Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-17

that the tefnproniisa 81 io'" oia NJ ~ ~ :.
thai of 1s2D, by quoting the prosso to the first
section Of the act 10 establish the Texan bounda-
~ and establish the Territory Of Now Mexico.
That proyiso was added by way of amendment,
on motion Of Mr.. Mason. of Virginia,
repeat. that in order 10 rebft The presump-
ton. as before stated, that the Missouri Com
promise was abandoned and superseded by the
principles Of the Compromise OF leoo, these con.
federates cite the following amendment offered
10 the bill 10 establish the boundary of Texas
and create The territory of New Mexico in 1880 !:
"Prorided, That nothing herein Contained
shall be construed 10 impair or qualify anything
contained in the third article of the second sec
ton of the joint resolution for alnexine Texas
TO the United States, approved March j, l543'
either ~ regards the number OF States that may
hereafter be formed out of the State OF Texas,
or Otherwise"
After quoting this proviso, they mike the fol-
lowing statement aud attempt to gain credit for
is truth by suppressng material facts which
appear upon the face of the statute and, il
produced, would coneusiyely disprofc the state
ment:
..Jt i aolemnly declared in the very compro-
mise acts that nothing herein contained shall be
construed 10 impair or qualify. the prohibition OF
slavery north of SO deg. 30 min. aud yet in the
face OF this declaration, that sacred prohibition Is
said to be overthrow. Can presumption go fur
therln
| will now proceed to show that presumption
could go further than is exhibited in this declar-
alton.
They suppress the following material facts,
which, if produced, would have disproyed their
statements:
They first suppress the fact that the same sec
tion of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes 10
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
q
the west more than three degrees OF Longitude
aud added il to the territory Of the United States
They then suppress the further fact that this ter
rtory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the
Missouri Compromise line did apply, was incor-
poratod into the Territory of New Mexico. And
then what was donel 1t was incorporated into
hat Territory with this clausel
THAT when admttoda s State, the said Ter
ritory, or any portion of the same, shall be re-
ceived into the Union, with, or without slavery,
their constitution may prescribe Mt the time OF
its adoption"
Yes sir the very bill and section from which
they quote cuts off all that part of Texas which
was TO be free by the Missouri Compromise, to-
gether with some on the south side of the line,
Incorporates it into the Territory OF New Mexico
and then says that that Territory and every por
ton of the same shall come into the Union, with
or without slavery, as it sees proper.
What else does il doi The sixth section of
the same net provides that the Legislative power
and authority of this said Territory OF New Mex
leo shall extend to all rightfu subjects of legsla-
tom consistent with the constitution of the Uni
ted States and the provisions OF the act, not OK
oepting slavery. Thus, the New Mexico bill,
from which they make that quotation, contained
the provision that New Mexico, including that
part of Texas which was cut off, should come in
to the Union with or without slavery, as it saw
proper, and in the mean time the territorial leg
slature should have all the authority over the
subject of slavery that they had over any other
subject, restricted only by the limitations of the
constitution of the u. s. and the provisions of the
act. Now, | ask those senators, do not those
provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise, so
far ns il applied TO that country cut off from Tex
us! DO they not annol it! DO they not super
sedo it If they do. then the address which has
been put forth to the world by these confederates
il an ntrocious falsehood. If they do not then
what do they mean when they charge with
having, in the substitute first reported from the
committee, repealed it, with having annulled it,
with having violated it, when only copied these
precise words! ! copied the precise words into
my bill, reported from the committee, which
we're contained in the New Mexico bill. They
say my bill annuls the Missouri Compromises
fit does, it had already been done before by the
act af 1850 for these words were copied from
the act of 1850
Mr.. Wade. Why do you do it over ngainl
Mr., Douglas. will come to that point pres
entity, and explain why did it over again. am
now dealing with the truth and yeracity of com
bnation of men who have assembled in secret
caucus upon the Sabbath day to arragn my con-
duet and belle my character. | say, therefore,
that their manifesto is n SANDER either way; for
it says that the Missouri Compromise was not SUI
perseded by the measures of 1850, and then it says
that the same words in my bill do repeal and an
nul it. They must be adiudged guilty of one false
hood in order to sustain the other assertion.
no BE CONTINUED.