Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1856-02-09
For the Times.



Compromises-Their Philosophy and Morality.
listening the other evening to some remarks on
the morality Of Compromises, and heard it justly
stated that no man has right to assent to any
Compromise of q principle; (of course, it was
meant, of a moral principle or law of right and
wrongly The "applcation" was to the acts of
the great parties to our confederacy,- with the
reflection that the issue of such Compromises must
always be disappointment and disaster.
The point is so we'll reasoned out in the extracts
given below, from the pen of an eminent jurist
of the South, that have been tempted to send
them to you.
He has been calculating, in an admirable way,
the rationale of Unions and Federations, by
which sovereignties originally independent, agree
to become integral parts of a new State-for
which laws are to be made in whole or in part, by
the Legislature of the undivided State.
The point Immediately in view is the checks and
restraints upon the action of the new Legislature,
and the security for their observance, as regards
the reserved privileges of the integral units of
the Union. For after all, such privileges can
only be held during the pleasure of the Legisla-
tnre of the undivided State.
est is true," he says, s'that there may be stipu
lations to the contrary, as there are in both the
Unions to which we have adverted. England
with Scotland, and Great Britain with Ireland.
1t is true also, that those stipulations may be
faithfully observed, as they have been, for the
greater part, in those instances. But they may
also be disregarded, as some important compro-
misc measures, which were intended to produce
analogous effects in this country, have been. In
both cases, arrangements were made, which were
designed to be perpetual, but which were liable to
be repealed by the Legislature, who could not we'll
be subjected to any external check"
These arrangements involved 'sThe principle of
Compromise. Without that principle, we confess
that we do not see how any government is to ex-
ist over territory so extended, and including
people of so many and SO diverse prejudces and
interests.
'sIt is very easy to say that there ought to be
no compromises, but men ought to be governed by
principles. 1t is true as far us moral principles
are concerned; no man ought to compromise his
moral principles. No compromise can be accept
ed by a conscientious Christian, which will obige
IL
duty to do, or to do any act which is forbidden
by the law which he is bound to obey. But COM
promises about mere matters of exp"d:,ncy
not compromises of moral prime iple. a man may
lawfully give up principle, that is, a rule which
is advantageous to himself, his party or his Sec
ton of the country, in consideration Of other ad-
vantagcs conceded to him, his party, or his Sec
ton, or of advantages accru' ng to the whole com
muntv, of which himself, his party, and his Sec
tion, are only parts. In the latter case it is his
duty to do. Political compromises are then
possible. When they arc once made they are bind
ng on the conscience, and it is mere quibbling
to say that they not because they are in form
which technically admits Of repeal. They are
measures adopted for the purpose of securing
certain interests, and conciliating certain prcju-
dices. So long as these interests and these prelu-
dices remain, the compromise is binding on the
conscience. This is the true theory, and the one
on which we have until lately acted. 1t was sup
posed that the Missouri Compromise had a certain
binding force on the consciences of members of
Congress and Presidents, which would interfere
with the exercise of their undoubted right to re-
peal a mere act of Congress. The clause in the
Nebraska Bill, which repealed that Compromise,
repudiatcd the ideas of which we have just spo-
ken, and in so doing repudiatcd all future com.
promises in the form of acts of Congress. We
know not how the evil is to be remcdied. 1t
seems to us to be one Of the many things which
once done can never be undone. The evil con-
ssts in the precedent, and the repeal of the bill
cannot destroy the precedent"
ought to add that the writer here quoted is
occupied in sphere quite aloof from politics.
CLAYroS-B BULwER TREATY.-Much has been said
about the Clayton Bulwcr Treaty. We subjoin
that portion of it which at present is attracting
much attention:
''The government of the United States and
Great Britain hereby declare that neither the one
nor the other will ever obtain or maintain any
fortifcations commanding the same or in the Vi
cnity thereof or occupy or fortify, or cOlOnize,
or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicara-
qua, Costa, Rica. the Mosquito coast, or any part
Of Central America nor will either make use of
any protection which either affords or may afford,
or any alliance which either has or may have, to
or with any state Or people, for the purpose of
erecting or maintaining any such fortiications, or
of Occupying, fortifyinS or eolonlzins Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
entral America, or assuming or exercising do
minion over the same"
Great Britain has never complied with the
above, but has exercised Jurisdiction over Mica
ragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast and the
Bay of Islands. The United States calls her to
an account, when she arrogantly says that the ar
ticle was intended to take effect prospectively.-
The question is assuming serious aspect, and
unless Britain backs down Gas it is highly proba-
bic she willy there is some liklihood of war.
ROUTE TO LAKE SUrERIoR.-A projected road
from this city to Lake Superior is now in the
hands of our fellow citizen, James Starkey, Esq.
All we can say, is, it is an enterprise worthy of
encouragement, and we hope will prove cntirly