Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-25

extend to all rishtful subjects of legislation eonsis
tent with the constitution OF the United ana
the provisions Of the act, not excepting slavery
Thus, the New Mexico bill, from which they make
| that quotation, contained the provision that New
MexicoS including that part of Texas wAich was cut
off, should come into the pnon, with or without
slavery as it saw proper, and in the time the
territorial legislature should have all tho authority
over the subject of slavery that they had sfer any
other subject restricted only by the llmtatohs o.
the constitution of the United States and the proys-
ions of the act Now ask those senators, dc rot
those provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise so
far as it applied to that country cut OIL from IeXas
Do they not annulit? Do they not supersedc IL
IF they do, then the address which has been put
forth to the world by these confederatcs is an afro
cious fasehood. If they do not, then what do they
mean when they charge me with having, IN the sub
stitute first reported from the committee, repealed
it. with having annuled it, with having violated it,
when 1 only copied these precise words :? copied
the precise words into my BILL as reported from the
committee, which were contained in the New Mexi-
CO BILL They say my bill annuls the Missouri Com
promise fl does it had already been done before
By the act of 1850; for these words were copied
from the act Of 1850.
Mr.. Wade. Why do you do it over again
Mr.. Douglas. l will come to that point presently,
and explain why we did it over again. am now
dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination
of men who have assembled in secret caucus upon
the Sabbath day to arraign my conduct and belle
my character. l say therefore, that their NANTES
to is SANDER either way; Tor it says that the Mis-
souri, Compromise was not superseded by the meas
ures of 1850 and then it says that the same words
in my bill do repeal and annul it. They must be
adiudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain
the other assertion.
Now, sir, propose to go little further, and show
what was the real meaning of the amendment of the
Senator from Virginia. out of which these gentlemen
have manufactured so much capital in the newspaper
press and have succeeded by that misrepresentation
in procuring expression ofopinon from the State
of Rhode Island i'll opposition to this BILL Will state
what its meaning is. Did it mean that the States
north of 36 deg. 80 min. should have clause in
their constitutions prohibiting slavery? L have
shown that it did not mean that, because the same
act says that they might come IN with slavery they
saw proper. | say it could not mean that, for an
other reason. The same section containing that
provso cut off all that part ofTeXas north OF SO deg
80 min and hence there nothing for it to oper-
ate upon 1t did not, therefore, relate to the coun-
try cut off. What did it relate to? Why, it meant
simply this BY the joint resolution of 1915 Texas
annexed with the right to form four additional
States out of her territory and such States were
south of Sc deg. 80 min. were to come in, with or
without slavery, as they saw proper, and in such
State OF States as north of that line slavery
should be prohibited When had cut off all
north of SO deg 80 min and thus circumseribed the
boundary and diminished the territory of Texas, the
question arose, how many States Will Texas be en-
titled to under this circumScIibed boundary? Ger
tanly not four, it will be argued. Why? because
the original resolution of annexation provided that
of the States ifnot more should be nth of SO
deg 80 min 1t would leave it then doubtful wheth-
er Texas entitled to two or three additional
States under the cifcumscribed boundary In order
to put that matter to rest in order to make final
in order to have it explicitly understood
what was the meaning of Congress- the Senatorfrom
Ergnia offered the amendment that nothing therein
contained should impair thai provision, either as to
the number of States otherwiSe-that is, that
Texas should be entitled to the same number of
States with her reduced boundaries as she would
have been entitled to under her larger boundaries
and those States shall in with without slave
~, being all south of Sc deg 80 min., and nothing
sage of the act. Such sir, the meaning of that
proposition. Any other construction of it would |
stulty the very character and purpose of its mover
the Senator from Virginia. Such. then, was not on
y the intent of the mover but such is the legal eff
ect of the law and say that no man. after reading
he other sections of the bill-those to which have
'eferred-can doubt that such was both the intent |
and the legal effect Of that law.
Then, l submit to the Senate if l have not con-
Iicted this manifesto, issued by the abolition con-
tderates, of being gross fasitcation of the laws of
he land and by that Justification that erroneous
md uriOus impression has been created upon the
public mind. I'm sorry to be compelled to indulge
n language of this severity but there is no other
language that is adequate to express the Indignation
With which see this attempt, not only to misead
ne public, but to maign my character, by delibcr-
tie Justification of the pubic statues and the public
ecords
Sir, this misrepresentation and Justification does
lot stop here. In order to give greater plausibty
their statements, they go further and state that
that nothing herein contained shall be construed to
IMPAIR quality the prohibition of slavery north
# Sc deg. 80 min and yet in the face of this declar-
on that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown
Jan presumption go flrther?"
In the very teeth of the statute saying that they
hould come in, with without slavery, they
eased these men declare that it is stated that it
houd be forever prohibited. I repeat to Them
Gould presumption go further?" Not only pre-
umption in making these statements, but the pre-
umpton that they could avoid the exposure of their
conduct.
In order to give greater plausibility to this als
alton OF the terms of the Compromise measures of /
$780, the confederates also declare in their manifesto
hat they Ghe territorial bills for the organization Of
Jtah and New Mcxico) applied to the territory
uired from Mexico, and to that only. They were
Intended settlement of the controversy growing
ut of that acquisition, and of that controversy only
they must stand or fall by their merits"
submit to the Senate if there is intelligent
nan in America that docs not know that that decla-
alton is falsiied by the statute from which they
quote? They say that the provisions of that bill
we're confined to the territory acquired from Mexico
vhen the very section of the law from which they
quoted that provso, did purchase part of that very
erritory from the State of Texas; and the next sec
ion of the law included that territory in the new
erritory of Mexico. 1t took small portion also of
he old Louisiana purchase, and added that to the
lew territory of Mexico, and made up the rest out
If the Mexican acquisitions. Then, sir your stat
tie, show, when applied to the map of the country
hat the Territory of New Mexico was composed of
erritory acquired from Mexico also of territory
cquired from Texas aid yet, in defiance of that
tatute, and in Justification of its terms told
n order to deceive the people, that the bills were
tn thp ohaSn Hof1 o1OT |