Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-03
q"hiriy-lhird Congress--First Session.
MONDAY, Jan. 30, 1854.
SENATE.

vas takel up ana Nf. l'ouBiae fiif'i'' u"
elaborate speech IN explanation hld defence OF
its provisions.
Mr.. Donglas said that, on Tnet day last, when
he desired to open this discourse. lie bad pfopos-
ed To speak about fifteen minutes. in explanation
of two points embraced in this bill. These points
were, first, with respect to the Indians, and the
second, that part relating Ia slavery. he con-
mittee, on preparing the bill. desired 10 protect
the rights and title of the Indians from any IN
fringement. He thought this had been done by
the bill. Ii secured to the Indians all their right,
until such time rs they might hereafter, by trea-
ty,agree 10 be Incorporated within the Territory.
On the other point, it was the object and de
sire of the committee To be equally explicit.
They had taken the principles OF the compromise
net Of 1850 as their guide, and had made each
aud every provision of this bill accord with those
principles. These principles were based upon,
and recognized to its fullest extent, the great
right of the people to self-goyernment; and leav-
ing 10 the people of the territories the privilege of
governing themselves, free of all control, except
by the Constitution of the United States, and linn
tied and restricted upon no particular subject by
their position north or south of any arbitrary
geographical line.
The second bill reported by the committee had
for lis object to make that plain which in the
first one seemed to he in doubt or uncertainty.
In some places the first bill was understood as
repeating the Missouri Compromise, and in 9th
ers Us not doing so. As the bill was intended by
the committee to cary out fully the principles of
the Compromise of 1850, and Us they considered
that Compromise had superseded the Missouri
Compromise, that fact had better be plainly and
distinctly stated. This was all he had intended
10 say, had the discussion gone ON last Tuesday.
On that day, when he proposed 10 say this much,
the Senator from Ohio and the senator from Mas
saehusetts asked that it be postponed till this day,
to give them time 10 examine It.
lie had yielded TO this request as n matter Of
courtesy to them. Little, however, did he then
know that at that time they had prepared an adj
dress 10 the American people, charging upon this
bill n want of faith in solemn conpacts, and
charging him personally with connecting an afro
cious plot, and applying to him epithets which
could not be used in intercourse between gentle
men.
In the National Era, the abolition organ pub
lished in this city, these two Senators published
the address, signed by themselves and their abo-
lilion confed crates, in which they nisrerresented
the motives of the Committee, falsitied the bill it
self, and in n postscript to it, he WAS referred to
by narle, and coarse c~pithets applied to him.
Had he known anything of this conduct on their
part when they asked him ON Tuesday last to
postpone the bill ON the ground of courtesy to
them, he would have replied in II manner which
their gross conduct deserved.
He read Il portion of the address, in which he
bill Is styled "a gross violation of plighted faith"
''eriminal betrayal" "a trocious plot" &c, and
then read the names of Messrs. Sumner and
Chase of the Senate, and Messrs. Wade, Gid
dings of Ohio, Smith of New York, and De Witt
# Massachusetts of the House, and said these
names included the whole abolition party in Con
gress. This address was directed and appealed
to State Legislatures, public meetings, and min
listers of the gospel, to use up md crush this
measure intended to cover up II meditated wrong.
NJ A-1 ...-ln-t1 - l.-4l IL.
course pursued by the Senators from Ohio and
Massachusetts charging that IA representation was
made that u majority of the members OF the Ohio
delegation had signed the Free Democracy ad-
dress in order to influence the action of the
Ohio Legislature on the subject.
Mr.. Chase deny the tact.
Mr.. Douglas said he would undertake to prove
that the Senator's denial and the statement were
alike false.
The chair called Mr.. Douglas 10 order.
Mr.. Douglas said he would confine himself 10
showing that the statements contained in the
address were false. He stated that in the Mis-
souri, compromise the plan of separating the free
from the Save States by IA geographical line had
been resorted to. When the Texas resolutions
were before the House he had moved AN amend
ment, extending the Missouri line through Texas,
and TO the west indefinitely, in order to recognize
the principle of the compromise Of 1870. After
California and New Mexico were acquired /, ON his
motion, the Senate, by "A majority of 10 votes,
voted 10 extend the Missouri compromise TO the
Pacific; but the proposition was rejected in the
House by the votes of Northern Free-Soilers.
They were-the men who violated the solemn
compact, and opening anew the whole slavery ag-
itntion, rendered the abandonment OF the geo
graphical line and a new compromise necessary.
Had the North then maintained the Missouri
compromise, there would have been no excite
ment and no alarm. The reproach of violating
that compact came with a bad grace from those
who repudiated it in lS4S. He then proceeded
to show that the compromise of 1880 established
the principle of non.intcryention by Congress
and set aside the geographical line. This he re-
garded as the establishment of "A new principle
and Il total abandonment of the geographical line.
He referred to the amendment proposed by
Senator Mason, to the New Mexico bill, that moth
ing therein contained should supercede the Tex
as resolutions, and in citing this, he said the alb
clifton confederates had suppressed the fact that
by that very act IA large portion of Texas lying
north of 36 3O was added to New Mexico, for
which admission was provided into the Union
with or without slavery, thus setting aside the
principle of the Missouri compromise. The
charge, therefore, that his bill repealed the Mis-
souri, compromise fell to the ground, because it
had already been repealed by the act of 1850, on
which his bill was founded.
Mr.. Douglas said the amendment of Mr.. Mason,
cited in the address, was designed to secure to
Texas the same number of States with her re-
duced boundary to which She was before entitled.
He said that the assertion contained in the add
dress, that the compromise of 1880 was intended
to apply only to the territory acquired from Mex
leo, was contradicted by the fact that New Mexi-
e.. as org nized, contained a portion of Texas
and of the old territory of Louisiana.
Mr.. Douglas then proceeded to argue that the