Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17

Mexico when il should become State Tbi.
amendment would compel us 10 include il in New
Mexico, or TO form it into another State. Wher
the principle shall come up in the bill for the or
ganIzation OF territorial government for New
Mexico, no doubt the same vote which inserted
1t in the omnibus bill, and the Utah bill will insert
il there.
Several SENATORS No doubt oft"
Upon that debate the amendment of the sena-
tor from Arkansas was voted down, because II
was avowed and distinctly understood that the
amendment of the senator from Virginia, taken
/ in connexion with the remainder of the bill, did
| release the country ceded by Texas north of $50
3O from the restriction; and it was agreed that
/ if we did not put it into the Texas boundary bill
il should go into the territorial bill. stated, as
| a reason why it should not 60 into the Texas
| boundary bill, that if it did it would be COM
| pact and would compel US to put the whole ceded
| country into one State, when it might be more
convenient and natural to make different boun-
dairy. / pledged myself then that it should be
put into the territorial bill; and when we con-
sidered the territorial bill for New Mexico we put
in the same clause, so far as the country ceded by
Texas was embraced within that territory, and
it passed in that shape. When it went into the
House, they united the two bills together, and
thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the
senator from Arkansas desired.
Now, sir, have not shown conclusively that
it was the understanding in that debate that the
effect was to release the country north of $50 80,
which formerly belonged to Texas, from the OPP
GRAFTON of that restriction, and to provide that
it should come into the Union with or without
slavery, as its people should see proper
That being the CASE ask the senator from
Ohio Mr.. CHASE ifhe ought not to have been
cautious when he charged over and over again
that there was not word or a syllable uttered in
debate to that effect, Should he not have been
cautious when he said that it was a mere after
thought on my part? Should he not have been
cautious when he said that even never dreamed
oft up to the 4th of January ofths year, Whereas
the record shows thatuI made speech to that
effect during the tendency of the bills Of 1850
The same statement was repeated by nearly every
senator who followed him in debate in opposition
to this bill; and it is being circulated over
the country, published in every abolition paper,
and read on every stump by every abolition ora
tor, in order to get up prejudice against me and
the measure | have introduced. Those gentle
men should not have dared to utter the statement
without knowing whether it was correct or not
These records are troublesome things sometimes.
1t is not proper for man to charge another with
a mere ter.thought because he did not know
that he had advocated the same principles be-
fore Because he did not know il he should not
take it for granted that nobody else did Let me
tell the senators that it is very unsafe rule for
them to rely upon. They ought to have had suf-
hcient respect for brother senator to have be-
lieved, when he came forward with an important
proposition, that he had investigated it. They
ought to have had sufficient respect for. a COM
mittee of this body to have assumed that they
meant what they said.
When | see such system Of misnterpretation
and misrepresentation of views, Of laws, Of re-
cords, of debates, all tending to misead the pub
lie, to excite prejudice, and to propagate error,
have not right to expose it in very plain terms,
without being arraigned for violating the courte-
sizes of the Senate