The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-10

90 that he proposed the extension Of the Mis- o.
souri compromise line through this territory, b
and he complains that it was rejected by the
votes Of the free States. So it was. And $
whyl Because the Missouri compromise ap-
Piled to territory in which slavery was already '
allowed. The Missouri prohibition exempted Z
q portion Of this territory, and the larger por-
ton, from the evil. 1t carried out, ia respect
to that, the original policy Of the country.
But the extension Of that line through the
territory acquired from Mexico, with the un.
derstanding which the Senator from Illinois
and his friends attached to II, would have in
troduced slavery into vast region in which |
slavery at the time Of acquisition, was not
allowed. To agree to 1t would have been to
reverse totally the original policy Of the coun-
try and to disregard the principle upon which
the Missouri compromise was based. |
Il 10 true that when the controversy in res |
pect to this Territory came to conclusion,
the provisions Of the acts by which territorial
governments were organized, were in some
respects worse than that proposition of the
Senator. While those bills professed to leave
the question Of slavery or no slavery in the
Territories, unaffected by their provisions, to
judicial decision, they did, nevertheless, vir-
tually decide the question for all the terrific
ry covered by them, SO far asegslation could
decide IL, against freedom. California, in
deed, was admitted as a free State; aud by
her admission the scheme of extending line
of slave States to the Pacific was, for the
time defeated. The principle upon which
northern friends Of the territorial compromise
acts vindcated their support of them was this:
Slavery 10 prohibited in these Territories BY
Mexican law;-that law is not repealed by
any provision of the acts;-indeed, said many
of them, slavery cannot exist in any Terri
tory, except in virtue Of positive act OF Con-
gress-no such act allows slavery there
there is no danger, therefore, that any slaves
will be taken into the Territory. Southern
supporters Of the measure sustained them
upon quite opposite grounds. Under the pro-
visions Of the Federal Constitution, they said
the STAKEHOLDER can hold his slaves in an,
Territory in spite of any prohibition of Ter
ritorisl Legislature, or even Of an act of Con
gress. The Mexican law forbidding slavery
was sbrogated at the moment OF acquisition
by the operation of the Constitution. Con
gress has not undertaken to impose any pro-
hbition. We can, therefore, take our slaves
there, If we please.
The committee tell US that this question
was left in doubt by the Territorial bills.
What, then, was the principle II any, upon
which this controversy was adjusted! Clear
ly this: That when free territory is acquired
that part Of it which is ready to come in al
a free State shall be ad United into the Union
and that part which is not ready shall be or
ganized into territorial governments, and III
condition in respect to slavery or freedom
shall be left in doubt during the whole periot
of its territorial existence.
1t is quite obvious, Mr.. President, how v cry
prejudicial such doubt must be to the set
Element and improvement Of the territory
But must not pause upon this.
The truth is, that the Compromise acts o
1850 were not intended to introduce any prin
-ciple of territorial organization applicable t.
any other Territory except covered by them
The Professed object Of the friends Of tn
compromise acts was to compose the Who'll
slavery agitation. There were various ma,
ters of complaint. The non-surrender Of fu
sitiyes from service was one. The existenc
of slavery and the slave trade here In thi
District and elsewhere, under the exclusiv
jurisdiction of Congress, was another. TIL
aPprehended introduction or prohibition q
slavery in the Territories furnished othe
grounds Of controversy. The slave State
complained Of the free States, and the fire.
States complained Of the slave States.
was supposed by some that this whole agt,
ton might be stayed, and finally put at re.
by skilfully adjusted legislation. So, sir, W
had the omnibus bill and its appeadages. tn
fugitive slave bill, and the District slave trad
suppression bill To please the North--t
please the free States-Californiaw was to b
admitted, and the slave depots here in tn
District were 10 be broken up. To pleas
the slave States, stringent fugitive slay
act was to be passed, and slavery was to hay
chance to get into the new Territories
The support OF the Senators aud Reeresen
tatives from Texas was to be gained by lib
eral adjustment of boundary. and by the as
sumption ofa large portion Of their Stat,
debt. The general result contemplated wa,
complete and final adjustment Of all ques
tions relating to slavery. The acts passed
number ot the friends of the acts signed :
compact, pledgng themselves to support nc
man for any Office who would in any way re-
new the agitation. The country was requir.
ed to acquiesce in the settlement as an alb.
soluie hnality. No man concerned in carry,
ing those measures through Congress, and
least ofsll the distinguished man who contrbu
ted TO their success. ever imagined that in the
territorial acts which formed part of the Sc.
ries, they were planting the germs ofa new
agitation. Indeed. have proved that one OF
these acts contains an express stipulation
which precludes the revival ef the agitation
In the form In which il 10 now thrust upon
the country, withou, manifest disregard of the
provisions Of those acts themselves.
have thus proved beyond controversy that
the ayerment OF the bill. which my amend.
,msnt proposes to strike out, is untrue. Sem
ators, will you unite In q statement which
you knew TO be contrsdictsd by the history
OF the eountryl Will you incorporate into
public statute an Affirmation which in con.