,
and denied to itself which is there. If the rea-
son had been because it was already there, it
would have been logical and comprehensive
reason but that is not the cause assigned and
those which are assigned art actually numerous
and curious, and worthy Of examination. First,
because IL was superseded by certain acts oil
1850; next, that it is inconsistent with those
acts; then that it is inoperative and, finally
that it never was there, being dead in its birth
under the Constitution, and void from the be-
ginning.
Let us look into these reasons seriatim, as
: the lawyers say and first of suppression. 1t
: is said that the measures of 1850 superseded
+ this Compromise of 1920. If so, why treat it
now as still existing, and therefore to be re-
pealed by an exception in order to get rid of it !
If it was repealed in 1850, why do it over again
in 1854! Why kill the deadl But it was not
superseded but acknowledged and confirmed
by every speaker in 1850 that referred to the
subject, and by every act that mentioned it,.
This being matter of fact, and proved by all
! sorts of carbohydrates, written, and record
it had to be given up, Though test of po-
litical orthodoxy as long as it STOOD and some
thing else put in its place. Thereupon super
session was itself superseded by Inconsistent"
Out of thc4rying-pan into the fire Inconsist-
ent signifies inability to stand togethcr-two
things which cannot stand togethcr-from con
and sisfo. Now, what is the fact with respect
to the Compromises of 1920 and 1867 Can
: : they not stand together! And if not, why
knock the one down that is already down! It
;; is now four years since this inability to stand
together took effect; and how do the two sets
Of measures make up together at the end of this
time! Perfectly we'll They are both on their
, feet-standing bolt uprigh will stand so
forever, unless Congress knocks one or the other
Of them down. This is fact, known to everybody,
andadmtted by the bill itself; for if the first is
inconsistent with the second, and unable to stand
why all this trouble to put it down! Why trip
; up the heels of the man already fat of his back
on the ground Then comes another reason
3 that this compromise of 1920 is imperative and
void. If so, those who are against its operation
! should be content 1t is in the very condition
they wish it-unless powerless, inactive, dead
: and no bar to the progress of slavery to the
S North Void is vacant, empty, nothing of it,
/, Now, if the line of 80 deg. 30 min. is inopera-
tive and void, it is in the condition of fence
n pulled down, and the rails carried away and
the field left open for the stock to enter But
It the fence is not pulled down yet The line is
: not yet imperative and void. 1t is an existing
substantive line, alive end operating and ope-
rating effectualy to bar the progress of slavery
to the North and will so continue to operate
e until Congress shall stop is operation.
G Then comes the final reason, chat there never
t was any such line in the world-that it was
e unconstitutional and void-that it had no ex-
: istence from the beginning and that it must
: not be repealed by direct act, for that would
s be to acknowledge its previous existence, and
; to nulify the constitutional argument; and,
what is more terrible, involve the authors of
If the doctrine in an inconsistency of their own;
c and thereby make them, themselves, imperative
e and void And this is the analysis of the rea-
sons far the Nebraska bill-that part of it which
o o is to get rid of the Compromise of 1920; I'M
j. true, contradictory, suicidal, and preposterous.
And why such farrago of utilities, incongru-
= tiles, and inconsistencies Purely and simply
to throw upon others--upon the Congress of
1850 and the innocent Constitl tion--the blame
# of what the bill itself is doing; the blame of
e destroying the Compromise of 1920; and with
d it, destroying all confidence between the North
and the South, and arrying onc-half the Union
against the other in deadly hostility. 1t is to
: be able to throw blame upon the innocent, that
this farrago is served up to us.
And what is all this hotch potch for! 1t is
to establish principle, they say-the principle
. of non-intervention-of squatter sovereignty.
Sir, there is no such principle The Territories
IL are the children of the States They are minors
Q under twenty-one years Of age and it is the
business of the States, through their delegations
} in Congress, to take care of these minors until
Il they are of age-until they are ripe for State
Goyernment-then give them that Government,
= and admit them to an equality with their fathers
u That is the law, and the sense of the case and
y has been 80 acknowledged since the first Ordi-
y nance in 1884, by all authorities, Federal and
. State, Legislative, Judicial. and executive The
II States in Congress are the guardians of the
> Territories, and are bound to exercise the guar
u dianship; and cannot abdicate it without a
d breach Of trust and derelecion of duty. Ter
u ritorial sovereignty is q monstrosity, born OF
s. timidity and ambition, Matched into existence
4 in the hot incubation Of Presidential canvass
% and revolving to the beholders when first pre-
"a sented. Well do Iremember that day when il
y was first shown in the Senate. Mark Anton,
y did not better remember the day when Caesar
y krst put on that mantle through which he was
10 afterwards pierced with three and-twenty sen.
e vious stalrs." 1t was in the Senate in lS48
VI and was received as nonsense--as the essence o.
u nonsense-as the quaintessence of nonsense
= as the fye-times distilled essence of politica
H. nonsensicality. Why, sir, the Territory itsel
y is the property of the States, and they do wha
- they please with it--permit it to be settled OF
70 not, as they please cut it up by lines, as they