Washington sentinel., 1854-02-25
restriction, as / have said ;abus many Of her

=
restriction, as have said ;abut many of her
members-a majority of two, believe, voted
for the substitute as the lesser evil of the two ,
| In this way the substitute was carried as an
amendment to the bill. This amendment was
4 agreed to in the House by a vote of l34 to AZ.
I Among these AZ noes are TO be found the names
of several of the most prominent men Of the
! south. In this way this line of 36o 30< was in
cprporated in the bill of 1890, preparatory to
1 the, admission of Missouri as State. And to
this extent, and no other, can it be called
compromise, contract, or compact. 1t WAS
Literally forced upon the south as a. disagreea..
bic alternative, by superior numbers, and In
this way went upon our statute-book as any.
Il other lato passed by majority of votes. So
4 much, then sir, for this compact, or contract.
i Now let us see, in the second place, how it has
beenfu6lled or adhered to from that day Ito this.
= The gentleman says it has been acquiesced
il and conformed to for thirty years, and he
asks, with much solemnity, if we are now about. 4
4 to violate and abrogateit? i have shownr sir,
4 thatithe South was in. no sense party to this
congressional restriction north Of 36o 30<, ex-
| cept as atvanqaished party, being outyotedi on
the direct question, and protesting against it
i with all her might and power, Yet, sir,notwith-
standing this, and notwithstanding large ma
jorily Of her people from that day to this, as
! think may .safelyaffrm, have held that clause I
| OF the Missouri act to be unconstitutional, asit
/ was based upon the principle Of division of.
1.-THE common territory between the free States
| ahd slave States Of the Union, for the sake of
place and harmony, the south did 5patriolcally
| yield, and was willing for all time to come 70
abide by it. II say sdas, because of, tins !" Mis-
souri, compromise land the, principles upon i
which ii was founded it may now be, said !" ~
t4m fitit,n lt si.:. n III. s.
+ The issue make with the gentleman upon
this branch Of his speech is, that this agree.
utent orcontract, as he, argued it, between the 1,
north and the south, asto the line Of division Z
between slave territory and free territory. has i
NOT remained undsthrbed and inyiolate for b
thirty years, as he aftrmss lthas been shame,pi
Lid principle was entirely superseded, as shalt
show by the principles established BY your legis,
| larion in 1850. t,a st 5 \:
/. But jnasmuch as the arrangement was origl-
nRlIy obnoxious to the South, the charge Of yio.t
llaton Of it cannot justly be made against her,
No, sir; no, sir; it was the North that refused
to abide by her own bargain ....sts jl.~ ...s .
| This affirm and. now let. ps see hoy, the
record stands upon the. subject. The first time
that this Question came aP atterVarqS lf was
itseiG and before the same Congress II cam came
up on the application Of Missouri for admission,
in pursuance Of the provisions Of the very
act that contains the covenant, She, had
formed State constitution in pursuance
iof iii; she had violated, none of its eondi 8
ttions., The whole south were for letting her be
admitted. and the entire north, nearly, were !,
against it. Here is the, vote rejecting her ad
mission. The, vote was ~ for it and 93
against 1.-THE north in mass almost against
1.-THE provisions of the, act of March preceding
Las containing any section binding upon them
iii the nature Of q "contractie 81 Z. n.cosnpact,n
| Why did they refuse to-fulfll il? The p,etfsTf i
assigned was, that the constitution Of Missouri
/ cpptained q clause empowering Che Legislature
LTD pass law 10 prevent the introduction 81 /
lfree persons Of color, as have stated. But !
this could have beer. nothing but pretext for !
! at that very day Massachusetts had a Similar !
law in actual force upon her statute book. The l
truth is the north at that early day showed !, :
act Of 1920 as at oil obligatory upon theni as
ANYTHING like a compact The real objection
'to The .fnal, admission Of Missouri as State {
was that slavery was tolerated within her limits
'by her constitution. 1t Was The old question
Which gave trouble before this contract Of {
1870 was made. It was then that Mr.. Clay's
compromise was adopted. I Twelve months, !
therefore, Had, not passed before the north re- I
pudiated this cornpact BY refusing Missouri
aQnlSSlOT WlluOuG duOlueI
Well the next time this question arose was
On the admission Of Arkansas into the Union,
| in 1886, This State was formed out Of a part
Of the louisiana purchase south Of 36' 30,.
BY the terms Of the Missouri "contract,n the
gentleman from Vermont admits that she was
to coffe In as a slave State Did the north n
then SO recognise and act upon these termsfs
kTKe gentleman from New York Mr. FEyToNl
| laid that this division line had been approved \
W the north for thirty years III SO. Il ask him
/ when or where? Did they raise no objection
When Arkansas applied for. admission? dsLst
hs see here is the record 't.lF q tf"iial A7s.,
Mr.. John Quincy Adams, in this House,
June l3, 1886, MOVED an amerdment 50 sito
make a section of the bill for the admission Of
that Statelread thus: heas7t tAt 'sti' ,"s'ilat
aAnd nothing III this actcontained shall be conl
strned as an assent by 70 the arf,es ss'
Ms ohaait ,aeion aftr, ,saiR Safs ssalg sAsrsyt
Ind 10 teema qf ares}5c u III y .,..itysad
4 Still harping on my daughter, ,,i,s,,a BAni
Ona vote. the effect of which was. to allow,
this amendment, there were, eighty in, favor of
afording the opportunity. here we're one
hundred and nine on the, opposite side, which
prevented its being offered. Qfsthess eighty
votes, some were from the south. ~ Their object
may have been 10 get q vote upon this distinct
btesrior ofthe recognition blythe House of thel'
line established in 1920. But after tiie aniends
ment was ruled out, on the direct note for the
ADMISSION Of Arkansas. with a constitution toll.
Grating, slavery, though she was sonth oslS6o-
BOZ, There Are fAy4two. names eul,derr tho eadii
pfaMr Adams, iii the negative; every ono of
tnen,, + believe, from the north, hare the
Journal before me; And ahnohgst these oanness.
see Heman Allen, Horace Everett, Hiland
| Hail, Henry r. Jones, and William Slade71.77,
| The entire delegation from Vermont The gem
| tleman's INF eMeAcHAM'sl own, predecessor
! upon this fioor or he who then represented a.
portion Of the same constituency that that gem
| tleman now does, recorded his vote against the
admission Of Arkansas. Did Ne dot his col.
/ leagues have any other objection TO t'eScept'
/ that it was slave State? If they regarded"
| the line Of $50 30e as d solemn eovenant be.
i give II their sanction at that time? 4 ~ .';t,
The gentleman spoke ofah honor III" lt.