Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-06-07

as We acquired future territory, we should apply
that line. One modification of this existing power,
which has been on, think, not Of very long dis.
cosery, is this That lin truth and reality any xclu.
sion Of power of State either to admit or to ex-
clude slavery imposed by the government of the
United States must be van idle, and imperative, as
an act of power 1t is obvious as have said, that
the men Of 1920 thought otherwise. Whether they
intended supposed that this restriction would OPP
crate proprio cigore without further legislation, as
an exercise of rightful power ON the part of Con-
grcss binding by its proper efficacy; or wheth-
err they expected as each State within this do
main in which slavery was prohibited should come
into the Union, " fundamental condition." it is
called should be annexed to its admission; and
whether they supposed that that fundamental con-
dition would itself operate as in proper sense,
to restrict the power, or would merely impose an
obligation of good faith upon the authorities of the
State, We know not but, to my understanding, It is
plain that they intended the exclusion to apply to
this domain under all political organizations, and for
all time, to be carried out in or other of these
manners.
Now, Mr. President, propose to show that this
principle, upon which the legislation of 1920 was
based, was repudated by the legislation of 1850. l
propose to show that the application of the Missouri
compromise to State and Territory was insisted upon
by the southern members of the Senate in many,
very many cases that we asked nothing, we sought
nothing, but the simple recognition of the Missouri
its original principle and that it was refused and
that the territorial governments established in 1850
were constructed in utter disregard of the Missouri
compromise. If can succeed in showing that, l
shall then contend that it is unreasonable, that it is
idle, it is absurd-I use the terms in no offensive
sense-for gentlemen to call upon us to maintain
compromise which has been repudiated and disa-
vowed by themselves.
But before proceeding to examine that legislation
wish to call the attention of the Senate, for mo-
ment to what consider the very small respect that
was paid to what is called the Missouri compromise
in less than year after it was enacted On the 9th
of March, 1920, this bill was approved, and under
it Missouri was to come into the Union as State,
on an equal footing with the original States. Well,
SIR her convention met they formed constitution;
they sent it here. Nobody disputed that it was
republican constitution, and the Senate passed bill
immediately for the admission of Missouri, or de-
carng her admitted into the Union, upon an equal
footing with the original States 1t went down to
the House. What became of il? 1t was rejected
by the House. Upon what principle was it rejected?
Now, sir, consider for one moment. We are told
that in the session of1s19I2O there was difficulty
about the admission of Missouri, because the repre-
sentatives of certain portions of the United States
wished to dictate to that State the exclusion of slave
~ and finally it was agreed that the State should
be admitted into the Union with the exercise of her
own power and discretion upon that subject provi-
ded that slavery should be excluded from the rest of
the territorial domain acquired by the cesson from
France. That was the bargain Well, then, does it
not follow, beyond all doubt, that if that bargain
was to be carried out Missouri should have been in
stantly admitted after the formation of her repub.
can constitution But this was not done. The bill
to admit her was rejected and rejected why Be-
she had introduced into her constitution pro.
vision authorizing or directing her Legislature to
provide by law to prevent the immigration of free
negroes and muattoes into the State 1t was insist
ed that free negroes and mulattoes were citizens of
the United States. and had right. under the Con-
stitution Of the United States to go into Missouri
and inasmuch as this prohibition was contrary to
the Constitution of the United Stxtes they refused
to admit Missouri into the Union.
Well, now, look at this matter. If this provision
in the constitution of Missouri was not in violation
of the Constitution of the United States, she had
the power to make it and far these Directing
representatives were concerned, she had q right to
make it. Ifshe did not think that free negroes and
mulattoes the hest associates for her white or
her black population, she had right, by provis-
ion of law, to select the company, color, and des-
cripton that should be allowed to come within her
borders; and therefore, it an attempt to impose
a new condition upon the State in defiance of the
solemn compact, whose holiness has been so much
invoked and pressed upon us.
Then on the other hand, suppose these people
were citizens Of the United States did not every
body know that if they were citizens of the United
States and had rights under the Constitution of the
United States, which were withheld under this pro-
hibition of the Missouri constitution, it was null and
absolutely void? 1t Was, therefore, a needless at
tempt to fasten new difficulty this State and to
exclude her from the Union for doing what believe
Illinois, Indiana, and do not know but other free
States of the Union, have felt themselves compelled
to do in order to preserve the bodies polite, which
their public authorities represent, from insufer-
able nuisance.
Mr.. Toombs. Massachusetts had such law on
her statute.book then.
Mr.. Badger.-My friend suggests that Massachu-
sets had law on her statute-book at that very
time, prohibiting their coming in. l do not know
how that is; but then, suppose it is very differ
ent thing between allowing the free negroes to come
into MASSACHUSETTS,, and turning them over into Mis-
souri, that is, supposing it to be So Then how was
the State got in at last; by marvellous contrivance
tine most remarkable pieces of humbuggery that
ever was palmed off on any legislative body, COM
posed of-people who had attained the age of matu-
rity-1 do not say those who had come to the age
of twenty-one, but those who had passed fourteen,
if any such ever acted as legislators Here is joint
resolution providing for the admission of Missouri
into the Union on certain condition" What
was it?
Reol0ed, &c. That the State of Missouri shall be ad
mitted into this Union on equal footing with the
original States in all respects whatever upon the funda
mental condition that the fourth clause Of the 26th section
of the third article of the constitution submitted the
part OF SAID State to shall never he to
authorize the passage of any law and that law shall
be passed in conformity thereto by which eny citizen of
either of the States in this Union shall be excluded from
of the privileges and mmuntes which such citizen
entitled under the Constitution of the United States
In other words Missouri was admitted upon the
fundamental condition that the State should
agree that her constitution not paramount to the
Constitution of the United States. That is the whole
Of it. Then mark the next provision of this reso-
luton:
Provided, That the Legislature of the sdd State, by
solemn public shall declare the of the said State
to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to
the President of the United States before the fourth
Monday in November next authentic copy of the said