Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1856-01-23

~ hli0dAAN ~ Hlllu
rent, towards the absorption of the State
in a centralized and consolidated FEEDER;
Government.
The greater expense of annual session
is sometimes urged as an argument ia ia
vor OF biennial; and every argumer
drawn from the important principle {
public economy, is certainly entitled 1
respectful consideration. But | think
may uell be affirmed, that, inthis instance
the argument for economy is not Valid
Without taking into account the cost /
The Safe Of the mischief arising from III
delay of needed Legislation, it must be re
mcmbered that the accumulation, throug
two years, of business demanding the al
tention Of The General Assembly, vii
require protracted sessions for lis due con
Sideration. The time nteIcd for tw
annual sessions is not, necessarily, CREATE
than that required for one biennial SEES
sion. The argument from expense, there
fore, may be readily obvialed by a prop
er Limitation of duration, and the question
of preference may be reduced 10 a simpI,
choice, irrespective of expense, between
limited animal sessions, and unlimited hi
ennial with occasional extra sessions
My own Judgment is so thoroughly salts
fled upon the whole matter, that | canno
hesitate 10 recommend an amendment O
the Constitution, providing for Limited an
nual sessions.
l need not say TO you that this policy
has not been adhered 70, nor need / trac,
the gradual process by which the Consti
tuition has been wrested from its origina
purposes, and the Government has beer
converted into an instrument for The
maintenance and extension of slavery
By cessions from slave States, and BY
treaties with foreign Governments, vas
territories have been acquired, IN all o
which the original policy of the Govern.
ment required prohibition, but to none o
which was prohibition actually applied
until resistance to the further increase o.
slavery and slave power 10 the republic
by the admission Of Missouri as a slav,
State. led to the great contest between
the e~xtensionisis and restriclionists, that,
in le20, terminated in the adjustment
generally known as the Missouri Com
promise.
The terms Of that Compromise were
these:-that Missouri should be admitted
with Slavery; that Slavery should be for.
prohitIIed in the territory acquired
from France, north of Sc deg. 81 min.,
except Missouri; and that Congress should
refrain. for the present at least, from
legislative prohibition of Slavery south Of
IS deg. 30 min. This last term was on
ly implled--it vas not expressed.
This compromise, in substance and ef-
feet, was a compact between the slavehol-
ding and -slavehOlding sections of the
country. and was universally 81 regar-
ded. 1t yielded 10 slavery absolutely
the territory occupied by Missouri. and il
left without the protection Of prohibition
all the residue OF territory acquired I'M
der the French treaty, south Of Sc deg.
80 mIn. As The original policy of the
country, and the True principles of the
constitution required the exclusion of
from the whole Of this territory,
it was to be expected that this adjust
ment would be received with much dis.
satisfaction in the Free States. 1t was
20 received; but after a time, for the sake
Of peace, and in the full belief that its
stipulalions in respect to the territory
north OF So deg. 80 min, would be faith
July observed, the people generally &C.
luiesced in it.
Concession invites aggression. Hav-
succeeded in establishing slavery in
Missouri. the slave power soon insisted
upon the implied term of the comprom
Sc as a positive stipulation for the allow
ince of slavery south of Sc deg. 80 min.
not only in the territory acquired
rom France. but in all other territory,
Shenever and however acquired, in which
slavery might exist at the time of acqui-
'iiion. This Interpretation was taci,Iy
admitted; and under the compromise
hus Interpreted, Arkansas, Texas and
came into the Union as Slave
and the small remainder of The
%erri,ory south of So deg. 80 min., was
to slavehOlding Indian tribes.
All the territory south of the Missouri
Inc, whether acquired before or after the
late of the Compromise, was thus incor-
into Slave States, or otherwise
appropriated to Slavery under the slave
Interpretation of the compact.
was LEFT to Freedom or settle
nent by non-slaveholding freemen ex-
'ept the territory north OF the Missouri
inc. The freedom of this territory, ii
Vas thought. was firmly secured. Guar
anteed by the Constitution, pro. ected by
policy, guarded by a compact in
he fulfilment OF which 50 much had been
ielded that it seemed impossible for
itself TO ask more. the people OF
be Free States never dreamed ti;ai it
ould be invaded or endangered. But
his anticipation proved illusory. When
time arrived for the organization oil
overnment for this territory with a view
D open it for settlement and cultivation,
country vas aslounded by the de-
land Of the Slave Power for the abroga-
on Of the Missouri prohibition. Al first
le demand was heard with in~credulous
mazement, and then with unavailing in
ignation. Ii availed nothing 10 appeal
} plighted faith; nothing TO appeal TO an
lent policy or Constitutional guarantees.
he great dominant power oil Slavery de-
landed the sacrifice of Freedom, and
lie Oblation must be made. The Mis-
Duri Prohibition was repealed; the Com
of 1890 reformed 10 the letter,
nd far beyond tie letter, by the Free
lates, was broken up and destroyed by
le Slave States, 10 avoid the fui6Ilment
its only stipulation in favor of Free
om.
The p~retences under which this wrong
as perpeirsted, give additional keeness
the sense of injury.
1t was boldly asserted that the prohi-
lion was unconstitutional. The power
prohibit territorial slavery had been
r. l. G