Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-02-14

10 operate unnn. IL did not therefore relate IN The c0un
mis- nv n @ Mna' a!l II relate !oi Why il meant :Imr
uS: ny lne joint resolution of ISIS Texas was naneSe
WIN inc right TO form four additional States cut ul
va}; ana sRch States as were south Of Sc deg 50 mia
were 70 CONS tn with without slavery as they saw pro
per- and In such State States as were north OF tbs: n
sa1ery should be prohibited. When had Gu, OF oil nor
o. 30 Geg 50 min and thus circumscbed the BOUNDARY
ha diminished the territory Of Texas the question arose
no" many States will Texas be entitled 10 under this cir
cumscrihcd houndary7 Certainly four 1t will be argred
NY because the original resolution Of annexation pro
1ash mat ono OF tho States more should north
10 oeg aO min. II would leave II then doubtful whcthr
ieSas was entitled TO two iee additional States undo
w" c,Icunsched oonnGary In order TO pu, that mnter
ts IN ofccr To make final settlement In order have cX
phcy understood what The moaning Of Congress lh
Senator from Virginia offered The amendment that nohin:
thefen contained should Impair that provision either as
The number Of States oIherwisc-lhat Is that Trxa
should be entitled 10 the number of States with he
reduced boundaries she would have been entitled nde
her larger boundaries and those Saes sha in with
or without slavery being nl snulh Of 36 dog 30 miu ant
nothing 10 Impair that right sha be Inferred from the pas
ssge OF The act Such Fir the meaning of that pro
position Any other construction Of it would stuy The
very character and purpose Of liz mover tho Senator cn
Virginia. Such then. not only The intent Of ir
but such the ceni effect of the To- and cav that
man. eticr reading the other sections Of tho bthose tc
which have rerrrcd-can doubt that such both The 10
tent nnd the legal elect of that law.
Then, submit 10 the Senate i'll havo not convicted this
manifesto Issued by the abolition conederaea of being
gross Justification OF The lawso The land and BY aIsi
hcaton that md injurious impression has been
created upon the public mnd sorry DC compelled
TO indulge In language Of this severity but there other
language that Is adequate express he indignation with
which see this ait"mp no, only mspad the public h;
TO magn character by deliberate Justification the pub.
| lie statutes and tho public records
Sir this Misrepresentation and Justification docs not stop
here In order give greater plausby their statements
they further and state that lit il sOemnly declared In TIE
very comuromse &C. that noting herein contained so be
constTued 10 impair qualify The prohibition of svevy
north OF 80 deg 80 min and yet in the face Of this decaa
lion that sacred prohibition Is said be oycrhown. Can
presumption go furhcP'
In the teeth of the statute saying ,ha: they should
declare that Ia stated that il should be forever prohibited
repeat 10 hem "Coud presumption 60 fnrler Not on.
iy assumption In making these staemen's but The pre-.
sumption that they could avoid The exposure OF their con.
duct
In order to give greater pauslby 10 hls Justification Of
the terms OF the Compramiso OF 1851 tie cGniecc-
rates nso declare IN their manifesto that they he terori'
bills for the organization Of Utah and New MeSco zap
piled 10 the territory acquired from Mexico and 10 that only
They were Intended settlement OF The controversy grow.
Ing Of that ocQusiuon, and of that controversy only
They must e,und or fall by their merits"
submit to tho Senate If there is intelligent man In
America that does not know that that declaration is falsed
by the statute from which they quotc They cay that the
provlsons OF that bill confined tho territory acquired
from Mexico, when the very section Of the law from which
hey quoted that Peviso did purchase pur OF that very
territory from lhoSae OF Texas and the next section OF
the law included That territory ,hc territory OF Mexico.
and added that 10 The territory Of Mexico and made up
the rest out OF the Mexican Acquisitions Then sir ycur
statutes chow when applied TO the map Of the country
acquired from Mexico and also Of territory acquired from
Texas and OF territory acquired from France and yet In de-
ance Of that stlu'e and In Justification Of s erms. ne
told Ia order TO deceive the people, that tho bills
confined 10 The purchase made from Mexico alone and in
order tu give greater soemny necessary while VI
reng laeehood they rrpcat wice fearing that would
be believed the frst time. What s the Territory
of Utah was not confined 10 the country acquired from Mex
leo. Tha, Territory rs Is well known every who
derrands the geography Of the country includes large tract
Of rich and fertile acquired from Franco In 1903 and
es s do % n 10 &c" m
ude only reply that they should have known before they
uttered ialsehood and imputed crime to me ,.
