Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-10-08

slavery might be allowed therein
south Of thirty-six and half degrees, and pro-
hibited north Of that line The South contend
ed that there should be no restriction Of slavery
in those Territories and the conservative men
Of the North acceded to the justice Of the posi-
ton, that Congress should not legislate for or
against slavery in those Territories, but allow
that question to be adjusted by the citizens
thereof in the formation of their State consti-
tuition. ~
This doctrine Of g State equality" prevailed
(See vol. 9, p. 453, Of y. s. Statutes at Large)
The Utah act reads (after fixing the bound
aries) as follows, to wit:
And when admitted as State, the said Territory,
or any portion of the same shall be received into the
Union, with without slavery as their constitution
may prescribe at the time Of their admission"
The same provision is contained in the New
Mexico act.
Thus by the " Compromise measures of
1850" Of which these Territorial acts formed
the most important part as to the question Of
slavery, the true principle Of " State equality
was affirmed, sanctioned, and approved, under
the administration of Willard Fillmore.
The principles of the " Wilmot Proviso"
were thus repudiated, and the principles Of the
Missouri restriction" were equally repudiated
as to their application to the nesO Terrific
ries. The Missouri restriction still remained
unrepealed as to its application to the terri
tory seeded to the United States 6y France"
A new era was inaugurated by the "Com-
promise measures of 1867 on the question Of
slavery in the aea0 TerritOries-bu
still the compact between the North and South
made in 1920, in relation to the territory
coded by France to the United States" was
not, in point Of fact, abrogated. 1t remained
as it had stood since 1920 on the statute book,
whilst the basis or principle of that compact,
was superseded and disregarded in reference
to other territory acquired at a later period,
and from another power. So much at present
for this Sd measure of Compromise in 1850.
The 4th measure in the series, was the act
to suppress the slave trade in the District of
Columbia" The important provision Of this
net reads:
at shall not be lawf il to bring into the District of
Columbia, any slave whatever, for he purpose Of be-
ing S0d for the purpose of being placed in depot
be subsequently transferred to any other State or
place TO be sold as merchandise"
This measure affects no mans right TO slave
property in the District--it prevents no man
here, from bringing slaves into the District for
his own 'use-it prevents no man here, from
selling his savcsto his neighbors or to stran-
gers,-nor does it prevent any man from con-
veying his slaves wherever he pleases for sale !;
but at pTeOents the District from being made
d marbet-place for sla0es Of the wisdom or
the justice Of this provision we have nothing
to Say-it being our purpose simply to present
and explain the "Compromise measures of
1850" We know of no slave-owner in the
District whose interests have been affected BY
this law, nor one who has complained Of its
nor one who desires its repeal
The 9th measure of the series Of the "Com-
promise measures Of 1860, !" is the {" .tIgitioe
slaoe lao" The provisions Of this act are
too well known to require any comment from
US. They are clear, distinct, stringent, and
effective. The requirements of the Constitu-
ton are fully met by this law--the South is
content with it, and it has been, and will
doubtless continue to be enforced
The above JfDe measures constitute the
" Compromise measures of 1850" They
we're severally opposed by the ultraists of
the North and Of the South, but their enact
ment gave repose to the country and drew
forth, from all fair-minded men, not approba-
ton only, but applause for those who gave
them their support in Congress, and for that
cool, collected, and conservative patriot under
whose auspices they were enacted, and by
whose firmness they were executed.
To enable our readers to contrast with the
Utah and New Mexico act, that disturbing
and revolutionary measure enact
ed in 1854, under the title of the Kansas
Nebraska act, we will copy the provisions of
this aforementioned measure Before doing
this, however, we add at this point, two fur
ther important provisions of the Utah and
New Mexico act, not herein before quoted,
bearing upon the question of the "right OF
suffrage" in these Territories, and the ques-
ton of "squatter sovereignty" therein.
On the question of the fright Of suffrage"
in Utah and New Mexico those acts provide,
+" that the right Of suffrage and Of holding
office shall be exercised oa2y By citizens Of the
United States, including those recognised as
citizens by the treaty with the Republic Of
Mexico" (Vol. 9, P. 454, section 8, U: S.
Laws.)
On the question Of squatter sovereignty"
these Utah and New Mexico acts contain this
plain exclusion Of that mobocratic doctrine,
to wit: .ie
All the laws passed by the Legislative Assembly
and Governor shall be submitted TO the Congress Of
the United states, and if dsapproved shall be null