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

charge him with violating truth, or with in
tentionsl Misrepresentation, . .... ...
said the other day to that Senator, whe
he proposed to deny TO me postponemen
= warranted by the usages Of the Senate, ths
I thought him incapable Of understanding tn
9 obligations of courtesy. prefer now TO re
., strict that statement, and say that the Sena
tor, on that occasion, under some excitement
perhaps, and perhaps Influenced also by al
over-anxious desire 10 hasten the vote upor
his bill, disregarded the obligations which
courtesy imposes. make this remark be,
cause am unwilling, under any provocaton
to do any injustice to a political or personal
opponent. While say this, however, !
ought, perhaps to add in reference to'a re.
mark which fell from the Senator on that oc.
casion, that a. no time did ever approach
him with smiling face, or aa angry face, OF
any face at all, to obtain from him a post
ponement of his bill, in order to gain time for
the circulation Of attacks upon it. l have
condemned his bill strongly, and have con-
demned his action in bringing forward this
repeal of the Missouri prohibition. But
| have done no injustice to the Senator. All
that have done at all have done openly.
have not winged, nor will wage war Of
epithets. 1t neither accords with my prin-
ciples, nor with my tsstes. But while Iwage
no such war, dread none. Neither vitupera-
ton, nor Genunciation, will move me, while |
have the approvsl of my own judgment and
co, science. But did not intend to recur to
this ma, ter, snd willingly dismiss it. ,.a
II the sen.,t tor is wrong;as have shown he
IL. in re,nect ,o ,se Incorporation of all the
territory cut off from 4 'xas into New Mexico
then he is also wrong in hi. deciaration that
the compromise act of 1850 ICES not pres
serve and reassert the principle Of the "'s'-
ouri prohibition.
The facts are few and simple, and the in !
ference from them obvious and irresistible.
The third article Of the joint resolution for
the annexation of Texas read thus:
"New States, of convenient size, not ex-
ceeding four in number, in addition to said
State of Texas, having sufficient population,
may hereafter, by the consent ofsaid State,
be formed out Of the Territory thereof, which J
shall be entitled 20 admission under the pro-
visions of the Federal Constitution. And
such States as may be formed out of that por.
ton of said Territory lying south of 80 80
north latitude, commonly known as the Mis-.
souri, compromise line, shall be admitted into
the Union, with or without slavery, as the
people Of each State asking admission may
desire. And in such State or States a. shall
be formed out of said Territory north of said
Missouri compromise line, slavery or involun-
tary servitude Except for crme) shall be
prohibited"
Here is an express stipulation that slavery
shall be prohibited in any State formed out Of
the territory of Texas north Of SO 80. This
was valuable stipulation for freedom, in case
the claim of Texas was valid one to the
whole territory within her boundaries. The
Senator from Virginia regarded that claim as
valid; and it was upon his motion that the
proviso which | now proceed to quote was in
corporated into the Texas boundary bill:
"Provided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify ANY
THING contained in the third article of the
second section Of the joint resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States, approved
March J., lS45. either as sregards the number
of States that may hereafter be formed out Of
the State of Texas or OTHERWISE"
Here was a compact between two States.
So far as the parties were competentto to enter
into it, it was obligatory and permanent.
That compact covered all the territory right
fullywithin the limits of Texas, until rescin-
ded 1t could make no difference f a portion
Of that territory should be subsequently re-
linqushed to the United States. That would
J,,t,, q tho aHr of he p,,t
this matter was not left to inference or con-
lecture. At the very moment Of relinquish-
ment, the United States and Texas. by
agreeing to the prcvso have quoted, saved
the compact, and continued it in full force in
all its provisions. F ,.. ...F !
Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, III
the two tracts Of country Of which have spo-
ken were within the rightful claim OF Texas,
the compact applied to them, and the prohb;-
tion of slavery in thelStates to be created out
OF them, is still in force. And it is, perhaps,
at this day the ohly prohibition which is in
force there's for the Missouri prohibition,
enacted in 1920, may be regarded as restric-
ted to the limits of the Louisiana acquisition
as defined by the treaty with Spain, which
was concluded in that year. ..C
But the Senator from Illinois says that the
prohibition In the annexation resolution was
of no practical effect, except to preserve the
principle Of the Missouri compromise. That
was true, if Texas never had any just claim
north of So e 80. Upon that suppositon,
also, the Mason proviso had no effect as pre-.
serving and reafirming an actual prohibition
north Of 36 . 30. but sill served to preserve
the principle. It is impossible to maintain,
as the Senator does, that the third article of
the original joint resolution, though of no
practical effect, preserved the principle Of the
Missouri compromise, and yet deny that the
Msson,proviso, which reafirms and reestao-
fishes, as part Of a new compact, every pro-
vision Of that third article preserves that prin-
ciple. Ifths principle was preserved by one,
Il must be by the other. ..... .,....- Il,
's'r have now, think, demonstrated that the
q. v from Illinois was Gle srly wrong in
syna.S .;u the incorporation ofall the terri
as's'uas @ "a rom Texas into New Mexico;
'o'y Su, =. cl., 'rly wrongin denying the re-