The weekly Minnesotian., 1856-12-20

formed by Mr.. Pierce that the compro,nis
was acqnicsced IL but not approres,. -
Inns is not the fact, as he proves by hi
own Message in the ensuing sentence. Th,
compact, for compact it was, acus approcsd
ana not merely approved but venerated. Up
on the admission of Texas there was an on.
Por'unlty to test whether it would he an.
proved by the States after lapse Of twenty
! odd years.
Inc result was, that it was, with little or
10 opposition, made a part of the Joint Res
oiut'on admitting Texas into tic Union
Still, Mr.. Pierce, while aware of this fact
ana stating the adoption of the principle in
the Texas Resolution, again declares that It
was "eqe'eseea "a rethe, than approue,: when
the fact is, and the history Of the legislation
o. the country proves it, tha: tie principle
was adhered 10 with tenacity almost unnar-
aileied-beins reaffmed and re-enacted
whenever an opportunity was afforded. From
the date OF the admission of Texas until the
GATE OF the passage of the Kansas. n ebraska
act, the principle of that Compromise re-
named unquest;oned, and the agreement be-
tween ihe North and South in its foundation
was regarded inviolahle--a sacred thing.
1t is held however, by the President. that
this compact was virtually repealed by the
compromise measures of 1850; OF in other
words, by the successful resistance by the
Representatives Of the Northern States to
the application Of the ;'comprolnise:' line to
the new territory acquired from Mexico. As
a question Of fact, it is not true that the Rer.
fesentativcs Of the North resisted the appli-
cation of the Compromise Line to the newly
acquired Territories; but it is true that they
resisted the most understandable and unfouu-
eed construction to be placed upon that COM
pact BY the South, and now, by their inyul-
liable ally, Mr.. Pierce. The construction
sought to be put upon the compact is this:-
1t was prohibition of slavery NORTH of
S6 30; and being prohibition aorth of that
line; it follows, therefore, that free states are
prohibited so'.h of that line; and following
up this train of unimpcachable logic, he saws
that the Representatives of the North, in
successfully resisting the attempt of the
South, to devote the whole OF the newly ac-
qured Territory to slavery and excluding
slavery from such territories, thereby re-
pealed the legislative compromise, and per-
sistentiy violated the Compact, if compact it
vas.
For the sake of illustrating this logic.
within the comprehension of even the Presi-
dent, we will suppose case, an" and 81
are hunters, in the habit of hunting mutually
upon both sides of the Mississippi; there is
an Island in the river which both claim the
exclusive right to. 8. says to n. if you wi
relinqush to me the exclusive right to this
Island, [ will agree never to hunt again on
the east side of the river Now, will any
man Of common understanding pretend, that
n. is prohibited from hunting On the west
side OF the river because S. has agreed not t.,
hunt on the east? Preposterous The
idea is SO entirely absurd, that we are aston
shed even at President Pierce for entertain
ng it. The c,se PIT is All exact parallel. N.
is the North; S. the South the Island the
State of Missouri. over which the contention
was and the Mississippi represents the line
of 36 50.
The message next assumes the Missouri
compromise to be unconstitutional, and says
it is so, because the Supreme Court have de-
cidea that the domestic legislative power of
the states, under the constitution arc coequal
Who ever doubted the equality of the states
in this regard, but what does that have to
do with the legislation of Congress in the
Territories.
Again i'll support of the sane position, he
says, Congress can no more change law of
domestic relation in Maine than in Missouri D.?
This we also admit but what has this to d
with the question? There are several other
reasons assigned as little applicable to the
question as those quoted and having afforded
u sample, We will permit our readers to Judge
of the lot.
The next position, is, that there was moth
ing in the act admitting Missouri into the
Union, that would give it perpetuity; and
yet. those, who are opposed to the repeal OF
| that compromise, have changed those instru-
mental in its repeal, with breach of faith.
So there was breach of faith. The history
of that compromise was known to every man
who voted for its repeal, or if it was not, he
was disqualified for seat in Congress. Ii
was known that it was compact mutually
entered into at period of peril, as means
of pcrpetrating the blessing of the Govern
ment we now enjoy. The honor of the
South was pledged to the North and the North
to the South to preserve that compact invi :
table, ,.....,
Words of perpctuity were introduced into
the phraseology Of that act, not because they
would make it perpetual; but that, should
its repeal ever be contemplated, these words
might attract the attention of those who
meditated the ch.nge, and cause them at
least to enquire, "why was this 2" But we
do not rest its perIetuity upon the language
of the act, but upon the pledged faith Of
those who agreed to its terms; and although
we are aware that one Congress has no pow
-er to restrict its successor, yet we supposed
that where the fact was matter of public
history, that the two great sections of the