Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1860-04-06

I
passed bill in 1920
Mr.. Co11AMrR The gentleman is making |
a speech Of his own he has not asked me
question. He is making up his logic stating
his premises, and drawing his conclusions IN
his own way. say all the parts of that com
promise constitute whole They should be
ion 10 stand together. and have already ex-
riained what | considered entered into and
constituted part Of it, Now gentlemen say, f.
that when they came to pass law making
territorial government for Kansas and Nobras-
ka. they had to pass it like those for which
thcv had precedent How was there any obli-
cation to do that Not the leastinithc world.
ia man had sold land for ten dollars an acre,
a large tract. and should afterwards sell
similar amount to the same purchaser for twcn-
Nv dollars, could he then say. "now you must
give me twenty dollars for the first They
had made arrangements all about4hat line
before the compromise was made on that
basis: and now, when they camo TO make a
territorial government were they obliged TO
make il on the basis Of the Utah act, passed
since the line was arranged;
! was stating the reasons which we're at
tempted to be given for that repeal. The
first. mentioned here by the Senator from \ir-
ginia. was that the North made 1t, and that 1t
was an aggression the second was that 1t
was not extended over other Territories, but
new bargain made for them; the third was,
that il was inconsistent with the compromise
Of 1850; and the fourth is, that it was uncon-
stitudonal all the while. To my mind, this
last is pretty much like Jack Falistait s, 81
knew you all the while IL is an after
thought. q new discovery. Is il possible that
these gentlemen can give that as an excuse
for doing the thing when they did not cxpIain
il or state it at the time they did it.
Again, is it becoming in these people to
say. 1--WE agreed to this propositions we
made this arrangement with you in 1870; we
have had our States admitted south Of the
line. according to it, we have had the consid-
Grafton on our part, and now we turn around
on YOU and tell you we never had any author
ity 10 make it, and we knew we had not when
we did it; it was great delusion from begin
ming to end The truth is, that, in common
ethics, as well as in law, when a man excr-
cisos the power to do a thing he is estopped
from saying he had not the power. If man
sells me a horse as his, he cannot afterwards,
after taking his pay, tell nc that the horse
belonged to another man. lie has no right to
say it; he is estopped from saying it. SO
with those who exercised this power They
arc not at liberty, in law or in morality, to
Say that they had not the right to do it, 1t
is totally immaterial whether they had or had
not the power. With them, it should be held
sacred for they did it,
But, Mr.. President, have been unable to
see what was the difficulty in this compromise
line. making it constitutional. Was it uncon-
stitutional because it was not long enough
Is it possible for you TO say that If it had been
extended to the Pacific it would have been a
good and constitutional line; Here stands
the honorable Senator from Louisiana; more
ingenious lawyer certainly can seldom be
found, whatever may have been said about
the Philadelphia lawyers but he stands here
and puts to me a question implying plainly
that the difficulty was, we would not extend
the line. Then you were willing to extend
it and forbid slavery north of it clear to the
Pacifcs Yes. Then how had you a right to
d. it or do you mean to acknowledge that
you were then trying to play another trick on
Us do not believe anything Of this notion
you did not believe it at the time and it is an
excuse mat should not be permitted to be made
by any man.
Bat, Mr.. President how has the expert
mont of the repeal of the Missouri compro-
mise. aud the measures which followed it,
worked What was involved in it; what
dd II propose TO GO IL inc honorable oeh-
9'ot rom ieNas Ar IoiALL) were now NOV,
mere ana ueS'Bhe1 70 oo'@'n my tuoa On TINS
suYec'' nc "ouIu Proo'o'y OBTAIN ~; tne
hansa' OH was ehurfiy dlHerent ON from
inc We" mexico ana IAN ac'S' III 'n"I sec
uon repeating the missouri compromise me
not oh'y ueclareu tha'' oe'nS inconsistent
WIN tho principles OF inc compromise Oh looo,
lnot inc was theteoy ueclareu imperative ana
Np'u' out II i1I'het went on TO Pro''ue that
congress would neither ,'g!sIme slavery INTO
me territory, nor exclude IL 'hefelIom nut
,hut tue p'oP'e 'hereo! Snou'u o' lei' perfect
~ iIee 10 regulate thelr domestic institutions
III tnelr own way, SUBJECT only 10 INC consul
tuuon OF nc uh,'eu states why ana tney
pat IN mat last cause ! am very apt 10 ior-
RET A. because nave always supposed that
all laws made w'thin inns nauon' whether ny
ota'e Legislature OF oy congress were SUB
ge,t 10 'he constitution as matter oil course.
ava not suppose repeating 'hat could aI'er
the TACT otll' there was a stress laid on that
some gentlemen nave 'ald IN the senate we
ana not mink that the people were invested
win power TO regulate inns institution IN
their own way, consutnuonAily and yet
they Volea Tor thNt oil' with that expression