Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17

of 1920 This reminds me of another point made
in nearly all the speeches against this BILL and if
| recolect right, was alluded TO in the abolition
manifesto; to which, regret to say, had occa-
sion to refer 30 often. refer to the significant
! hint that Mr.. Clay was dead before any one dared
to bring ferwarda proposition to undo the greatest
! work OF his hands. The senator from New York
| Mr.. SEwARD] has seized upon this insnuation,
and elaborated, perhaps, more fully than his CON-
peers; and now the abolition press suddenly, and,
as if by miraculour conversion, teens with euio-
gies upon Mr.. Clay and his Missouri compromise
of 1890. 4
/ Now, Mr.. President, does not each Of these
! senator's know that MIR Clay was not the author
Of the act of 1920; Do they not know that he
dscaimed it in 1850 in this body,9 Do they not
know that the Missouri restriction did not origi-
nate in the House, of which he was member !.
Do they not know that Mr.. Clay never came into
the Missouri controversy compromser until
after the compromise of l820Jwas repudiated, and
II became necessary to make another , / dislike
to be compelled to repeat what have conclusively
| proven, that the compromise which Mr.. Clay et-
| fected was the act of 1921, under which Missouri
came into tine Union, and not the act of 1920.
| MIR. Clay made that compromise after you had
| repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you
call upon the spirit of that great and gallant
statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith
against the south on this question,
Mr.. SEWARD. VIII the senator allow me a
| moment!
| Mr.. DOUGLAS. Certainly.
/ Mr.. SEWARD. In the year 1851 or 1852, 1
think 1851, a medal was struck in honor of Henry
| Clay, of gold, which cost a large sum of money,
which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry
| Clay. 1t was presented to him by committee of
citizens of New York, by whom it had been made.
One OF the eleven acts OF his life which was cee-
brated ON that medal, which he accepted, was the
Missouri compromise of 1920. This is my an
| swer. r
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Are the words /" of 1920 |"
upon it
! Mr.. SEWARD. 1t commentaries the Mis-
souri, compromise. 8ft
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Exactly. have seen that
medal; and my recollection is that it does not
contain the words g of 1920 One of the great
acts of Mr.. Clay was the Missouri compromise,
but what Missouri compromise Of course the
one which Henry Clay made, the one which he
| negotiated, the one which brought Missouri into
the Union, and which settled the controversy.
That the act of 1921 and not the act of 1920.
! 1t tends to confirm the statement which | have
made. History is Insread and, misquoted, and
these statements have been circulated and dis
seminated broadcast through the country, con-
cealing the truth. Does not the senator know
| that Henry Clay, when occupying that scat in
1850, [pointing to Mr.. Clay chair, in his speech
| of the 9th of February OF that year, said that
nothing Mad struck him with much surprise
the fact that historical circumstances passed
out Of recollection; and he instanced, case in
point, the error of attributing to him the act of
| 1890 Mr.. SEWARD nodded assent The sena-
tor from New York says that he does remember
| that Mr.. Clay did say SO. If 80, how is it, then,
| that he presumes now to rise and quote that medal
as evidence that Henry Clay was tho author of
the act of 1902
4. Mr.. SEWARD. answer the Senator in this
way: that Henry Clay, while he said ne did not
disavow or disapprove Of that compromises, trans
ferrcd the merit Of it to others who were moro ac-
tive in procuring it than ho, while he had enjoyed
the praise and the glory which were due from it.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. To that have only to say
that it cannot be the reason; for Henry Clay, in
that same speech. did take to himself tho merit OF
the compromise of 1921, and hence it could not
have been modesty which made him disavow the
other. He said that he did not know whether he
had voted for tho act Of 1920 or not; but he sup
posed that he had done so. He furthermore said
that it did not originate in the House of which he
was member, and that he never did approve of
| its principles; but that he may have voted, and
probably did vote for it, under the pressure of the
| circumstances.
Now, MIR. President, as have been doing JUS
tice to Mr.. Clay on this question, perhaps may
as well do justice to another great man, who was
associated with him in carrying through the great
! measures of 1850, which mortified the senator
from New York so much, because they defeated
his purpose Of carrying on the agitation. al
lude to Mr.. Webster. The authority of his great
name has been quoted for the purpose of proving
that he regarded the Missouri act as compact
an irrcpealable compact. Evidently the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. EVER
ETTl supposed he was doing Mr.. Webster entire
justice when he quoted the passage which he read
from MIR. Webster's speech of the 7th of March,
! 1850, when he said that he stood upon the posi-
ton that every part of the American continent
was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealn-
| BILE law.
| tIot H.,
pealable law" MIR. Webster meant to include
the compromise of 1890 Now, will show that
that was not Nr. Webster's meanng-that he
was guilty of the mistake of saying that the
Missouri act Of 1920 was an irrepealable law.
! Mr. Webster said in that speech, that every foot
Of territory in the United States was fixed as to
its character for freedom or slavery by an ire
pealable law. He then inquired if it was not SO
in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it
was; because, he said, there was compact in
express terms between Texas and tho United
States. He said the parties were capable of con-
tracing, and that there valuable considera-
ton; and hence, he contended, that in that case
there was a contract binding in honor, and NOR
ais, and law; and that it was irrepealable without
breach of faith
He went on to say:
| "Now, as 10 California and New Mexico,
hold slavery TO be excluded from those Territories
| by law even superior to that which admits and
| sanctions IL IN TeXas-l mean the law OF nature,
| of physical geography, the law of the formation
of the earth"
That was the irrepealable law which he said
prohibited slavery in the Territories of Utah and
New Mexico. He next went ON to speak of the
prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said il
was an "entirely useless, and, in that sonnexiont
senseless proviso.
He went further, and said: s.se
aThat the whole territory of the States in the
United States. or in the newly territory
of the United States, has fixed and settled char
acter, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot
be repealed in the case Of Texas without viola
ton of public faith, and cannot be repealed by
any human power in regard 10 California or New
Mexico; that, undsr one or other Of these dvs,
every foot of territory in the States, or in tho
Territories, has now received fixed and decided
character
What irrepealable laws, "One or the other
of those which he had stated. One was the
Texas compact, the other the law of nature and
physical geography; and he contended that one or
the other fixed the character of the whole Ameri-
caa continent for freedom or for slavery. He
Il