Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-02-07
Congress-,


The House Of Representatives has at last
done one thing. 1t has passed by one ma
iority the following resolution, offered by
GEORGE G. DUNK:
"That the restriction (of tho Missouri Com
promise) should be restored, as proper vim
dication of the wisdom and patriotism of the
great statesman who imposed il, and as a ne
cessary and certain measure of reviving har-
mony and concord among the States of the
Union"
The reasons assigned in the resolution
above for the restoring of the Missouri line
are very remarkable Who were the great
statesmen who imposed the restriction, and
whose wisdom therein should be vindicated?
1t is not possible that Mr.. Dunn, or indeed
any gentleman OF sufficient intelligence ever
to find his way to Washington, could allude
to Mr.. CLAY. II has boon demonstrated, so
far as any fact can admit of demonstration,
that Mr. CLAY was not, as was at first sup
posed, the author Of that measure. JEFFER-
SON was not one of those statesmen. He
was opposed to the measure and feared evil
and evil only, not to one section merely, but
to the whole country, from the adoption of q
geographical line of demarcation dividing
the Union into two great antagonistic Sec
tions. Who then were those statesmen re-
ferred to in the resolution
How is the restoration Of that famous line
to revive concord and harmony among the
States of the Union ? Is it not known that
the formal restoration of that line of demar-
cation would involve an entire subysrsion Of
the principles of the compromise measures
of 1850, and wosld DO resisted, even to the
daRger Of dissolution, by nearly. If not quite
half the States? Harmony and concord in
deed Singular notions Of harmony and
concord " must be entertained by gentlemen
who propose measure which must, under
present circumstances, result in excitement
and divisions, to the utter destruction OF the
Union.
But suppose the restoration Of tho Missouri
line be desirable, how and when can 1t be ac-
complished The House of Representatives,
should it be unanimous thereon, cannot ac-
complish it. With the aid Of Fusion Pres
ident, should they elect one, il cannot be
accomplished. In order to effect it they
must have the Senate, and when can they
control the Senate ? Not this year, nor next,
nor the year after. The whole term Of the
next President must expire, before, under
any circumstances likely, or even possible TO
occur, the anti-N ebraska faction could con-
troll the Senate. What then can they do
Nothing but agitate, agitate, agitate, agitate,
and keep the Government in the condition
in which it now stands by their failure to or
ganizc the House of Representatives--sc con-
diton of confusion and imbecilhy.
The fact is, tho Missouri restriction, as it is
called, can never DO restored. 1t was al
wrong in tho first place IL has been only
wrong in its continuance. Its re-enactmen
would be a wrong which never viii be per
petrated in our day.
The principle of the compromise measures
Of 1850, which principle Is applied and car
ricd out in the Nebraska bill, is right-righ
politically, right morally, and right intriliissi
cally. Those who oppose that principle eli
ther do not understand the theory of tn,
government of the United States, or are in
heart opposed to the Constitution and in favo
Of disunion.