Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-31


not an abandonment of the old one--the geo.
graphical linea Was it not a supersedure OF
the old one, within the very language OF the
substitute Tor the hill which is now under con-
siderationa | say it did supersede it, because
it applied its provisions AZ well to the north as
to the south Of 36 deg 30 min. 1t established
principle which was equally applicable to the
country north az well Az south Of the parallel
of SO deg 80 nina principle Of universal
application. The authors of this Abolition
manifesto attempted to refute this presumption,
and maintain that the Compromise Of 1850 did
not supersede that Of 1920, by quoting tho
proviso to the first section of the act to estab-
lish the Texan boundary, and establish the
Territory Of New Mexico. That proviso was
added, by way of amendment, on motion of
Mr. Mason, Of Virginia.
repeat, that in order to rebut the presump-
ton, as before stated, that the Missouri Com
promise was abandoned and superseded by the
principles of the Compromise Of 1850, these
confederates cite the following amendments,
offered to the bill to establish the boundary of
Texas and create the Territory of New Mexico
in 1850:
PROVIDED, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify any
thing contained in the third article Of the sec
ond section of the Joint resolution for annexing
Texas to the United States, approved March /,
l845, either as regards the number of the
States that may hereafter be formed out of the
State Of Texas, or otherwise
After quoting this proviso, they make the
following statement, and attempt to gain credit
for it's truth by suppressing material facts
which appear upon the face of the same stat
ute, and, if produced, would conclusiyely dis
prove the statement:
-, oalanu1u daoIar rod 49, ba NOW fam,
promise acts, that nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify the pro-
hibition Of Slavery north Of SO deg. 80 min. !;
and yet, in the face Of this declaration, that
sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown.
Can presumption further go?n
| will now proceed to show that presumption
could not 90 further than is exhibited in this
declaration.
They suppress the following material facts,
which, If produced, would have disproyed their
statement. They first suppress the fact that
the same section of the act cuts off from Texas
and cedes to the United States all that part Of
Texas which lies north Of SO deg. 80 min. They
then suppress the further fact that the same
section Of the law cuts of from Texas largo
tract Of country on the west, more than three
degrees of longitude, and added it to the terri.
tory of the United States. They then suppress
the further fact that this territory thus cut off
from Texas, and to which the Missouri Com
promise line did apply, was Incorporated into
the Territory of New Mexico. And then what
was done? 1t was Incorporated into that Ter
ritory with this clause:
THAT, when admitted as State, the said
Territory or any portion Of the same, shall be
received into the Union, with or without Sla-
very, az their Constitution may prescribe at the
| time Of its ADOPTION
Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which
they quote, cuts of all that part of Texas which
was TO be free by the Missouri Compromise,
together with some on the south side Of the
line; incorporates it into the Territory Of New
Mexico; and then says that the Territory, and
every portion Of the same, shall como into the
Union with or without Slavery as it sees proper.
What else does it do? The sixth section Of
the same act provides that the Legislative power
and authority of this said Territory Of New
Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of
legislation, consistent with the Consultation of
the United States and the provisions of the act,
not excepting Slavery. Thus the New Mexi-
can bill, from which they make that quotation,
contained the provision that New Mexico in
GLIDING that part Of Texas which was cut of,
should come into the Union with or without
Slavery, as it saw proper; and in the mean
time, that the Territorial Legislature should
have all the authority over the subject Of Sla-
very that they had over any other subject re-
stricted only by the limitation Of the Constitu-
ton Of the United States and the provisions of
the act Now, ask those Senator's, do not
those provisions repeal the Missouri Compro-
mise 80 far as it applied to that country cut
off from Texas? Do they not annul it? DO
they not supersede iti II they do, then the
address which has been put forth to the world
| by these confederates is an atrocious falseho0d
II they do not, then what do they mean when
they charge mo with having, in the substitute
first reported from the committee, repealed it,
with having annulled it. with having violated
it when only copied those precise words?
copied the precise words into my bill, as re-
ported from tho committee, which were con-
tanned in the New Mexico bill. They say my
bill annuls the Missouri Compromise. If il
does, IL had already been done before by the
act Of 1880; for these words were copied from
the act Of 1850
MIR. WADE. Why did you do it over
again
Mr. DOUGLAS. Twill come to that point
presently, and explain why we did it over
again. | am now dealing with the truth and
veracity Of combination Of men, who have
assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath
day to arraign my conduct and belle my char
acter. cay, therefore, that their manifesto
is Islander either way for it says that the
Missouri Compromise was not superseded by
the measures Of 1850, and then il says that
the same words in my bill do repeal and annul
il They must be adjudged guilty Of one false
hood in order TO sustain the other assertion.
Now, sir, propose to 20 little further, and
show what was the real meaning Of the amend
ment Of the Senator from Virginia, out OF which
these gentlemen have manufactured so much
capital in the newspaper press, and have sue
cceded by that misrepresentation in procuring
an expression Of opinion from the State Of
Rhode Island in opposition to this bill. | will
state what it's meaning L.
Did II mean that the States north Of SO deg.
80 min. should have q clause in their Consttu-
tons prohibiting Slavery? have shown that
il did not mean that because the same act
says that they might como in with Slavery. If
they saw proper. say il could not mean that
for another reason The same section contain.