The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-08-26

just at tnls tlme 1t was part OF INC lerrl-
'ory of the United States and subject to their
Jaws, and Of course to the provisions of the act
of 1920 among Others
1t becomes, then exceedingly important to
the American people, in the present attitude
of affairs and the noise which is made about
"the encroachments Of slavery" particularly
in the alleged violation of faith by and the
gross per6dy Of the South in the repeal of that
act, (the North now demanding its restoration,)
and the erection of Territorial governments in
Kansas and Nebraska on the principle of popu-
lar sovereignty-which we concede to be in
violation of the compromise--to ascertain If
the admission of California did not practically
set aside all the covenants and guarantees of
the Missouri law on the subject of slavery in
the Territories?
Aswe read the law of 1920, and that admit
ting California in 1850, both enacted by the
same authority, they are wholly incompatible.
The latter is not simply violation of the
principle of the former, but it is a specific
abandonment of the general policy it proposed
to fix for the government of the Territories in
the matter Of slavery, and by fair intendment
a repeal of its provisions to that extent We
know that laws of such nature are not often
intended to settle general principles, but to
answer present necessities. It was so with the
act of 1920, the principle of which prevailed
till it was succeeded by counter policy in the
admission Of California in 1850, which sub
stituted the control Of the people for the con-
troll of Congress in the government of the Ter
ritories The two laws springing from the
same authority, we are driven to the conclu-
sion that the later act is in force by its repeal
of the former.
We repeat that it is important fully to un-
derstand this matter, because it involves the
character of the North for good faith and fair
dealing and, if our view of the legal
effect of the admission of California upon
the covenants Of the Missouri compromise
be correct, it leaves the free States,
in the present controversy-they having
voted for the admission of CalifOrnia--in
the disgraceful position of having utterly
abandoned and annulled those covenants in
| 1850, when it was their interest, and of at
tempting, with no higher motive, their resusci-
tation and enforcement in 1855. In other
words, they abandoned the compromise to
prevent the establishment Of slavery south of
| the line of SO deg. 80 min., in 1850, then
asserting the right of the people to settle the
question for themselves, and thus clearly abro-
eating the covenants of the Missouri act, and
now deny those rights and demand the enforce
ment of those covenants. They were either right
in 1850 or they are right now. They cannot
defend that act and call for the restoration of
the Missouri compromise at the same time
without being selfconvicted of duplicity and
double dealing. California was admitted on
her application-that application was based
upon the sovereign power Of its people thus
to act in primary capacity; and her admis-
sion into the Union was an acknowledgment
| by Congress-the authority that enacted the
| Missouri compromise-that they were right,
| and of course that the restrictions imposed
by that compromise were wrong, and no longer
binding. There can be no restoration, then,
without a repeal of the California act-a pro-
position just as possible of execution, and
practically as effective, as would be the repeal
| of the Kansas bill of 1854, which is identical
in scope and spirit, including the repeating
clause, with that admitting California.
Every blow now laid on the Missourians for
intervening in Kansas is sidewinder at Con-
gress, and every defence Of the Kansas people
against their border neighbors is an assault
upon the Missouri compromise. Thus the con-
stitution employs its enemies to vindicate its
integrity and its power.