Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-01-21

q
national democracy unit, and repose conf
IDENTITY upon the conviction that the federal
| Union is safe. We commend Mr.. Douglas
report not only for the ability with which it Is
| prepared, Eut for the sound national, Union.
loving sentiments with which it abounds. We
shall publish the report in our next issue"
After publishing the above the Washington
Union remained silent until the tenth of this
month, when it spoke as follows:
=" The NEBRASKA BILL AND THE CoMPRo
MIsE-Whilst the organs OF abohtionism arc
stultifying themselves in their effort to make
an issue between the Missouri compromise of
1920 and the compromise of ls5O-bo,h of
which we're violently opposed by them during
the perilous scenes of lS50--we are gratifed
TO witness the earnestness and promptness with
which our democratic contemporaries are rally
ing TO the support of the principles proposed to
be incorporated into the Nebraska bill. 4sahis-
t9rical fact, ace may remark, that IN 1850 Judge
/ Douglas proposed 10 adopt the Missouri compy0-
mise hne, and to erfead Il to Tie Pacific; Jutthe
organs ichih now insist upon The ariolability
| 81 ttH compromise, denounced has propositions
as base trucking 10 a STARE potrer. That
| proposition failed H Congress; and no,c, tchen
he proposes tie compromise Of 1850 as the basis
| offie Nebraska 6al, he Is denounced By the
saats organs as trucking 70 the Stare po'ee,,
because Re does not again bring .toreard tie
NSso4ri cpatpruHtss."
On the 18th of this mouth, the Washington
| Union found itself compelled to take some no
lice or the position Of its abolition ally of AL,
bany and, with little more tact than it usu,
ally exhibits, it undertook TO cloak and conceal
the faults Of its friend. II even ventured to
hint that its friend was not exactly on the right
track. But the Alias was stubborn and AFRO
CANT and somewhat insolent to the Washington
Union. Those qualities are, however, almost
always exhibited by men who have overreached
weakness and imbecility, because every man
dispises weak victim; as game easily taken is
not esteemed by the hunter
But TO return to the chronological order.
| When the alias denounced that feature of the
Nebraska, bill which provides that the State or
States TO be erected from the territory, should
be received into the Confederacy with or with.
out slavery, as their constitution may prescribe
at the time of their admission, the Washington
Union spoke as follows:
ave do not understand the Atlas to take the
ground with the Tribune, that the ordinance Of
l7STis conclusive ofthe question, and renders
any action of Congress null and vod-that we
regard as the abolition or freesoil position; but
the atlas maintains that, as this Congress can
not prescribe rule for future Congress
which will be obligatory, therefore the insertion
of this clause was nullity. Upon the same
principle we understand the atlas to concede
that the clause in the compromise of 1920 was
l IL 1. .zlI.- 4 I
be irrepeaabe by subsequent Congress- and
hence that provision, too, was nudity Upon
these positions it seems to us that the objection
of the Atlas falls to the ground, or at least, only
indicates an aversion to making plain, self
evident declaration, viz: that when State ap-
| plies for admission into the Union, it has
right to recognise slavery or not in its consti-
1 tuition, and Congress has mo power to inter.
| fere with its decision of that question.
| Taking this view of the reasoning of the
Atlas, we conclude that the Aryus has misin-
| terpreted its position, and that the article con-
tains nothing which indicates the purpose of
that journal to cooperate with freesoilers or
abolitionists in opposing the bill.
But the reasons for the insertion Of the
clause criticised by the atlas should be dis
tinctly stated The clause is copied literally
from the compromise acts Of 1850 as to Utah
,cere situated north Of the Missouri compromise
line. It's insertion IN those acts ,oas demanded
as solemn recognition Of the great principle
| IF congressional non-iaterreatioR. This prin-
ciple lay at the foundation Of the compromise
| II ii can aoc be said ruth correctness that the
Nebraska oil proposes TO repeal the compro-
mise act ofl820, so might Il hare been said acih
equal correctness as to the Utah and Nep Meri-
co bills. If it be true, as maintained by the
| the atlas, that this clause in the Nebraska bill
will be dead letter on the statute book, so
rth equal force could it be said, that THIS clause
in the Utah and ,,Neo Merico bills uas dead
letter. And get the declaration in this clause
,cas essential to gire ritaiitg to the compromise
Of 1866 acas the recognition Of a great pri,,-
ciple, and as such receired and acq,iesced u,
| By the country as an essential element in the
settlement Of the slacery question. We shall
not undertake to maintain that this clause
either in the compromise of 1850, or in the
Nebraska bill, can estop future Congress
| from disregarding its provisions but, in the
language of the atlas, there is still an obi
CATION imposed by every such arrangement
| the faith Of the public men who participate in
il, and OF political parties who acquesce in it,
that the bargain will not be consummated on
one side, and repudiated on the other r..
| '"This is said BY the 4tiaS in reference to the
| COMPROMISE OF lo2O--lt is true with greater
force in regard to the Compromise of 1850
| Tie effort ,ras made la 1850 10 settle the oaes-
tim M adhe,ing 10 the Compromise Of 1920,
hit IL. failed. The settlement was finally made
on a iaew principle Of compromise. The clause
in controversy constitutes an essential ingre-
dent in that compromise. Has that compro-
mise merely intended 10 apply to tie Terri
tory Of Utah and Nen McricoP Has 1t IN
ended 10 he a final settlement Of The slarery
ayitdtionp In what sense did our public men,
who participated in that settlement, pledge
their faith to abide by its terms Was it
a final settlement In what sense did the
democratic party unite at Baltimore in pledging
its faith to adhere and abide by the Compro.
mise Of 1850, and to resist all further agitation
| of the slavery question, whether in Congress or
out of /? Was this covenant intended to be
temporary and partial, or perpetual and uni-