Washington sentinel., 1856-05-17


democratic journal, and commenced the first
of February 1854, strenuously advocated the
adoption of that truly democratic measure.
Portions Of these articles were copied into the
Washington Union at the time. The follow
ing is one of the series referred to, published in
February, 1854:
The Nebraska Question-Shall the People
Rulet
The refusal of the Congress of AS to abide
by and extend the Missouri Compromise, inn
posed upon the Congress Of so a herculean
task The old land marks were removed, and
the beacon lights extinguished. The Provi.
so" had been extended over Oregon. A large
| portion Of Texas had been made subject to the
Missouri Compromise, and California, stretch
ing away south Of SO 30. demanded admission
into the Union with her free constitution,
while New Mexico and the great valley of Salt
Lake stretched forth their hands to Congress,
and mplored the protection of law.
Texas also was enlisting volunteers to march
upon New Mexico to defend her soil from in
vason.
The old remedy had been repudiated To
attempt return TO that was folly, and to leave
| the people without laws would betoken imbe.
cility and infict downright injustice.
| What then was to be done? The crisis de-
| manded legislation upon new and uniform
| principle, which, while it should be in accord
ance with the cardinal principles OF our govern
ment should at the same time be applicable to
| all territory and all coming time. In settling
this question, the friends Of the compromise Of
| 1850 fixed upon the princple'of popular sover-
| eighty, as the polar star to guide them through
| sea of troubles to the haven of safety
| They incorporated this principle into the terri
torial bills of Utah and New Mexico Not
| wiihstanding the vast acquisition to the North
| by the admission Of California as a free State,
and the almost moral certainty that Utah and
New Mexico, if left to their own free choice,
would at no distant day follow her, the Union
men of the South advocated the adoption of
this principle. 1t was understood at the time
the compromise of 1850 violated the Missouri
| Compromise.
lst The territorial bill Of New Mexico en-
braced part of Texas north Of SO 80, which
had been made subject to that compromise
I'd. The Utah bill also embraced large
tract of country acquired in the Louisiana pur-
chase north of 36 30!
And yet no objection was raised against the
compromise measures Of 1850 on account of
this infringement of that line.
The legislation Of 1850 is in principle incon.
sistent with, and in part supercedes the Mis-
souri, Compromise 1t claimed to be fndIiiy
I with espect to the subject of slavery in the
territories, because it established uniform
rule of perpetual application to all territory for
all coming time, upon the principle of popular
sovereignty. Upon no other construction can
its fnality be vindcated, or the vexed question
of slavery in the territories, properly be regard
ed as settled. d
| What sort of fnalay is there in that legisa
| ton which is one thing in one territory, aud
another and different thing in another? that
has one system for the North, and another for
the South side of a geographical line that
| makes Congress supreme in one, and the peo-
pie supreme in the other? When will there
be an end to agitation, if Congress shall recog-
nize two distinct and conflicting rules of legis-
lation for the territories-the geographical line
and the principle of non-intearention, tie ON
impotence of Congress, and the soeereiqntv Of
the peopleP Who will fix bounds to this strug-
! gle for supremacy?
| The prophetic vision of Mr.. Jefferson clear.
| ly foresaw this mighty conflict, at the adoption
of the Missouri Compromise in 1920. In de-
| ploring the consequences of this act, he then
uttered the following solemn notes of warning.
Speaking of the agitation destined one day to
grow out of this Compromise, he says:-
"H Is hushed for the present BIT Il is a
repriere only, not a final sentence. A geographi
cal line coincidiRg toah a marked principle
moral and political, once cOnceired and held up
TO the angry passions Of men, tciU nerer be Oh
liberated. And erery neio irritation iciH make
Il deeper and deeper"
When the two great political parties, at Bal
timore pledged allegiance to the Compromise
Of 1850, did they nothing more than avow
their determination to oppose repeal of that
enactment with the mental reservation to api-
tate again whenever the question of the organ
ization Of another territory should arise If
they did not by that act mean to declare their
intexible adherence TO the principle Of that
enactment, and settled purpose to apply il on
future occasions-they performed a compare
lively unmeaning ceremony, or practised stu
pendous fraud upon the people. That Com
promise contemplated more than this. Otherwise
the vaunted calm that followed its adoption was
an illusion, and the acclamations of delight
that heralded its passage was like the capri
cious CALCULATIONS Of a child, that cannot speak
for its JOY.
The old geographical line, Of 1920 yielded
TO the nonintervention principle Of 1850. 1t
IS no sort of consequence whether the latter in
terms repealed the former. Ii did so in prn.
ciple, and If II did not in fact il is the duty Of
the present Congress 10 finish up the work of
applying the uniform rule Of legislation IN
1850 10 all territory.
This is due TO consistency, to plighted faith,
to the quiet of the country, and TO the Demo
cratic party. Then, indeed, with truth, NAV il
be said, that there was an impressive meaning
in that word fnality, as applied to the compro-
mise Of 1850, in the peace and tranquility that
followed il, and the fealty the two great politi-
cal parties pledged to it. A great, uniform, and
cardinal principle Of legislation will then have
been vindicated and established, maintained
and perpetuated by the representatives Of the
millions of patriotic hearts that volunteered
for this service.
Ever responsive to their call, and faithful to
this principle, Senator Douglas introduced
this Nebraska bill, and sustained il in speech
of characteristic power and eloquence. Gen
Cass, the embodiment" so to speak, of the
non Intervention principle, having enforced il
in his Nicholson letter in lS48, at the loss OF
the Presidency is understood to favor the bill
Hon. Daniel s. Dickinson, martyr to the
cause Of State Rights and popular sovereignty
whose name has become almost synonymous