s usPed sa ass and tsea and a ss
The line ran due North of the OF the Arkansas 10 ne
parallel then ang on me OL sSs sns Of
the Arkansae leaves the whole middle park suc
clio wing terms by Colonel Fremont 10 tho ess, o. The n
and hence Of the hs h
flowing into the Colorado, when we formed Inc TERRITORIAL
limits of Utah. instead Of running that air ne we ran along
the ridge Of mount.ns and cnl oil that part from ne
Sraeka or from the Louisiana purchase and Included with
in Inc limits Of The Territory OF Utah. o ,,r,,,
Why did we do III Because we sought for nnlura
boundary und natural 10 tnke The mountains as
boundary than by line 10 cut the valleys on ono st
OF The mountains and them 10 the country on ht
other side And why did we take ura boundaries
setting AT defiance the old boundaries The simple reason
was that 80 long acted upon Tho principle oil eeine
the slave question by geographical ne so long we nbserV
ed those bOuudaries strictly ard gdy bnt when tho was
abandoned in consequence the action and aac
ons.s when II superseded by tho compromise measures
of 1885, which rested upon great universal principle mere
yas no necessity for keeping In view the old and unnatural
boundary. For that reason, in making The new Territories
we formed natural boundaries irrespective Of the source
whence ,lto derived In writing these ols pao
no attention 10 the fact whether the title acquired from
Louisiana from France from Mexico; for what difference
did make2 The principle which we had established In the
bill would apply equally well TO either
In fixing those boundaries paid attention 10 the fac
whether they Included old territory whether the coun
ry was covered by the Missouri Compromise or not Why
Because the principles established In the bills superseded h
| ,haFyo HtlHpC OH
old boundaries dsregarded tho territory 10 which ii applied
and disceardcd from whence The title was dc
rived say therefore, that close examination o inns &c
tho legal effect OF the Compromise measures OF lS5O 10 su
pc!sede tho Missouri Compromise and oil geographical ant
| territorial lines.
! Sir In order 10 avoid any miscOIstrucOn, will STATE
more disncy what precise idea 10 upon this point s.
ia, ss the Utan und New Mexico bills included the territory
which had been subject the Missouri Compromise nrovi
eon to iha. extent they absolutely annued The missouri
Compromlse As 10 the unorRanzed territory net coyere
nv these bills superseded by the principles OF IN
Compromlso Of 1850. We all know that the object OF th
omnromise measures of 1850 establish certain grea
orincipcs which would avoid the slavery aeation In oil
time TO come. Was It object simply TO provide for
temporary ey Was our object Just 10 heal oVe an Oh
sore and leave 10 break out aRani Na7 our object
adop mere miserable expedicnt 10 apply 10 that territory
and ,ha, alone leave ourselves entirely al wi,hou
compass when territory was acquired or new terrific
rial rpanIzaions were 10 be made7 Was that the ohcc
for which the eminent and venerable Senator from Keo
tucky Mr. Clay, came here and sacrificed even his laS
| enerpeS upon Inc atar Ol MS CouhtyI Wus lnut ul
object for which Webster Clay, Cass and all the patriots
OF that day struggled long and so senuousy2 Was
merely the application OF temporary eSpedcnt n agree
ing to stand by past und dead legislation, that the Baltimore
platform pledged sustain the Compromise OF laoOf-
Was It the understanding of tho Whig party, when they
adoped tho compromise OF 1850 as an article
political tah that they only agreeing TO that which
was pas, and had reference 10 the futurel Ii that va
their meaning II that their object they palmed oil al
arrocious fraud upon the American people. y" as II TIT
meaning OF the democratic party when VIC pledged ourselSe
10 stand by Compromise OF 1885, that we spoke only
the pas and hal reference the fu,ure2 II So wa
worse than fraud. When we pledged our President Il
eand by the compromise measures did wo not undersaa
that we pledged him to his future action2 Was II as
bie past conduct IF it had been In relation 10 past coz
duct on7 the pledge would have been untrue as 10 YER
large portion Of the Democratic psrly. Mea went int
that Convention who had been opposed 10 tho conProms
mrasures-meu who nbhorred hose measures when the
were pendug-men who never would have voted atirna
lively on them But inasmuch those measures had oee
passed and the country had acquesced in them and wa
nportunt to preserve the principle In order 10 avoid aRa
lion In the future ssdi We valve our past o5
ec,ions and will stand by and With you n carryin
out these principles in tho future.
Such lundcrstsnd be the meaning OF the two grea
parties a, Baltimore. Such understand 10 have been ih
effect of their pledges II they did not mean ths ihr
meant merely to adopt resolutions which TO
carried OUT and which designed 10 msead and deceiv
Tho purpusu Of carving election,