Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-16
SPEECH OF MR. EVERETT.
In SENATE, FEBRUARY &. 1854.
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
ON THE NEBRASKA QUESTION.
TCoScLuDED.

side and the other on any great question 10
the intention and meaning of law tina mean be
gathered from tho words of the statute itself
have not had time to read these debates fully
That is what complained of In the beginning
1have not had time to read, thoroughly as
could wish, those voluminous reports, for they
fill the greater part of two or three thick quarto
volumes; but in what have read do not find
single word from which it appears that any
member of the Senate House of Representa-
tves at that time believed that the territorial
actments of 1850, either as principle, or rule or
precedent, or by analogy, or in any other way
we're to act retrospectively or prospeotively up
on any other Territory. On the contrary, find
much, very much. of broad. distinct, direct OPP
posite bearing | forbear to repeat quotations
from the debates which have been made by Sena-
tors who have preceded me.
The proviso itself which forms so prominent
characteristic and important part of this bill,
the provso that when the Territory, any part
of it, shall be admitted into the Union State
or States, il shall be with or without slavery,
their constitution at the time of admission may
prescribe, was no part of the original compro-
mise, as understand it. The compromise con-
sisted in not inserting the Wilmot proyiso in the
Utah and New Mexico bills. That was moved
and rejected, and the Territory was 10 come in
without any restriction. That was the eompro-
mise in reference to those Territories, and after
that had been voted down, distinguished Sena-
tor from Louisiana Mr. Soule,) not now mem
Der of this body, but abroad in the foreign service
of the country, moved the proyso which have
just recited and he did IT, he said, 'tofeel the
pulse of the House." Mr. Webster, in voting
foI that motion of Mr.. Soule,as he had just vo-
ted against the Wmot proviso, used these
markable words:
''Be il remembered, sir, that | now speak Of
Utah and New Mexico, and Of Them alone
1t was with that caveat that Mr.. Webster vo-
ted for the proyso which forms the characteristic
portion of this legislation of compromise which
is supposed to carry with it law applying to
this whole Territory of Nebraska, previously coy
cred by the Missouri compromise of 1920 Mr..
Webster had ON a former occasion, in the great
speech Of the 9TH of March, 1850, 10 which shall
in a moment advert again, used the following re-
markable language:
And now say, sir, as the proposition upon
which stand this day, and upon the truth and
frmness of which intend To act until it is over
thrown, that there is not at this moment within
the united States single foot of land the char
acter of which, in regard TO its being free soil
territory slave territory is not fixed by some
law and some irrepealable law, beyond the pow
or of the action of the Government"
He meant of course to give TO the Missouri re-
striction the character of "A compact which the
Government in good faith could not repeal, and
there was in the course of the speech great deal
more said to the same purpose.
And now sir, having alluded to the speech of
MIR. Webster of the 9Th March, 1850, allow me
To dwell upon il for moment. | was in posi-
ton next year, having been requested by that
great and amented man to snpcrintend the publ
cation of his works, to know very particularly the
comparative estimate which he placed upon his
own parliamentary efforts. He told me more than
once that he thought his second speech ON Foote's
resolution was that in which he had best succeed
ed as Senatorial effort, and specimen of par
Iamentary dialectics; but he added, with an emo
ton which even he unable to suppress, ''tho
speech of the 9TH of March, 1850, much us have
been revied for it, when am dead will be allowed
to be of the greatest Importance to the country
Sir, he took the greatest interest in that speech.
He wished it 10 20 forth with specific title; and
after considerable elaboration, it was called, by
his own direction, "A Speech for the Consttu-
ton and the Union" He inscribed it to the peo-
pie of Massachusetts, in dedication of the most
emphatic tenderness, and he prefxed to II that
motto, which you all remember from Liyy, the
most appropriate and fecitous quotation perhaps
that was ever made: True things rather than
pleasant things-Pera pro grdtis-and with that
he sent il forth to the world.
Sir,in that speech his gigantic intellect brought
together all that it could gather from the Law OF
nature, from the Constitution of the l.. States,
from past legislation, from the physical tea
lures of the region,to strengthen him in that plan
of Cancellation and peace in which he feared that
he might not curry along with him the public sen
timent of the whole of the country which he par
ticuarly represented here. AT its close when he
Diluted upon the disastrous effects of separation
he rose to a strain of impassoned eloquence which
has never been surpassed within these wallis
Every topic, every argument, every fact was
brought to bear upon the point, and he felt that
all his vast popularity was at stake ON the issue
Let me commend to the attention of Senators;and
let me ask them to consider what weight is due to
the authority of such man, speaking under such
circumstances and on such occasion, when he
tells you that the condition of every foot of land
in the country, for slavery non slavery, was
fixed by some irrepealabe law. And you are
now about TO repeal the principal law which as
certaned and fixed that condition. And, sir, il
the Senate will take any heed of the opinion OF
one humble as myself, viii say that believe
Mr.. Webster, in that speech, went 10 the very
verge of the public sentiment in the non-slave
holding States and that to have gone u hair:
breadth further would have been step too bolo
even for his great weight of character.
But pass over a number of points to which
wished to make some aiusion, and proceed to a
mother matter. think the chairman of the Com
mittee on Territories did not return an entirely
satisfactory answer to the argument drawn from
the fact that the Missouri restriction, the com
promise of 1920; is actually and in terms recog.
missed and confirmed by the Territorial legislation
of 1850 in the act organizing the Territory OF
New Mexico. The argument is this: that act
contains proviso that nothing therein contain
ed shall be construed to impair or qualify the
third article Of the second section of the resolu-
tons for annexing Texas When you turn to
that third article of the second section of the
olution, you find that it recognises by name the
Missouri comDrOmisn.