Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-18

dwelt upon by the Senator from limos.
The proposition to abrogate the Missouri
Compromise, being thus stripped Of The pre-
tence that il is only reiteraton or reairma-
ton of similar abrogaton in the Compromise
Of 1850, or a necessary consequence OF that
measure, stands before ms now upon its own
merits, whatever they may be.
But here the Senator from Illinois challenges
the assailants Of these bills, on the ground that
they were all opponents Of The Compromise Of
1850. and even OF that Of 1920. Sir, il is not
my purpose 10 answer in person 10 this chal-
lenge. The necessity, reasonableness, Justice,
and wisdom OF those Compromises, are not in
question here now. My own opinions on
them We're, at proper time, fully made known.
] abide the judgment OF my country and man
kind upon them. For the present, meet the
Committee who have brought this measure
forward, on the field they themselves have
chosen, and the controversy is reduced TO two
questions: LIST. Whether, by letter or spirit,
the Compromise OF 1920 abrogated or involved
a future abrogaton Of the Compromise OF 1920?
I'd. Whether this abrogalion can now be made
consistently with honor, justice, and good faith
As 10 my right, or that OF any other Senator, 10
enter these lists, the credentials filed in the
Secretary's Office settles that question. Mine
bear seal, as broad and as firmly fixed there
as any other, by people as wise, as free, and
as great, as any one OF all the thirty-one Re
publics represented here.
But will take leave to say, that an argu-
ment merely Gd personGs, seldom amounts TO
anything, more than an argument ad captain
dian. life Of approval OF compromises, and
Of devotion to them, only enhances the obiga-
lion faithfully to fulfil them. A life Of disap-
probation OF the policy Of compromises only
renders one more earnest in exacting fulflment
Of them, when good and cherished interests are
secured by them.
Thus much for the report and the bills Of the
Committee, and for the positions of the parties
in this debate. A measure so bold, so I'M
looked for, SO startling, and yet SO pregnant as
this, should have some plea Of necessity. Is
there any such necessity? On the contrary, it
is not necessary now, even if it be altogether
wise, to establish Territorial Governments in
Nebraska. Not less than eighteen tribes OF In
dams occupy that vast tract, fourteen of which,
! am informed, have been removed there by
our own act, and invested with fee simple TO
enjoy secure and perpetual home, safe from
the intrusion and the annoyance, and even from
the presence Of the white man, and under the
paternal care of the Government, and with the
instruction Of its teachers and mechanics, TO
acquire the arts of civilization and the habits
Of social life. ] will not say that this was done
to prevent that Territory, because denied TO
slavery, from being occupied by free white
men. and cultivated with free white labor; but
] will say, that this removal of the Indians
there, under such guarantees, has had that Ell
feet The Territory cannot he occupied now,
any more than heretofore, by savages and
white men, with or without slaves, together.
Our experience and our Indian policy alike
remove all dispute from this point Either
these preserved ranges must still remain to the
Indians hereafter, or the Indians, whatever
temporary resistance against removal they may
make, must retire.
Where shall they go2 Will you bring them
back again across the Mississippi? There is
no room for Indians here. Will you send
them northward, beyond your Territory Of
Nebraska, towards the British border2 That
is already occupied by Indians; there is no
room there. Will you turn them loose upon
Texas and New Mexicn2 There is no room
there.
Will you drive them over the Rocky noun
tains2 They will meet tide Of immigration
there flowing into California from Europe and
from Asia. Whittier, then, shall they, the
dispossesscd. implied heirs of this vast CONT
nent, 90? The answer is, notctere. III they
remain in Nebraska. of what use are your
Charters? OF what harm is the Missouri
Compromise in Nebraska, in that case
Whom doth il Cypress? No one.
Who, indeed, demands territorial organiza-
lion in Nebraska al all The Indians2 No
Ii is To them the consummaiion of long ap
pretended doom. Practically, no one demands
il. am told that the whole white population,
scattered here and there throughout these
broad regions, exceeding in extent the whole
of the inhabited part Of the United States nj
the time of the Revolution, is less than fifteen
hundred, and that these are chiefly trappers,
missionaries, and few mechanics and agents
employed by the Government, in connection
with the administration of Indian affairs. and
other persons temporarily drawn around the
post of Fort Leayenworih. II il clear. then,
that this abrogaiion Of the Missouri Compro-
mise is not necessary for the purpose OF esiab-
fishing Territorial Governments in Nebraska,
but that, on the contrary, these bills, establish
ing such Governments, are only vehicle for
carrying, or pretext for carrying, that act Of
abrugation.
II is alleged. that the non slavcholding States
have forfeited their rights in Nebraska. under
the Missouri Compromise, by first breaking
that Compromise themselves. The argument
", that the missouri COMPROMISE line ~ -
deg. 30 min, in the region acquired from
France, although corresponding TO that region
which was our westernmost possession. was,
nevertheless. understood as intended to be pros
pecIively applied also 10 the territory reaching
thence westward TO the Pacific Ocean, which
we should afterwards acquire from Mexico
and that when afterwards, having acquired
these Territories, including California, New
Mexico. and Utah, we were engaged in 1913
in extending Governments over them. the free
States refused TO extend that line, on propo-
siIion to that effect made by the honorable Sen
ator from Illinois.
II need only be stated, in refutation Of this
argument, that the Missouri Compromise law.
like any other statute, was limited by the ex-
tent of the subject OF which il treated. This
subject was the Territory OF Louisiana, ac-
qured from France, whether the same were
more or less, then in our lawful and peaceful
possession. The length Of the line Of 80 deg.