Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-04-06

By means OF this compromise ino' 'n0
South had, from step to step, as have stat,
ed. obtained these several advantages; anu
what do we come at next ? This had oper-
ated as a sort of stool-pigeon, decoy, to en-
able them to go on, step alter step, Win
these various arrangements as they wah'eu'
It ouieted the North; it enabled them to 3D.
tain from the North these various measures;
But. sir, when they had gotten them all
through; when there WIS no more expecta-
ton of obtaining anything south OF the ilne'
when they had secured every advantage IL !
was practicable to have from it, now they
must Just at once take down the stool-plgeon,
destroy the decoy, obliterate the lne'
and spread their pc uliar institution as
much north of it as they could. That was
attempted to be done in 1851, by the leglsla-
ton of that year.
Now come to the point that the Senator
from Louisiana suggests. Why was that
compromise repealed? Wy was that line
obliterated ? Here let me say. that the more
excuses a man makes for thing. the less we
are satisfied with it. 4 good excuse or reason
is perfect in ITSELF it is not made by collect
ing together half dozen imperfect ones; and
l will now call attention to some of what are
said to be the causes of that ObliteratlOn.
lrSC, We dTt IOlQ ny buo iipA't-@'iN
Senator from louisiana that the North were
unfaithful to the agreement. | know the
honorable Senator from louisiana, in put
ing the question to me. does not use those
terms: but they are the terms that are
attempted TO be used in presenting this pro-
position to the community: that the North
were unfaithful and untrue to that Missouri
COMPROMISE line. How? " hat do you
.-,o faithful p nm
pact? What is meant by it in the English
language? | take it, it is the carrying out
and executing the ompact according e. its
terms. according to the understanding Of it
when it was made What was the under
standing in relation to that compromise line
when it was made in 1920 1t was to run
through the French purchase-the Louisiana
purchase, if you please-from the Mississippi
river to the Rocky Mountains. Had not
that always been carried out until 1t ";ts re-
pealed ? What had ever the northern poop
ie done that was untrue to that compact
Nothing, nothing. Nothing is pretended.
Then that pretended excuse is unfounded.
The allegation that they had been untrue to
it themselves is simply untrue.
The gentleman from Virginia found fault
with the compromise Of 1920, because, he
said, the North made it, and 1t was an
aggression when it was made. The next
reason that is given is, that they wousd not
extend it, The third reason is the one put
into the bill that it was contrary to the
compromise of 1850; but we have this SEES
sion, and perhaps within short period be-
fore. got another reason. 1t is said that 1t Is
unconstitutional. that Congress was well
justified in repeating it, because 1t was IN
constitutional.
was stating the reasons which were at
tempted TO be given for that repeal. The hrst,
mentioned here by the Senator from Virgin
ia. was that the North made 1t, and that II
was an aggression the second was that 1t
was not extended over other Territories, but
a new bargain made for them the third was,
that it was inconsistent with the cOmprO-
mise of 1850; and the fourth Is that 1t was
unconstitutional all the while. To my mind,
this last is pretty much like Jack Faistatf $,
/ Il knew you all the while. 1t Is an alter
/ thought, a new discovery. Is it possible that
! these gentlemen can give that as an excuse
| for dong the thing when they did not ex-
/ plain it or state it at the time they did 1t
Again, is it becoming in these people to
say. ave agreed to this proposition we
made this arrangement with you IN loZo !:
we have had our States admitted South OF
the line, according to it; we have had the
consideration on our part, and now we turn
around on you, and tell you we never had
anv authority to make it, and we knew we
had not when we did it it was a great de-
fusion from beginning TO end ? The truth
is. that in common ethics. as well as in law
| when a man exercises the power TO do a
81, J. ,o raA from cavinr - had NOT
the power. If a man sells me horse as his,
he cannot afterwards, after taking his pay,
| tell me that the horse belonged TO another
man. He has no right to say it he Is es-
topped from saying it. So with those who
exercised this power. They are not at iiber-
tv, in law or in morality, to say that they
had not the right TO do it. 1t Is totally I'M
material whether they had OF 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 compro-
mise line making Unconstitutional. Was II
unconstitutional because it was not long
enough Is it possible for you to say that
if it had been extended TO the Pacific 1t
would have been good and constitutional
line Here stands the honorable Senator
from Louisiana a more ingenious lawyer
certainly can seldom be found, whatever may
have been said about the Philadelphia law
yers but he stands here and puts to me a
question implying plainly that tina difficulty
was, we would not extend the line. Then
you were willing to extend it and forbid
slavery North of it clear to the Pacific? Yes
Then how had you a right to do it or dc
you mean to acknowledge that you were Their
tryidg to play another trick on US? l Dc
not believe anything of this notion you die
not believe it at the time and it is an ex
cuse that should not be permitted to be made
by any man.
THE STATES HAVE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS II