Washington sentinel., 1854-03-01

there referred 10 tne aPPHoPiiac couiuittce.
That committee reported it back, with an
amendment admitting Missouri, without limi-
tation. An effort was made to strike it out,
which failed. And then Mr.. Thomas, of Illi-
nois, moved to add to the bill separate Sec
ton, providing that slavery should be excluded
fion the territory north OF go 3Ol and, in the
vote upon that amendment, it will be found that
the whole north, with the exception Of the
senators from Indiana, voted for that clause in
Producing the restriction and although large
portion of the south, nominaly majority,
went for it, large portion voted against it.
Among the adversary votes were two from Vir-
ginia, two from South Carolina, one from North
Carolina, Mr.. Macon two from Georgia, and
one from Mississippi, makssg, in all, eight votes
against it. And allow me to say, that these
members represented the bulk Of the slave
population at that time, being the members
from Virginia, from South Carolina, and from
Georgia, and that those who voted for it will be
found to have come from the border, or new
States, then not so much interested in the sub
ject.
Now there was one vote, and but one, by
which my State may have seemed to have assent
Massachusetts Mr.. SUMNER took care to refer
ory serves me. When the question came to
engross the bill for the admission of the State
of Maine, with this amendment, admitting
Missouri without the restriction, they voted for
its engrossment with the amendments. This
was done, / presume, upon the view that it was
competing proposition with that then pend
ing to impose restriction upon Missouri as
State, and to enable the south to force its ad-
mission upon some fair and reasonable terms.
But the bill, thus amended, went down to the
House, where the amendments were rejected,
and finally committee of conference was ap.
pointed, who reported two propositions, to wit:
That the two Houses should agree, by way Of
compromise, that Missouri should be admitted
without the restriction, and that a clause should
be adopted restricting slavery in the territory
north of 360 30>. What was the vote upon that
question? Out of one hundred and one north
ern votes cast upon that question, eighty y-seven,
or seven to one, voted against the proposition
to admit Missouri without the restriction; and
almost the entire north voted for the clause to
exclude slavery from the territory north of 36o'
30. Against that restriction were cast thirty
seven southern votes, thirty-nine voting for it;
and among those thirty-seven are to be found
eighteen from Virginia out Of twenty-two; and
four out Of six from Georgia. 1t will thus be
found that the strength of the vote which really
represented the slave population of the south
was against it.
But, sir, how did that compromise originate?
The senator from Massachusetts himself tells
US that the very first occasion upon which such
q proposition was ever announced in speech
was from o northern man, Mr.. Taylor, of New
York; that the very FIRST proposition that was
ever made, by way of motion, was from north
ern man, Mr.. Thomas, of Illinois; and yet he
says it was proposition of compromise which
originated with the south.
Mr.. SUMNER. The proposition of Mr.. Tay-
lor was, that slavery should be prohibited in all
Territories north of 360 30>, which included
Missouri.
\ Mr.. HUNTER. The gentleman says in his
speech:
at was in the discussion on the Arkansas bill,
al this session. that we find the earliest suggestion
ol a compromise. Defeated in his efforts 10 pro-
hipit slavery in the Territory Mr.. Taylor stated
thst he thought timportantthat some line should
be designated beyond which slavery should not be
permitted He suggested its prohibition hereafter
in all Territories Of the United States north of $50
30' north latitude
Mr.. SUMNER. That was the motion.
Mr.. HUNTER. The senator himself refers
tothat declaration as the first proposition which
was made fora compromise. The first motion
that was ever introduced was from the senator
from Illinois, [Mr. Thomas. How then can
he say that it originated with the South? May
not say
Credtur olim
Vefcatus Aihos ct quicquid Gracia mendax
Andet in historic: conslratnm classibus sdem
Symposium que roti- solidum marc.
Sir, was it in truth compromise at all ema-
mating from ANYBODY; and if SO, what did that
consist in? Why, he says that
the north forebore to exact the condition that
Missouri should come in excluding slavery,
and in exchange for it the south agreed to the
to exclude it from all the territory
north of $50 30/. Now, facts show that the
north did not agree to it, for large majority
voted against the proposition to admit Mis-
souri, without the restriction; and the facts
show that the north voted in almost solid col
umn on the other proposition, with large
number from the south Now, if it was q COM
pact, there ought to have been mutual obliga-
tions and a mutual performance OF conditions,
and here there are none. Bnt If 1T be valid
compact, to be implied from the circumstances
ofthe case, there ought to have been consider
alton What was the consideration Why,
that the north would forbear to do that which
she had no right to do ,onstitutionally. Are
there ten men, in either house, who will main
tain that Congress has right to say what sort
of institutions a State should have? Has not
that question been decided by our own Su-
preme Court2 That tribunal has decided, as /
shall show in the course of my remarks, that
no such restriction can be constitutionally inn
posed upon State. So far, then, as the ques-
ton Of restriction is concerned, it was nudum
pactum. The north gave no consideration for
this concession, which was said to have been
made by the south in exchange for it.
But if it was compact, how came the
north, at a succeeding session, TO violate it?
Because it is a fact that in 1921, when Mis-
souri, presented herself for admission, a large
Of the north voted against the pro-
position, upon the pretence that she did what
many State constitutions now do, she excluded
free negroes from her borders. How did the
north come to break 1T Shakespeare tells us
ofna sanctimonious pirate, who went to sea
with the ten commandments, but scraped one
outof the table,: Thou shalt not steal "--the
one he had no mind to. 1t seems the senator
from Massachusetts is very scrupulons in re-
gard to moral obligation when it works in his
favor, but when it operates against him he is
SILENT If II were q compact, what has he to