Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1856-08-01

In his phillippics against the authors Of the Kan
sas Nebraska Bill, Mr. Fillmore charges that the
peal of the Missouri restriction oct OF perhdy,
in that it violated the compromises of 1920 and of
1850.
Now, it i'll becomes any Northern man of Wing
associations to accuse the South of nfdety to its
engagements. The South did once pledge itself to
Compromise; and onerous as it was the South
dured it without complaint The North stood 10 the
adjustment only when honor and Interest iden-
tilted, but The moment it began 10 operate to the ad
vantage of the South the North broke its pledge and
repudiaed lis obligations We ale speaking of the
Tariff Compromise of 1888. by which the South con
scented 10 pay protective duties for nine years. and the
North agreed after the expiration of that period to
reduce the imports to purely revenue Standard
The people of the South true TO the principles oi
honor which have ever controlled their policy hoe
The burden without a murmur until the day for then
emancipation then the North, tue to It's instincts Of
self-aggra Indictment, only frightened 1 rapacous
grasp which il pledged to relax by solemn com.
pact. And Willard Fillmore personally participated
in The violation of the 1arif Compromise of 1888
With what face he now talk of the sanctty OF
compacts?
But is it true that the Kansas Nebraska Bill viola
ted the Compromise of 1920 EmphatIcay, no. for
the CompIo on Use of 1920 epudiated ant aside
long before the Kansas Nehra>ka Bill exist, even
in eplion Populated and asI te TOO, BY the
very men who now denounce lis former repeal.
he Missouri restriction was imposed upon the
South by the despolism OF a Northern majority, and
for that net entitled 10 respect observ
Yet the South quietly submitted to it's opera
ton. Thus, when Texas was admitted into the
Union, much of its territory lay North of The line
SO deg. 80 min; but the South adhered TO the Com
promise of 1920, and sufft red, in consequence. a
considerable loss of slave soil. Again: in 1847,
VIII. Oregon organ zed into territorial govern,
ment, the South proposed to apply the principle Ct
the Missouri Compromise. But the North, now tina,
he had To fp tn
age, shamefulty repndiated lis obligations, and sub
suted the new principe of the Wilmot ProvIso.
This was the first, but not the last violation of the
Missouri Compromise for when the South again
proposed TO apply the principle of that settlement to
California, the North resisted, and procured the ex.
clusion of slavery from that territory well below
as above the line of SO deg 80 min, In the same
spirit of insensibty TO the engagements of honor,
the North again refused to incorporate the principle
of the Missouri settlement into the Compromise Of
$780, The South offered the proposition, but the
North rejected it and then it was that the nth,
convinced that the North would adhere 10 no com
pact when it came to work TO its advantage fell back
upon fundamental principles and Asserted its equality
under the Constitution. The Principles of Federal
non intervention against slavery in the Territories
of State Equality and Popular Sovereignty, were en-
bodied in the organic ACT Of Utah and New Mexico
but the South procured this concession of its rights,
by the sacrifice of large area of the slave soil of
Texas. Thus, the compromise of 1880 rep aled and
aDDu1leu Tue compromise or 1871, (WnCn naQ been
repeatedly violated by the North,) if in express
terms, yet by affirming another and an inconsistent
principle of settlement, 1t is rule of legislation
and of law, that two Inconsistent statutes cannot
stand, and that the last epeas the first iii order of
time. II understood at the time of the passag &c
of the Compromise Measures of 1850, that they re-
peaed the Missouri restriction and introduced new
principle of settlement as is shown by the following
paragraph from a speech on the Kansas Nebraska
Bill, by Senator Badger, now prominent supporter
of Mr.. Fillmore:
'Now MIR. President propose TO Show that this
principle, upon qchch the legislation of 1920 based
avaS reptdiated By the legislation of 1850 propose
10 show that the application of the Missouri Com
promise 10 State and Territory insisted upon by
the Southern members of the Senate in many very
many cases that asked nothing, we sought moth
ing, but the simple recognition of the Missouri Com
promise line, carried sill further uTon its orr
ginal principle, and that it was refused TO u.s. and
that the territorial governments established 1856
constructed IN utter disregard Of the Missouri
Compromise. If can succeed in showing that,
shall then contend that it is unreasonable, that it
idle, it is absurd Il the terms in no offensive
sense) for gentlemen TO call upon us to maintain
compromise which has been repudiated and disavow
ed by themselves
So then, if any disgrace attaches to the repeal oil
the Missouri restriction, Mr. Fillmore shares pre-. emf
nenty in the infamy for he gave the executive sane
ton to the measure which annuled that settlement.
But, rising to higher and stronger grourd we
maintain that every person who supported or approves
The Kansas Nebraska Bill assens to the proposition
that the Compromise of 1850 repealed the Compro
mise of 1920 for the Kansas Nebraska Bill aft ms
the proposition in express terms. Here is the essen
tial clause of that Bill:
That the Constitution and all laws of the United
States which are not locally napplicable shall have
the same force and effect within the said Territory
Nebraska as elsewhere within the United states, ex
cept the 9Th section of the act pEepaa DRY to The ad
mission of Missouri into the Union approved Marct
6, 1920, qUhch beng inconsistent GUh the principles
of non Intervention by Congress arih stvery in tn
States and Territories recognized blythe leg SGto'
of $780, commonly called the compromise measures,
IS hereby DELAYED fnoperGtsce ond Uoid; 1t icing TIT
true intent and meaning OF this act not to egIslatt
avery into any Territory or State, nor 10 exclud,
it thereom but to leave the people thereof perfect
free to form and regulate their domestic institution
in their own Way, subject only to The Constitution
the United States"
! 1t being established by irresistible evidence tina
the Compromise OF 1880 operated substantial abrn
CATION of the Compromise of 1920, II follows ntces
sari y that the Kansas Nebraska bill, which simply
rected the fact of this previous repeal did not in
vnlve any infrac,ion of the Conn., r'mi>e of 1850
The Kansa NEBRASKA Bill simply applied the pnnci
pie Of the Compromise of 1850. Te Mr. Fl lmor
afirms that the Kansas. Nebraska Bill did violate tn
Compromise OF 1850, and upon this ground he assail
the bill and its au, hors.
1t is morlifying 10 see person OF Mr.. Fillmore
position stoop to the disengenuou5 artlhce OF whIc
he is convicted by the foregoing statement. 1t is NJ
surprising, however, since having taken the stump
his ow interests, he is reduced TO the necessities
other candidates of dtsp rate fortunes. The Soul
will not forgive the attempt TO discredit its charactr
and impair It's cause. by false representation of til
facts of hstorY.-RichmOnd Enquirer.
The FOREST DIVORCE CAsE-Avin c. Bradlee