Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-18


would observe here that the ultimately adopt
ed were based the resolutions of Mr. Clay; and in
Decd there is an exact coincidence between them IL
was supposed that the principle of mutuaty Of conces
sion had been fully carried out; and this idea the
| people acquiesced, and on this only.
The view Of the subject was taken by Mr. Web
ster in his speech delivered in this chamber July H.
1850 quote follows: Well, sir the next inquiry
u.s. what do Massachusetts, and the North the slavery
States, lose by this adjustment? put the question to
every gentleman here and to every man in the country
They lose the application of what is called the Wimot
proyiso these Territories, and that is all There is
nothing else that suppose the whole North are not will
ling to do willing to have DONE They wish to get Ca
fornia into the Union and to quiet New Mexico they
wish terminate the dispute about the Texas boundary
cost what it may They make sacrifice in all these
What they sacrifice is this the application Of the Wmo
provso to the Territories Of New Mexico and Utah. and
that is ALL Here is the same idea of mutuality the
South would concede the admission of California into the
Union, and the North for New Mexico and
Utah without the Wilmot proyso They would sacrifice
the application of the provso to these Territories Mr.
Webster did not dream that they were ut the same time
sacrificing the restriction of 1920 in other words that
admitting slavery into the countries which we
acquired from France lying north of 360 3V. am
truly happy to call to my aid under this head OF remark
the honorable chairman himself referring again to his
Chicago speech which is, admit, characterized with
ability He undertook, that OCCASION to defend the
mutually and the equality Of the concessions made on
the one side and the other and the justice and proprey
Of the adjustment After expatiating the various
topics embraced in the compromise he makes the follow
ing broad declarations Neither party has gained or lost
any thing far the question of slavery concerned
Texas has gained ten millions of dollars and the United
States has saved in blood and treasure the expenses of
civil war" The honorable Senator did not intimate to
his constituents that he had been undermining tearing
down the restriction Of 1920 The statement of such fact
would have created profound sensation Chicago and
indeed throughout the whole Northern country. will
do the Senator the injustice to suppose that he enter
tanned any such idea at the time, for that would be to
hold him up to the nation the most disingenuous of
If he chooses to hold himself in that light
it is affair Of his own not mine The repeal of the
9th section would have completely unsettled the balance
of concession which Mr. Clay carefully adjusted be-
tween the sections The South would have obtained
great victory the North, nay, absolute
quest 1t would be mockery to call the Of
| 1850 compromise on this hypothesis.
Besides all this, prove, from the language held
the leading members Congress during the tendency Of
this controversy that nothing have been further from
their thoughts than the repeal of the 9th section of the
Missouri shall begin with referring to the speeches
of Mr. Webster In his celebrated It'll of March speech
find the following passage: "And now say sir as the
4 proposition which stand this day-and upon the
truth and rmness of which intend to act until it is
throwntha there is not at this moment within the Unit
ed States any Territory Of the United States, single
foot of land the character of which, in regard to being
free territory slave territory is not fixed by law
and some irrepeaabe law beyond the power of the
ton Of the Government This opinion, strongly
pressed based the idea that the character of the
territory northwest Of the Ohio and east of the Mssis
sppi fixed free territory by the ordinance of 1887
i
30f also fixed free by the restriction Of 820 that
the territory comprised within the State Of Texas
fixed slave territory by the terms and conditions Of her
admission into the Union that the territory embraced
by the limits of California fixed free territory by
the provisions of the Constitution and the Territories Of
Utah and New Mexico fixed free territory by ir
resistble laws of nature To of these topics he
barely alluded and others he commented at length
and then concluded follows: Now, Mr. President,
have established far propose to do So the propo
ston with which set out, and with which intend to
stand fall and that is that the whole territory within
the former United States in the newly acquired Next
Provinces has fixed and settled character,
fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed; in
the of Texas without violation of public faith and
by no human power in regard to California and New
Mexico That therefore under the other Of these
laws every foot of land in the States the Territories
has clearly received fixed and decided character
And then again he remarks in his speech Of the Sd Of
June as follows:
"On the 7th of March, sir, declared my opinion to be
that there is not square rod Of territory belonging to the
is not already fixed by some irrepealable law remain
of that opinion" s.. .a.:H.y
And them after some observations not material to be
have heard argument calculated in the slightest
gree to alter that opinions the committee believe with
accord concurred in it, ~..
How could Mr. Webster such broad language if he
had supposed that Congress were by the compromise
of that year. laying the foundation for the
throw of the restriction Of 1920 quotation from
subsequent part Of this speech Of the Sd of June will
"And let be remembered (he says that spenk
Of New Mexico and Utah. and other Territories acquired
from Mexico, and nothing else. confne myself to these
and TO thom say that occasion to make pro-
vision against slavery to ourselves the right
of making such provision hereafter All this rests the
thorough conviction that under the laws of nature there
be slavery in these Territories This the fouda
ton of ALL" .U,...,..
Mr.. Webster obviously thought that the Missouri
strction fixed fact; and the celebrated Com
mittee of Thirteen unanimously concurred with him in
the opinion, the position which assume is mpregnable
is idle to pretend that Congress intended by the
sures of 1850 to set aside the compromise of 1920
But maintain that the universally Of the adjustment
Of 1850 has been recognised and admitted in the proceed
ings Of Congress until within very short period The
action of the two Houses the Nebraska bill of the last
session is very striking illustration Of this fact 1t is
true that the bill then said nothing the subject Of
slavery either way the other 1t did not repeal
the 9Th section Of the Missouri act and therefore left
it to operate the Territory in all its vgor. The at
tenton Of the House particularly called to this fact
by an honorable member, Mr. GrDDINGs whose appear
the floor pre-eminently adapted to
the suspicious and awaken the vigilance of Southern
members After quoting the 9Th section Of tho act Of
| 1920, he remarked that
"Ths law stands perpeually and did not think that this
act would receive any increased validity by reenactmen
There leave the matter 1t clear that the territory
included in that treaty must be forever Free unless that law
| be repealed"
And yet in face of this broad avowa no less than twen
ty members from slavehoding States, before stated
including Mr. Johnson the present Governor of Tonnes
see, voted for the bill How idle is it to pretend
that had either repealed had laid the foundation
for repeating the restriction of 1920 by the compromises
| Of 1851
The bill was sent to the Senate and fell into the hands
of the honorable chairman; and he reported it back to