Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-02-10


yon4 The specific territories Of Utah and New Mexico
He could not but think tina, there had been any other CT
feet intended supposed 10 be accomplished BY those acts
the fact would have been notorious.
Those gave the boundaries OF Utah and New 1e1co,
ard Go :rei il within those boundaries certain state Of
things should exist reospcciyey and prospcctvey, In oil
the other territories Of the United States Those would
carry lie condition Of this question 10 tho limits OF those
territories any other territories where nothing sCod in
the way aud TOW could they carry il 10 NcbaRka where
different of lhn2s expressly provided by the Mis-
ac7 II should be said cessary 10 state
1850 that TIE principle CT these extended TO all other
territories the Missouri act notwithstanding he could hard
~ the necessity OF declaring It II there any
necessity for now there necessity ot such ie
claraiIJn in lS50.
found wo.d said in either House TINT these acts
way In principle by analogy or otherwise were intended
supposed operate other territory than that acquired
byexIco and involved in these bills Tor Utah end New 6Iexl
But lie had found much the other way The compromise
1850 consisted In voting for the Wmot Provso. That
prUviso voted down. and after had been voted dawn
the Senator from Louisiana In the foreign service Of the
United Slnes offered the amendment provitng that the
Ores houl be admitted, with wlhou; sllvey they
The time should deem proper The Senator who offered
H. Ssd that he did so 10 feel the pulse Of The Senate and
wss adopted.
Mr. Wcbs,c: who had voted against the Wno Proviso
spoke il favor OF and voted for the Souc amendment and In
doing said, "bc il remembered that speak Of Utah and
New MEXICO alpEe LII great speech OF Mr. Webster
on The 7th March, he said that that
foot OF territory belonging the United States
whose character related eesol slavery clear
~ defined By epealable law. Afterwards Mr. Web.
r..
lion the in which he thought nc had best succeeded
but that his speech Of the h OF March the one which
would be mos, regarded by The country after his DEATH To
that speech he had given his whole mind He STYLED
speech OF defence Of the Constitution and dedicated 10
the people Of Massachusetts, sxing it that mos, beaui.
ul expression from Lvy-"us things instead Of Ii.asaot
ih!nes"-'reTa pro gratis"
In thai sPcecb hr II, Of March Mr. Webster had gone TO
,cvc;y vi The Northern sentiment beyond which
he wcrl nj hnrc yen:rcI When therefore, Mr. WEBB;
said ha; ic:c Vas moi foot D territory belonging
;e uEltc STATES whose Chr:c,c ci:te 10 slavery and
i:ocsc!. defined by ePeaabls law he Certainly
understood that the Missouri extended this territory
AID was irrcpes!abIe.
Mr. Everett referred Mr.. Douglas point that the
part Of Texas north Of 35 3d. mate free by the anue1a
ton resoluon ard off and put into New Mexico
and relieved from The operation of that line also thai
part Of the Louisiana territory included Utah. and argued
that these facts dill not oevate the objection that the Mis-
souri, lie was affirmed by the Texas resolutions which re-.
solutions affirmed by the Of 1850. The Nebraska
bill had been before Congress for years both before and since
the acs OF 1850. During the debate Compromise in
S30 II occupied the mind OF The Senator from Illinois, as
IL rad before and since. II Il conceded then that The
principle adopted in those acts be perpetual Inv OF
territorial organ!z toa why Nebraska pressed
then, airy time siace, ill now 10 pass bill for Ne
braEEa wish any SUCH proviso as Ibis In t..
In the last Congress bill passed the House By La no
majority Tor Nebraska. There opposition 10 il of
moment except with regard It's provisions es!pC to The
ladans. Not one word was said in opposition 10 on The
ground o. slavery and yet there no provision in IL of
this character II reported in The Senate by Senator
from Illinois who advocated il In the shupe came from The
House. These Facts showed that not unit, now was il