The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-14
CON G r ESSI0N AL.
SPEECH OF HON. HARRY HIBBARD,


of Representatives, May 8, 1854.
The House being in Committee Of the Whole on the
state Of the Union
Mr. HIBBARD said:
Mr. CHAIRMAN Those who imye served with me here,
r will bear witness that have seldom uespassed upon
me time or patience of the House While from the outset
have had doubt to the course proper for me TO pr-
ma pon this measure had proposed 10 leave the discus
son 10 other and ADLER minds The Importance of the
oestons involved however and the peculiar nature of the
grounds assumed by some OF the opponents OF the bill,
seen to require that should say something as TO the
reasons for the vote shall give. That vote sir will be
ii favor Of the bill The form prefer is the substitute just
offered by the gentleman from Illinois Mr. RICHARDSON,
which is the Senate bill without the Clayton amendment
though without that amendment the bill would receive
my support
il seems to me necessary for manifest and urgent
that organizations Of kind be extended these
Territories This fact do not understand TO be seriously
or extensively denied is concession has an important
learing upon the questions in controversy The dstin-
gushing principle which lies at the foundation OF te pro-
noed man commands the decided appreciation Of my udg
nent That sir is the great principle Of sELF-aoVERS
Mpsr-the doctrine that 70 every organized community sia
pertain the right under the constitution 10 regulate the
own domest affairs in their own way. shall conlena
that this provision not only expedient and Just IN lse
but that has already received the approval OF the country
in the emphatic sanction bestowed upon the compromise
measures Of 1850 of which il constituted the great leading
feature
II Is alleged that the abrogaon by this bill of the line
of the Missouri Compromise called of 1920 is recison
Of "a compact binding in morals, if not in lava yio-
ston of pghted faith shall maintain that this objec-
ton Is without foundation.
II i charged that the bill legislates slavery into the
Territories shall endeayor TO show that IT has no such
effect
Al the North the measure denounced yielding too
much to the South At the South il is assaed un-
due concession the North The existence of these
dctng objections Isl perhaps of the best proofs that
both are without adequate foundation.
The portion of the bill involving these and most of the
other grounds Of controversy is the following:
That the constitution and all laws of the United States
which locally inapplicable shall have the force
and effect within the said Territory OF Nebraska elsewhere
within the United States except the eighth section OF the
act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union
approved March, 1920 which, being inconsistent with the
principle of Intervention BY Congress with slavery in the
States and Territories recognised by the legislation OF
1885, Commonly called the compromise easures is hereby
declared imperative and void being the true intent and
meaning this legslate slavery into any Territory
State exclude it thererom but to leave the people
thereof perfectly and regulate their domestic in
stution in way subject only to the constitution
Of the United States Proudcd That nothing herein
ne shall be construed to revive or put in force any
regulation which may have existed prior to the act of March
1920 either protecting establishing prohibiting or abolish
ing slavery"
The eighth section of the act of 1920 preparatory to the
admission of missouri established the line of SO deg. 30
n north latitude the boundary between free and slave
territory The repeal Of that section proposed in the
clause cited abrogaes that line Is this violation OF any
solemn binding "compactg Is ii or not breach OF
aplighted aithY This question best be determined
upon examination of the character and history of the
enactment known as the Missouri Compromise
Missouri part Of tho Territory of Louisiana purchased
treaty was as follows.
The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be iacoro
rated u the Union Of the gnted States, and admitted,
tn to tie enjoyment ef all tic right advantages and
mites Of citizens Of e United States and in the mean time,
they shall be maintained and protected In the tree enjoy
profess"
The constitution of the United States provides that new
States may be admitted by Congress into the Union This
must be construed by every rule of Interpretation to mean
that the power shdH be exercised when the necessary and
reasonable requisites are complied with In accordance
both with constitutional and treaty stipulation, Missouri
formed her constitution and applied for admission. Her
request not my knowledge resisted for any reason
Involving her extent population or other similar matter
Il alleged that her proposed constitution did no
lmbody republican form OF government Missouri as Z
portion Of Louisiana sayehodng territory at the tm
Of the purchase Her proposed constitution tolerated sla
very it had before existed For this her admission
Of the express stipulation of the treaty that the inhabitan
Of the Territory should be admitted into the Union anC
protected In The rts enjoyment OF their liberty religion
and property Of which property their slaves were part
twent upon the ground that Congress- by imposing con
ditons Of admission may dictate and control the law
and local policy Of the States and that the institution o.
slavery henceforward TO be the subject Of this kind
congressional inhibition. IL was assumption in my
judgment and dangerous under the op
Grafton Of which the original conederacy could have
been formed nor ii formed could IT have continued e
exist The recognition of such doctrine would have cx
Guided from the Union every southern State Il NO
strange that twas srenuousy opposed not only by th
crate Of the North who in it not only the yola
ZION OF vital principle but the establishment of prece
dent which would In time react with disastrous conse-
qnences upon their section. The contest was pro
uacted and severe 1t the first of those sectional
struggles which have since frequently arisen 10 excite
popular preudees distract the public peace and menac
the existence Of cherished institutions. The SOUND
Of The conflict that fre-bell in the night which
broke upon the startled Of Jefferson filing his patriot
mind with anxious apprehension for the safety OF the re
public to the establishment and maintenance of which hi
hnsrous life had been long and gorousy devoted
Mlength however, the storm oyerpasL The ship 0
state had been tossed upon the waves Of agationhc
sails were rent by the winds of angry controyersy-bu
She weahered the breakers and struck not upon the rock
Of dismemberment and disunon.
The controversy settled supposed, BY the pas
sage Of an act the first section of which provided;
That the nha bitants Of that portion Of the Missouri ter
or included within the boundaries hereinafter designated
p and they hereby authorized 10 form for themselves
constitution and State government and to sucl
name as they shall deem proper and the said State, wbei
ormed shah be admitted into the Union upon equal foot
ing with the original States in all respects wha'socyer
The sixth section was follows:
That in all that territory ceded by France the Unite,
states under the Of Louisiana, which lies north Of q
ug 10 min. north latitude not included within the mir
~ he State contemplated by this act slavery and invoun
% ervitude otherwise than in the punshmcn Of crimes
whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted shall be
"Hu hereby, forever prohibited"
This constituted what is called the Compromise Of 1920
ana he line designated in the clause last cited is commonly
known As the MlssoURI-C CoNPRoNIsR LINE
assuming forever 70 prohibit slavery north Of that lin
congress clearly transcribed Us constitutional power 81
~ related TO STATES which might bc formed out Of terri
~ covered BY that restriction. Any State may legaiu
@ insulation at pleasure under the same rule by whic
- my my abolish H. As South Carolina may forbid slavery
wv hampshire Massachusetts, may establish II to
VW' .' This was admitted by the gentleman from Mis-
Ii 70 ms speech Of the other day when he denied in EN-
p "fm the competency Of Congress TO control tn