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

ton were republican Units terms, according TO the
Constitution of the United States, the State Of mis-
souri, should be admitted upon an equal iootnS wild
the original States and then, at the conclusion OF
I the acf, comes this section:
tory ceded by France United States under the name
of Louisiana which lies north of So deg 80 MN north al
ude not included within the limits of the State con'en
plated by this act slavery and involuntary servude 9TH
erwse than the punishment of crimes whereof inc par
ties shall have been duly convicted shall be- and hereby
forever prohibited: Provided aoa That any person es-
Gaping the same, from whom labor or service is law
fully claimed in any State or Territory OF the United STATES
such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed 10
the person claiming his labor service as aforesaid
My honorable friend from Connecticut MR.
Smith, in the argument which he offered mere, said
that this prohibition was upon the face OF II, IN.
tended to apply to territorial organizations ana not
to States Now, say that it is plain that it was IN
tended to apply to all organizations of government
States or Territories. In the first place. the ex-
preston is all that territory" What territory
Not territorial political organization. not portion
or district of country in which political govern
| ment had been established under the authority OF
the United States; but obviously the word terrific
| ry" was used in the sense of land or domain ana
| it meant all that domain which the United States
acquired by cession from France under the name OF
Louisiana In regard to all that territory, or all
that domain what is the provision of this section
s'That slavery andnvoluntary servtude shall be, and
is hereby forever prohibited" without reference to
any mutations in the political condition ofthe domain,
but it is to be "forever prohibited"
Again, aside from the absurdity of supposing that
this strong and emphatic language, " forever pro-
hbited," was intended to mean "until they become
States" how, upon any system of Interpretation,
can you, consistently with the view offered by the
Senator from Connecticut, make the exception OF
the State contemplated by this act!' Ii the en-
actment was to prohibit slavery in territorial poti-
cal organizations and not in States, how does hap
pen that out of the territorial organizations we ex
tho State which the act provides should
come into the Union?
But, sir the history of the time shows US what
this provision meant. 1t was q contest whether
Missouri should not be compelled by her constitu-
ton to exclude slavery. The antagonism was be-
tween those who said that Missouri should be al
lowed to do as she pleased, and those who said Mis-
souri, should be controlled in regard to what she
should do when she came into the Union. The ar
rangement effected was to do what? Not to leave
to Missouri privilege which everybody admitted
she had but to leave to Missouri right which she
claimed, the existence of which right was denied,
and to relieve her from the restriction or condition
which it was proposed by the opponents OF the ex-
tension of slavery to impose upon her admission into
the Union
But sir, the meaning to be gathered from this
provision is clear (entrey independent of these two
for asccraining its sense if we recur to the
corresponding provision introduced into the joint
resolution for the annexation of Texas. That pro-
vision is in these words:
"New States of convenient size not exceeding four in
number in addition to the State Of Texas having sufficient
ponulaton NAV hereafter by the OF said State
be of the territory thereof which shall De emil
td admission under the provisions OF the Federal Con
stitutiop And such be formed out OF that
portion of said territory lying south of 36 deg 30 min
north latitude commonly known the Missouri compro
mise ne shall be admitted into the Unlon with or WIN
out slavery people of each State ask admission
NAV And in such State States as shall De FORM
ed out said Territory north of said Missouri
line slavery or involuntary servtude Except for crme)
shall be prohibited.
That was clear construction put by Congress,
in the year 1845 upon the meaning and interpreta-
ton of the exclusion contained in the act for the
admission of Missouri, passed in 1920. The last ap-
plies as restriction to States, expressly by name
as Estates" and the other is perpetual restriction
upon certain described TERRITORY" or domain, with
out the slightest reference to the political mutations
through which it Nigh pass
In The next place. Mr.. President, I think it is
abundantly evident that the Missouri compromise
was founded upon certain principle. My friend
from Massachusetts said, that he did not see how
we could, with correctness, use the language that
the restriction in the eighth section OF the Missouri
bill was inconsistent with the principle OF non.ln-
tervention established by the legislation Of 1850.
think nv friend erred. l understand by "princi-
pie any fundamental truth, any original postulate,
any first position from which others are deduced,
either as principles or rules OF conduct For exam
pe it is obvious that this principle postulate fun
damental truth, original position, was assumed in
act, to wit: that Congress should have power to es-
tablish geographical line, and to permit slavery
on one side the line and excluding it on the other
and further, that it was expedient that such line
should be selected, and such an exclusion and per-
mission attached to it, and therefore, out OF these
two positions followed the enactment contained in
that statute, that above 81 deg 80 min., slavery
shouk be prohibited, with the implication that
south of SO deg. 80 min it might exist
That is exactly the view which have of what is
meant in the amendment, which has now been in
corporated into the bill by the expression "prnci-
pie of non.intervention recognized by the legislation
of 1850" Some original truth, some proposition
admitted or assumed as being within the power of
the Legislature, and some position of expedicncy to
use it, must always be supposed, as the reason or
foundation upon which the authoritative rule of con-
duct is given in the law.
We'll, then, what was the course to be taken
Here was an act which assumed to fix line, and to
prohibit slavery side and implicitly to admit
it the other side of the line. 1t applied to States
we'll as Territories; and it SO intended. 1t
was supposed by the trainers Of that law that they
had power to make it perpetual in its application to
States as we'll as Territories That is the first char.
acterstic of it. rather characteristic divided
into two heads. The next is this: The Missouri
compromise law intended to fix it as rule for all
Territories of the United States. 1t is applied in
terms to all that territory which was coded by
France but we had no other territory. That was
all the territory which we then had whose destiny
was to be settled by act of Congress. Therefore,
the further principle involved was this: They in
tended to compromise and adjust the question be-
tween the different portions of the Union then and
forever.
Am right in this? think so. There is moth.
ing in the act of Congress, there is nothing that
know of in the contemporary discussions in either
OF the Houses of Congress upon the subject, which
goes to show that the two Houses considered that
there was something particular in regard to the ter
ritory coded by France and that what would be
right with regard to that would be wrong with re-