The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1856-06-04

! Nebraska bill was intended TO conform &c
the great principle of State equality and
self government, in obedience TO the con
sttution. The language Of the report is:
"The act of Congress for the organization of the
| Territories cf Kansas and Nebraska was designed
| 10 conform 10 the spirit and letter OF the fedora
Constitution, by prrserv ng and maintaining tht
! fundamental princi-le Of equality among all the
States OF the Uni notwithstanding the restriction
contained in the 9th section Of the act OF March
1920 (prepsrstory to the apmission OF Missouri ines
the Union) which assumed 10 deny TO the people
forever the light TO settle the question OF slavery
| tor themselves, provided they should make thei
homes and organize Stairs north OF 50 deg 80 min
north latitude"
My eoleague replied to that how? He
denied that the Missouri restriction assumed
to do any such thing. he denied that it
assumed to prohibit slavery in the Territory
except while it remained Territory. This
is one of the "uniounded assumptions" to
which he deemed it his duty to be in haste
to reply. This is che language which he
employed:
! "Did the eighth section OF tho act, prepara tory
TO the admission of Missouri into the Union, as .
sumo what is here charged9 That provision In my
| judgn ent has been very mach misunderstood. Ii
is provision relating TO the territory north of So
deg so min ncrth Eitude, and not to the States
be formed out Of it. have not the provision be.
fore me, butl know that il provides substantially
that in all the territory north OF 26 deg. 80 min
slavery shall be forever prohibited. The word for.
YER occurs in ii; and that word sees 20 be veFv
! potent in the estimation OF some gentlemen. Bui,
like the word hereafter or any other word used in
law in reference to Territory, it 10 have
effect Whenever the Ter ritory ceases TO exist. AZ
| ter tie territory Is admitt,d d into the Union
State, the laws provided for its government while
a Territory become nugutory, unless some provis-
ion be nude for their continuance"
Is that one of the "unfounded sssump.
tions" in the majority report2 Is it true,
as he says, that the act of Congress known
as the Missouri Compromise, although it
contained the word forever did not mean
forever? Is i. true that, without the pas
sage of the Nebraska bill, containing the
repeating clause, the act of 1920 would
have become nugatory and void ON the peo
pie Of the territory forming a constitution
at Topeka and coming into the Union? Il
so what is meant by all the leaders of thai
great party Of which he has become now sc
prominent a melnber when they charge me
with violating svlemn compact-a com.
pact which they say cousecrated to "FEEE
DOM FoREvER?" They say it was a com
plct binding "(crever. He says it is ar
unfounded assumption, for it was only a Law
which would become void without even be
ing repealed; it was mere legislative en-
actment, like any other territorial law, anc
the word "forever" meant no more thar
thereafter" that it would expire by its owl
! limitation. If this assumption be true, il
necessarily follows that what he called thu
Missouri Compromise WAS no compact
was not a contract-nor even II compromise
the repeal Of it would involve breach 0
| faith!
Ii he be right in this assumption, wha
excuse has he for joining in this crusade
against me-. and against the Democratic
party, on the grourd that we have repealed
a sacred eompact-that we have remove d
the obligations of a solemn covenant which
dedicated the country TO FREEDOM FoREvER
| If his position be true, he convlcts all Of hi
associates on that side Of the chamber o
having slaudered me. If his position b,
true, the "untonnded assumptions" of which
he speaks were the assumptions OF his coad
tutors and not OF my SELF. Why net arraigr
tbem for their unftuuded assumptions -
Why not denounce them for having burned
me in effigy on the charge that had viola
ted solemn compact which. he says, was
not a compact. but mere ordinary act q
legislation, inteRded to be temporary in i
character, and to became nugatory and
void whene yer there should be people G.
nough to form government. and TO as
sumo the right TO govern themselves?
Sir, understand the object CT this part
of his speech perfectly. He knows that the
aboltionists Of Illinois win tolerate hin
even in such an "unfounded assumption, >
provided be makes bis war bitter enough or
me personally, and on the democratic or
gauization throughout the State, to conpen
sa them for this dsavowsl Of portion oi
their creed. l. is int.nded to detach here
and there democrat from his party, and to
carry shem captive into the black repGbli
can camp. 10 help fight the battle 10 the
next presidential campaign; aud in tha
event of success, lie viii be rewarded fol
his services upon the ground that the end
! iustiies the means.
Again, he makes the following quotation
| from my report, cutting The sentences ir
two, and omltting the tirst part of it:
| "Another branch Of this report TO which desir,
| to call attention is in these words:
In obedience to the constitution, the Kansas Ne
brasil act declared, in the precise language OF the
compromise measures OF 1850, that when admitted
as State the said Territory, or any portion OF the
same, shall be received into the Union with with
ssvery, their conslitu tion may prsscrib Q,
| the time OF their admission
On this passage Of the report he com
menls as follows:
Prom this CLAUSE, which has no practical sffeci
whaieVer, either in the compromise measures 0
1880 or the Kansas Nebraska act, 1t hss been con.
tended that the compromise measures OF 1880 wer
inconsistent with the compromise Of 1920. deny
the position There 10 no inconsistency betweeI
them. The Missouri compromise, as already showI
did not prevent the admission of state inte th'
Union with or without slavery, its consti tiutior
might prescribe at the time OF It's admission."
Here we are told that there sis no incon
sistehcy between m"--the Missouri Com
promise, the Kansas Nebraska act, and the
Compromise Of 1850; that "the Missouri
Compromise did not prevent the admission
of State (Kansas or Nebraska) into the
Union with or without slavery. as it's con
slitution might prescribe at the time OF it,
admission" II this assumption be true
if the Missouri Compromise was not des
igned to prevent Kansas and the rest
Of the territory north Of 80 deg, 80 min
| from coming into the I'm on as slave States
lift did not impoee any prohibition ol
restriction upon them in this respect---if, as
is here asserted, they we're at liberty to
come into the Union with or without sla
very, as they might choose. before the Kan.
sas- Nebraska bill was passed-and II The
passage Of that bill made no change in this
| respect. why ID nv colleague declairiinp