Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-03-27

|
regarded as sdch a compact, from the date
Of its enactment, in all sections and by all
the people Of the country. Successive Pre-
sidents have invoked for It a respect and an
obligation scarcely Inferior to that Of the
Constitution itself,we find Senator DJUoLAss
himself, as late as I845, declared that il had
been ''canonized in the hearts Of the Ameri-
can people, as a sacred thing which no ruth
less hand would everi be reckless enough
to disturb" Whatever therefore, the mere
form Of the bond may have permitted, good
faith on the part of the representatives of
the slayeholding interest required, that it
should be kept involate.
! IL. Nor is this charge oebad faith, brought
against the Slaveholding interest, for having
repealed the Missouri Compromise. answered
or cvaded by the pleas argued in its defence,
that originally it was forcibIy imposed BY
the Free States upon the Slave States, with.
out their consent;-that 1t was subsequently
violated by the Free States, in their refusal
to extend its provisions over New-Mexico
and Utah.--or that its repeal, having been
offered by the Free States themselves, could
not be resisted or refused by the rcpresen-
tatives Of Slavery. ~ Even il 10 were
true that the prohibition Of Slavery Forth of
SO : 80 was originally enacted by the Free
States against the votes of the South, the
fact that the admission Of Missouri was ac-
cepted as the price Of that prohibition,
wou have made Slaveholding interest q
party to the Transaction, asserting to its
terms and bourd by its obligations. But
the fact is not SO. The act of March 6, 1920
which admitted Missouri and prohibited by
Slavery in the Louisiana Territory north Of
So > 80, received in the Senate the votes Of
fourteen members from Slaveholding States,
while only eight were cast against t,-and in
the House oil Represen tatives thirty eight
members from the Slave States voted for it.
A majority Of the votes from Slaveholding
States, in each branch OF Congress, were
thus given for the bill; and SO far were the
representatives of Slavery from regarding it
as having been forced upon them, that
CHARLES PINcKNEY, one Of their greatest
and aolest leaders, declared on the night of
its passage, that SIT UaS regarded in the Slave
holding States as q triumph" o. Still
more absurd is it to say that the refusal Of
the North to extend the provisions of the
compromise over other regions, was viola
tion OF its terms, or in any way released the
parties to if from their obligation to abide
by its requireme nts. g. 1t is true that the
| established author of the proposition to re-
peal it was Senator from Free State:-
but that fact does not authorize the inference
that the sentiment of the freeStates was just
ly and truly represented by his action
There was indeed by the unanimous voice of
the Free States, and that it would be regar-
ded by them, and by the country at large, as
a very gross and wanton violation of obliga-
tons which had been voluntarily assumed
No matter from what geographical quarter
OF the Union it came, it was brough, forward
in the interest and on behalf of the Slave
holders. This indeed, is among the worst of
the effects Of Slavery, and among the most
signal proofs of its ascendancy, that able and
ambitious men should enlist in its service
and volunteer to perform offices on its behalf
| which its representatives would scorn 10 per-
form themselves the conviction that
by that path the honors and dignities of the
General Government are to re secured
The Slaveholdng interest owed it to honor
and good faith to resist the temptations
which such men might hold out for the re-
pudiation of its obligations.
THE PLEA THAT CONGRESS MAS NO POWER TO
PROHIBIT SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.
Ill. But is urged that the original enact
ment Of the Missouri Compromise, by which
SLAYER, was prohibited from entering a
portion of the Territory of the United
that Congress has no rghtful power to
make such prohibition; but that into any
territory over which the Constitution is ex-
ten led, the Shareholder has a right, by vir-
tue of its provisions. to take his slaves.
| In reply to this, we answer.
First--That, whether the plea be true or
false, it comes too late; that the slavehold-
ing interest conceded the constitutionality
o. the prohibition, by asserting to its en-
actment and aiding it by the votes OF its
representatives.
II Second--That, if the plan were true, the
1 enactment was null and void, by reason o
its unconstitutionaIity, and its repeal, there.
fore, wss a needless ostentation Of bad faith
and
TH.rd-.That the plea is not true, but il
directly contrary to the plain letter, as
vel as ts the spirit of the Constitution,
and to the uniform practice Of the Govern
ment from its foundation.
! The Constitution declares that "the Con
aress shall have power to make all needfu
rules and regulations respecting the Ter
ritories, or other property belonging to thu
United States" This language is very
plain and very broad. 1t imposes no lini
tation upon the power of Congress to make
rules and regulations respecting the Ter
r,tories. except that they shall be such a
are ''ueedtul;" aud this of course, i, lies il
the discretion OF Congress to determine. i
assumes that power To leg slate tor th'
Territories, which are the common proper
, ty Of the Union, must exist some ewhsre,an'
also that il may must justly, and mos
|, safely, be plsced in the commln Govern
ment Of the Union. The authority OF Con
gress over the Territories, is therefore, with
:, out any other limit than such az its sjudg
: ment what is "needful"--of what vii
> best promote their welfare, and that Of b
4 whole couauy TO which they belong ma
. impose. Ii Congress, therefore, deem
eypsdient 10 make Q rue AMI reguirio
-. -