Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1856-12-19
aNcE EDUCATION AGRICULTURE D TIE BGsf INTERESTS or SOCIETY


to divide by a certain arbitrary line.
and their bargain is selemnly ratified
and recorded. Thirty years after
ward. they acquire another tract. ly-
ing just beyond the former; and one Of
them proposes that this shall be divi-
dcd as that was. mo" replies tho
other; II stand by that bargain. but l
do not choose to make another such. /"
"Then," says the former, II repudi-
ate the first compact. and "sball pro.
ceed to wrest from you your share Of
the land divided under It." Is there
a court any where that would sustain
him in this course? Is there a law
yer. beside Franklin Pierce. who could
be hired to appear as Lis advocate?
Mr.. Pierce decides-against the au.
thority of Washington and Jefferson
that Congress can impose on the States
Of the Union. whether existing in the
present or in the future only--and he
says the Supreme Court has made a
similar decision. We do not know
where to find that dccision--but no
matter: we will presume that the
Court, as now constituted. would make
any decision that the interests or pre-.
tensions Of Slavery might require
But the question at issue does not
necessarily involve the power OF Con-
gress over States. Congress has pow
er expressly conferred on il to "maLe
all needful rules and regulations res.
pecting the Territory or other proper
ty Of the Union;" and one Of the
most "needful' is a "rule" which
guarantees to every resident on that
Territory those rights to ''life, liber.
ty and the pursuit Of happiness,
which the Declaration Of Indepen-
dence declares "inalienatIe." That
is enough. Keep Slavery out OF the
Territories. and no question as to the
right of Congress to prohibit it in
States can ever arise.
But Mr.. Pierce protests that he can
notsee why the Missouri Compact was
not repealable like any other statute.
The reason simply is that the advan-
tages guaranteed by 1t to one party
had already been realized, while those
accruing to the other we're just coming
into view. The Slave States in 1890
said to the Free-''Lct us have Mis-
souri, as Slave State, and you may
have all the Territory North and West
of her for Free States.'' A few
Northern members assented to the
bargain, and 1t was ratified. The
South had her consideration down; the
North waited thirty-four years Tor
most of hers. At that moment she
put forth her hand to take il, it was
snatched away by the Nebraska bill;
and now Mr.. Pierce can't see why
this Missouri bargain should not be
repealable liFe any other statute!
Suppose a man had bought farm of
him for $4,000. and. having fully se-
cured the farm, should conclude TO re-
pudiate the bargain and not pay the
$4,000, could he see the iniqnity Of
that maneuver? s
But Mr.. Pierce proceeds to wonder
If Slave institutions have such su-
perior vitality and inherent vigor that
they will always carry a new Terrific
ry, in the absence Of Restriction. We
answer, that depends partly on posi-
tion, partly on the laws. A new Ter
ritory located just behind large and
populous Slave State, and only acces-
sible through that State. with a large
slaveholding and slave population on
the immediate border, stands a very
strong chance to be carried by Slave
ry. Mr.. Cadwalader dem. } Of Pa.
argued in the House last Winter that
the very formation Of Kansas proved
that its trainers intended II for a Slave
State; and we think he was correct.
But when to this is added the assump-
tion that any STAKEHOLDER may carry
Slavery into the Territory in question.
and that no preponderance Of Free
State sentiment can be rendered ef-
fective to shut or drive il out (which
is the doctrine of nearly all the sup
porters ofthe Nebraska bill )then we do
not see how Slavery can be kept out
Of any Territory unshielded therefrom
by act OF Congress and contiguous 10
a Slave State. ~ M ssnt
That is pitifal spectacle which the
Presiden. makes Of himself in trying
to prove that the repeal Of the Mis-
souri, Restriction was not the cause Of
the troubles in Kansas--that they
would have occurred at any rate. He
knows better--every one knows bet
ter. If, as he pretends. the Resiric-
ton were unconstitutional. SO much
the less excuse for medding with II.
Had 1t been let alone, no blame would
have rested on him who urged on the
Congress which enacted its repeal.
But he forced the measure through an
unwilling House by appliances that
were essentially bribery. and in def
ance .of earnest warnings Of the evil
that must inevitably follow. Now
that we have experienced it. he would
make US believe that 1t would have
been Ill the same IL the repeal had no.
taken place. Then why was that pol
icy so vehemently pressed and insis-
ted on? Mr.. Pierce! you know that
the troubles in Kansas have resulted
directly from the repeal OF tho Missou-
ri Restriction.
Testimonial 70 Gov. Willard. Of Indi-