Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31

kansas river its source and then the line due
north oi the source o the Arkansas 10 the 42d par
allel, then along on the i2d parallel 10 the Pacific
ocean. That line, due north from the head Of the
Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described
IN such glowing terms by Colonel Fremont, 10
the east OF the line, and hence part ofthc Loui-
slana purchase. Yel inasmuch that middle
part is watered and drained by the waters flowing
into the Colorado, when we formed the territorial
limits Of Utah, instead of running that airline we
ran along the ridge of the mountains, and cut oil
that part from Nebraska or from the Louisiana
purchase and included il within the limits OF the
territory Of Utah.
Why did we do il? Because we sought for a
national boundary, and il was more natural TO
take the mountains boundary, Than by an air
line to cut the valleys on one side Of the noun
tatns, and annex them 10 the country on the other
side And why did we take these natural boun-
dares, setting at defiance the old boundaries
The simple reason was that so long acted
upon the principle of settling the slave question
by geographical line, so long we observed those
boundaries strictly and rigdly; but when that was
abandoned, IN consequence of the action of free
soilers and aboltlonsts-when il was superseded
by the compromise measures of 1850, which rested
upon great universal prnciple--there was no
necessity Tor keeping IN view the old and unnat
ural boundary. For that reason, in making the
new territories, we formed natural boundaries, ir
rived. In writing these bills paid no attention 10
the fact whether the title acquired from LOU
Isiana, from France, or from Mexco for what
difference did il make! The principle which we
had established in the bill would apply equally
well to either
In fixing those boundaries, l paid no attention
TO the fact whether they included old territory or
not-whether the country was covered by the
Missour compromise not. Whyl Because
the principles established in the bills superseded
the Missouri compromise. For that reason we
disregarded the old boundaries; disregarded the
territory 10 which it applied, and disregarded the
source from whence the title was derived | say,
therefore, that close examination of this act
clearly establishes the fact that il was the intent
as well as the legal effect Of the compromise mea-
sures OF 1880, 10 supersede the Missouri compro-
mise, and all geographical and territorial lines
Sir, IN order TO avoid any misconstructon, will
state more distinctly what my precise idea is upon
upon this point. So far as the Utah and New Mex
leo bills included the territory which had been
subject othe Missouri compromise provision, 10
that extent they absolutely annued the Missouri
compromise. AS 10 the llnorganized territory not
covered by those bills, il was superseded by the
principles OF the compromise OF 1850 We all
know that the object ofthe compromise measures
of 1850 was 10 establish certain great principles
which would avoid the slavery agitation in all
time to come. Was it our object simply to pro-
vide for a temporary evil! Was it our object to
heal over an old sore, and leave il 10 break out
again? Was it our object to adopt mere mise
rable expedlemt TO apply TO that territory, and 10
that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea,
Withontcompass when new territory was acquired
or new territorial organizations were TO be made
Was that the object for which the. eminent and
venerable senator from Kentucky Mr.. Clay came
here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the
altar OF his country! Was that the object for
which Webster, Clay, Cass and all the patriots Of
that day, struggled SO long and so strenuously (!
Was i merely the application of a temporary ex-
pedent in agreeing 10 stand by past and dead e-
gisaton, that the Baltimore platform pledged US 10
sustain the compromise of 1850? Was II the un-
derstandng ofthe wing party, when they adopted
the compromise measures of 1850 as an article
Of political faith that they were only agreeing
10 that which was past and had reference 10
the fuluret II that was their meaning; If that
was their object, they palmed off an atrocious
fraud upon the American people. Was il the
meaning OF the democratic party when we
pledged ourselves to stand by the compromise of
1850, that we spoke only Of the past, and had no
reference TO the tuturei If so, it was then
fraud When we pledged our President to stand
by the compromise measures, did we not under
stand that we pledged him 10 his future action?
Was il as to his past conduct4 II Il had been in
relation to past conduct only, the pledge would
have been untrue as TO very large portion of the
democratic party. Men went into that conven-
tion who had been opposed 10 the compromise
measuros-men who abhorred those measures
when they were pending-men who never would
have voted afirmatvely on them. But, inasmuch
as those measures had been passed and the
country had acquescedin them, and it was impor-
tant 10 preserve the principle in order to avoid agi-
talon IN the future, these men said, we waive our
past objections, and we will stand by you and with
you in carrying out these principles in the future.
Such understand to be the meaning of the two
great parties at Baltimore. Such understand TO
have been the effect Of their pledges. If they did
not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolu-
t,IrI,
which We're designed TO mislead and deceive the
people for the mere purpose of carrying an cleo
ton.
hold then, that, as to the territory covered by
the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an ex-
press annulmcnt Of the Missouri compromise;
and as 10 all the other unorganiZed territories, it
was superseded by the principles Of that legisla-
ton, and we are bound TO apply those principles
to the organization Of all new territories, to all
which we now own, or which we may hereafter
acquire. If this construction be given, il makes
that compromise final adjustment No other
construction can possibly mpart fnality to il. BY
any other construction, the question is 10 be re-
opened the moment you ratfy u new treaty ac-
quiring an inch Of country from Mexico. BY any
other construction, you reopen the issue every
time you make a new territorial government
But, sir, if you treat the compromise measures of
1850 in the light OF great principles, sufficient to
remedy temporary evils, at the same time that
they prescribe rules of action applicable every
where IN all time TO come, then you avoid the
agitation for ever if you observe good faith to the
OF these enactments, and the principles
established by them.
Mr.. President, | repeat that so far as the ques-
ton of slavery is concerned there is nothing in
the bill under consideration which docs not carry
out the principle of the compromise measures of
1850, by leaving the people TO do as they please,
subject only to the provisions of the Constitution
of the United States. II that principle is wrong,
the bill is wrong lfthat principle is right the bill
is right. II is unnecessary 10 quibble about phra.
seology or words it is not the mere words, the
mere phraseology, that our constituents wish 10
Judge by. They wish 10 know the legal effect Of
our legislation.
The legal effect Of this BILL if il be passed as re-
ported by the Committee on Territories, is neither
to legislate slavery into these territories nor out
OF them, but TO leave the people TO do as they
please, under the provisions and subject to the
limitations ofthe Constitution Of the United States
Why should not this principle prevail? Why
should any man, north or south, object 10 it?
will especially address the argument 10 my own
section of country, and ask why should any
northern man object TO this principle? If you will
review the history of the slavery question in the
United States, you will see that all the great re-
suits in behalf of free institutions which have
been worked out, have been accomplished by the