Daily national era., 1854-06-07
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

guardian I'D hfem for this bill and who i press
ing il with all the energy in his power. You, sir,
my colleague from the Knoxville district, Mr.
CnuRcHwELL,] who is now present, and the hon
orable gentleman from the Mauray district, Mr..
JONES, were all members OF The last Congress.
The able gentleman from Georgia MIR STEPHENS
was also present when this conversation occurred
between Messrs HOWE and GIDDMGs Mr. VIM II.
Polk, of Tennessee, was in his seat at the time,
and was party to what was said. The chair
man of the Committee on Territories Mr. Rlcll-
ARpsoS was in possession OF the floor, and Mr..
GIDDINGs spoke by his permission The effect Of
the compromise measures Of 1850, and the Wing
and Democratic platforms of 1852, as well rs Of
the Missouri Compromise, were all brought To
the notice of the House by Mr.. GIDDlNGs who was
better calculated than any other member of that
body to excite the apprehensions of the South.
We find him reading the Missouri Compromise to
the House, and relying on it as an exclusion Of
Slavery north of 36o 30<. Now sir ask my
colleagues, and every member OF this body
who was Of the last Congress, why you per-
mitted the bill to pass at the last session for
organizing a Government for this same Territory,
without declaring the Missouri Compromise "sl-
perseded,' "inoperative and void or repealed?
More than this: why did You permit that bill To
pass the House at that time without any reference
watever to Me subject Of SLAVERY? When take
my seat, or before this debate closes wish these
questions answered, especially by my colleagues
Sir, the answer must he obvious. No human
being ever supposed that the legislation of 1850
was inconsistent with or superseded the Missouri
Compromise, until since the beginning OF the
present year The bill Of the last session. on its
passage in this House, was voted for by ANDREw
JOHNSON, and though it did not mention Slavery
yet, sir, on his return home, he was met by the
people of Tennessee with every demonstration Of
hey ttara al
Of the State In the eexciting canvass which pre-
ceded his election, and when his political oppo-
nents. were exerting themselves to defeat him,
neither partisan nor personal malignity were bold
enough TO complain of his having voted to give
Nebraska and Kansas Territorial Government,
which was silent as to Slavery and the Missouri
Compromise.
The bill Of the last session. so soon it passed
the House, was sent to the Senate, and referred
to the Committee on Territories. Mr.. DOUGLAS
the chairman OF that committee, reported it
back to the Senate without amendment, and in
sisted on its passage. While it was under dist
cussion in the Senate, Mr.. ATcHTsoN, the present
Vice President of the United States said:
"I have always been Of opinion tn At the first great
committed in the political history Of this
try the Ordinance of 1887 rendering the North
west Territory free territory The next great
was the Missouri Compromise. But they are both
must submit to them l am proprred to do it. 1t is
evident that the Missouri Compromise cannot be
poaled. So far as that question is concerned,
might well agree to tho admission of this Territory
next year, five or ten years hence" - Com
eyessionai Globe, I'd sess 32d Congress, Vol 26, D.
11l3
In looking to the various objections which were
urged against the bill at the last session. in the
House and in the Senate, it will be found that
no one insisted the Missouri Compromise was
inconsistent with the legislation of 1850, had
been superseded or ought to be repealed
My colleague Mr.. READY stated few minutes
ago that by the legislation of 1850 il was in
tended to furnish rule, or principle, to be applied
hereafter in the formation Of Territorial Govern
mcnts. The action of the last Congress proves
that no such opinion prevailed as late rs 1853,
and the establishment of Government for the
Territory of Washington, since the compromise
measures of 1850, without any reference TO Sla-
very, is additional proof that the opinion is new,
and not supported by facts. From the passage of
the measures of 1850 until the present attempt to
repeal the Missouri Compromise, no politician or
statesman has ventured to risk an opinion, that
the territory acquired from France in 1903 (of
which Nebraska and Kansas are a part) was en-
braced in the legislation Of 1850, and the opinion
would not now be urged, were it not necessary
as the only plausible pretext offered for the abro
Sir, the tindiay resolution, adopted by the Whig
Convention at Baltimore, in 1852, and which was
penned by Southern gentleman Mr.. Humphrey
Marshall Of Kentucky) asserts the compromise
Of 1850 TO be :" a final settlement, ~ prd-
cipte and substance or THE SUBJECTS TO WHICH THEY
RELATE" What were these subjects? They were
the regulation of the slave trade in the District
of Columbia; the fugitive slave law the settle
ment of the boundary of Texas the admission OF
t.lsE -. Al. ~ IL. II.
Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexi-
co, within which was included the territory We
acquired from Mexico, except that portion enl-
braced within the limits of California To these
subjects alone, did the adjustment measures OF
1850 relate In all that was said in and out Of
Congress, in 1850, il cannot be shown, that any
person supposed the Legislation OF that year en-
braced or affected in any way Nebraska and
Kansas, which we had acquired from France in
1903, and which is north OF the line Of 36o 30, ;
nor Is there anything TO be found IN either oi the
acts of 1850, which, according 10 any rule for
constituting law or language, alludes to, or en-
braces within its spirit or provisions, the Terrific
ries proposed TO be organized by this bill. These
measures were applied to the Territory we had
acquired from Mexico only. The Missouri Com
promise line was applied TO the Territory We pur-
chased from France i'm 1903. These Territories
were acquired at different times, IN different
manner and from separate and distinct Powers
The Missouri Compromise embraced all the ter
ritory we owned in 1920 west Of the Mississippi
river II was afterwards applied TO Texas by
being inserted in the resolution OF annexation.
When, in ls4s, we acquired vast territory from
Mexico, various efforts and propositions were
made, to extend this same Missouri Compromise
line TO the Pacific Ocean These propositions
were rejected and refused 10y the members from
the free States The result was, an intense agi-
taton of the subject Of Slavery, and, finally, the
adoption OF the compromise measures Of 1850.
Now, sir, if any proof were wanting to show that
the friends OF this bill cannot fairly and justly
conclude the Missouri Compromise act of 1920
was Superseded by the legislation of 1850, il is
found in the fact that this bill proposes TO declare
the act of 1920 imperative and void only
so Ear as IL affects Nebraska and Kansas, while
this same Missouri Compromise act is 10 he left
in full force in the organized Territories of Min
ncsota, Oregon and Washington and in Texas
through which il was extended, rs | have before