Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-03-08

Segree of latitude, on the south, and divides the
res;due into two Territories-the southern Terr-
torvo Kansas, and the northern Territory OF Ne.
brcska. Il applies to each all the provisions oil
the Utah and New Mexico bills; Il REJECTS entre-
" the twenty-6rst clerica-error section and aoro-
gates the Missouri prohibition by the very slngu-
lar proyision, which will read:
airhe Consultation and all laws OF the United
States which are not locally inapplicable, shall
Rave the same force and effect within the said
TERRITORY of Nebraska as elsewhere within the
limited States, except the eighth section OF the
act preparatory to the admission Of Missouri into
the Union, approved March s, 1890, which was
superseded by the principles OF the ieglsauon o'
1850, commonly called the compromise measures
and is thesk declared iuoPeratlve'
Donbtless. Mr. President this provision ope-
ystes NJ 4 repeal Of the prohibition. The Sena-
,or from Kentucky was right when he said It was
In effect the equivalent of his amendment
Those who are willing to break and destroy the old
compact of 1920, can vote for this bill with full
assurance that such will be its effect. But ap-
neal to them not TO vote for this supersedure
clause. ask them not to incorporate into the
legislation of the country declaration wh'ch ev,
ery one knows to be wholly untrue. nave sa'd
that this doctrine of supersedure is new. nave
now proved that it is plant Of but ten days
growth. 1t was never seen or heard OF until the
9sd day Of January, 1854. 1t was upon that day
that this tree Upas was planted; we already see Its
poison fruits.
The provision have quoted abrogates the Mis-
souri prohbition II asserts no right in the Ter
rituriai Legislature to prohibit Slavery The Sen
ator from illinois, in his speech, was very careful
to assert no right of Legislation in Territorial
Legislature, except subject to the restrictions ana
limitations of the Constitution. We know well
enough what the understanding or claim of South
L, - IN limlfnf0nS
and restrictions. They insist that by them every
Territorial Legislature is absolutely precluded
from all power Of legislation for the prohibition OF
Slavery. | warn gentlemen who propose to sup
port this bi that their votes for this provision Will
be regarded as admitting the claim.
have thus given brief account of the muta-
tons which this bill has undergone. have shown
the origin and duration of the pretence that the
Missouri prohibition is superseded by the iegsla-
ton of 1850. l now appeal to the Senators who
sit around me, and who with me participated IN
the discussions Of 1861 ask them to say wheth-
er any one Of them imagined then, or believes
now that the Missouri prohibition was superseded
BY the legislation Of that year. Here, sir sits the
Senator from Virginia, Mr.. Mason will he say
that at any time before the 23d of January, 1854,
he ever heard such proposition stated or main
tanned anywhere, by anybody! No, sir, he will
not saw it. There is no evidence that the asser-
ton was ever made before that day, when it made
its appearance in the Senator's bill 1t is a re-
markable circumstance, that 5000 copies OF the
committees report have been printed by the order
of the Senate, and know not how many for in
diyidual subscribers, and circulated through the
country, and sustaining the bill upon the ground
that the Missouri prohibition is neither repealed
nor afirmed--whiIe the bill itself is now amended
expressly abrogates that prohibition. The report
as circulated condemns the bill as amended, and
the bill as amended contradcts the report as cir
culated. All this must necessarily mlslead ana
confuse the public judgment
Ihave now proved that the doctrine of superse-
dure is novelty. / Twill proceed to prove that ii
is as groundless as it is novel.
The Senator from Illinois, in his speech the
other day. made general charge of gross ignor-
ance of the history and geography OF the country
against the singers of the independent Democratic
Appeal, and singled out several paragraphs of that
document for special apprehension. 1t was rather
adrot in the Senator to mix the defence of his
own bill with an attack upon two Senators whose
opinions on slavery questions are at variance with
those most commonly received here. But the
movement will not, / think, avail him much.
have no fears that he can refute any statement or
overturn any proposition of that address. Sir, he
might as well attack Gibralter. True in all its
statements, and irrefragabe, as l believe, in all
its reasonings it is impregnable to any assault by
him, or any man.
The first specification under his general charge
of ignorance and Misrepresentation, denies the
truth of statement which will now read
"These acts were never supposed to abrogate
or touch the existing exclusion Of slavery from
what is now called Nebraska. They applied to
the Territory acquired from Mexico, and to that
onlv They were intended as settlement of the
controversy growing out Of that acquisition, and
of that controversy only. They must stand or
fall by their own merits"
That the first sentence which have read is alb
Soutely true, | suppose no man now doubts
Senators who were here during the discussions OF
1850, must remember that the report Of the Com
promise measures applied to the "newiy acquired
territory" The honorable and distinguished Sen
ator from Michigan sits near me- and can say
whether any syllable was uttered in the committee
of Thirteen or elsewhere, to his knowledge which
indicated any purpose to apply them to any other
Territory. IL am in error, beg the Senator to
correct me. Mr.. CAss remained SILENT. / am
right, then.
But the Senator from Illinois says that the ter
rtoria compromise acts did in fact apply to other
territory than that acquired from Mexico. How
does he prove that! He says that a part of the
territory was acquired from Texas. But this very
territory which he says was acquired from Texas
was acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico
ceded it to the United States, Texas claimed that
that cesson Injured to her benefit. That claim,
only, was relnquished to the United States. The
case then, stands thus: we acquired the territory
from Mexico; Texas claimed it, but gave up her
claim. This certainly does not disprove the asser-
ton that the territory was acquired from Mexico,
and as certainly it does not sustain the Senator's
assertion, that it was acquired from Texas.
The Senator next tells the Senate and the coun-
try, that by the Utah act, there was included in
the Territory Of Utah portion Of the old Louis
lana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibi-
ton, which prohibition was annulled as to that
portion by the provisions Of that act. Every one
at all acquainted with our public history knows
that the dividing line between Spain and the
United States extended due north from the source
Of the Arkansas to the AID parallel of north lat-