Year: 1860

question, in the Senate of the United
States, a few days since. 1t was
marked by historical research, logical
ability and excellent temper. In the
course of it he said that the Republi-
can Party propose to restore the Mis-
souri, Compromise line. What"
said he, "is the proposition Of the
Party? Nothing more,
nothing less than to restore that line. :"
We doubt very much whether upon j
this point he spoke the general senti-
ment of the Republican Party. I'll
was unquestionably the repeal Of that
Compromise which called the Repub-
lican Party into existence; they re.
sisted the effort to blot it out, but It'll
does not fellow that they would favor
it's restoration.


II is not easy to see what the North |
has to gain by restoring a line which
them from very large por-
ton of the Territory of the Union,
and admitted them only to a section
which they have succeeded in occu-
pying in spite of its repeal. The Mis-
sousi Compromise excluded slavery
from all the region north of the par
allel SO deg. 80 min., and admitted it,
by implication at least, into all the re-
gion south of that line. It was re-
pealed in order TO permit slavery to
enter the northern section; but that
object was foiled by the resolute resist
ance of the people themselves. Kan.
sas has been secured to freedom and
slavery can never be carried into the
region lying west and north OF it, sim
lily because it cannot traverse a Free
State. The Free States, therefore,
stand just as well now as they could
have done under the Missouri Com
promise, with the added advantage of
being allowed to contest possession of
the region south of the Compromise
line. 1t is scarcely probable that, un-
der these circumstances, the Republi-
cans will insist upon its restoration.


Undoubtedly the main object of the
Republican Party will continue to be
to prevent the extension of Slavery
into a new Territory; but they will
not be restricted in this endeavor here
after, as they have been hitherto, to
that portion of it north of the old
Compromise line. They will carry
the controversy into every Territory
of the United States,-and in nearly
all of them with reasonable prospects
of success. Whether they will insist
that Congress shall pass law prohib-
iting Slavery in the Territories may be
doubtful. The great mass of the par
ty hold to the abstract right of Con-
gress to enact such prohibition, in
spite of the opinions Of members of
the Supreme Court; and there are


many in its ranks who seem disposed


to insist upon its exercise. But the


general conviction seems to be that no


such action of Congress will be neces.


sary; and the most eminent and influ.


entail of the Republican leaders are


inclined neither to ask nor permit any


further legislation upon this subject.


They rest with full confidence upon


the spirit and sentiment of the settlers,


feeling quite certain that in any Terri.


tory which may be settled by emigra'


ton, the interest Of the inhabitants


will decide the question in favor Of


freedom. While they will resist


Therefore, any attempt of the South to
!pass laws for the protection of Slavery
in the Territories, they will ask none


for its prohibition.


Whatever party may be in the as


cendant, therefore, it seems altogcthe,


probable that the principle-or at all


events the practice-of popular SOW.


ereignty, will practically settle the


question of Slavery in the Territories


The refnements of constitutional law


will have but little influence on the


subject. Whatever lawyers may ar.


que, or courts decide, it will after al


remain for the people Of the Terrific


ries to say for themselves whethe,


Slavery shall, or shall not, find foot


hold upon their soil.


l