The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1854-04-15

States, and to prohibit slavery in certain ter
l-ritorics, approved March 9, 1920, adopt a
constitution conformably tothc provisions of
said act, and shall, IN ADDITION to said prOvs-
IiOn, furthe, provide, in and by said constitu-
ton, that neither slavery nor involuntary ser :
vitudc shall ever be allowed In said State of
Missouri, unless inflicted os u punishment
for crimes committed against the laws of said
State, whereof the party accused shall be du-
ly convicted: PROVIDED, That the civil con-
dtion of these persons who now are held to
service in Missouri shall not bc affected by
this last provision"
Here l show, then, that the proposition
was made tina Missouri should not come in
unless, in addition to complying with tho
Missouri compromise, so called, she would
20 further, and prohibit slavery within tho
limits of the State.
I, Mr.. Seward. Now then, for the vote.
Mr.. Douglas The vote was taken by yeas
and nays. hold II in my hand. Sxty-onc
northern men voted for :i,at amcdment, and
thirty three against It. Thus the north, by
. vote of nparly two to one, expressly repu-
dated a solemn compact upon the very
matter in controversy, TO wit: that slavery
should not be prohibited in the Statoc Of Mis-.
sOuri.
Mr.. Weller Let the senator from New
York answer that.
Mr.. Douglas. | should like to hear his
answer.
Mr.. Seward. I deirc, if shall be obtru-
siye BY speaking in this way, that senator's
will at once signify, or that any senator will
signify, that am obtrusivc But ! make
these explanations in this way, for the reason
that desire to give the honorvble senator
from Illinois the privilege Of hearing my an
swer as he goes along. II is simply this :;
That this doctrine Of compromises ls, as 1t
u has been held, that if SO many northern men
hall 20 with so many southern men as to Fix
'thc law, then it binds the north and sout a
like. | therefore, have but one answer to
lrnakc: that the vote for the restriction was
less than the northern vote which was given
against the whole compromise
Mr. Douglas. We'll, now, We come to this
point: We have been told, during this de
bate, that you must not judge OF the north by
the minority but by her majority. You have
been told that the minority, who stood by
the Constitution and the rights of the south,
were dough-faces.
Mr.. Seward. have not said so. will
not say So
Mr.. Douga. You have all said SO in your
spceches. aud you have asked us to take the
majority Of the north.
Mr.. Seward. spoke ofthr practical fact
Lnever said anything about dough faces.
Mr.. Douglas. You have asked usiakc the
majority instead Of the minority.
/, Mr.. Seward The majority Of the coun'
try.
sy Of the northern vote.
Mr.. Seward No, sir.
sMr. Douglas. hope the senator VIII near
me. wish to recall him TO the issue
stated that tho north in the House OF Repre-
sntativcs voted against admitting Missouri
into the Union under the act OF ls29, and
.anscd the defeat Of that measure; and
said that they 9oted against 1t On the grouhc
of the free negro clause in her constitution
: and not upon the ground Of slavery. Now
have 5howIrby the evidence that II wa
upon the ground OF slavery, as well IT. aPoi
the other ground; and that majority OF th'
north required not only that Missouri shouic
comply with the compact Of 1920, SO called
, but that she should go further, and give VI
! the whole consideration which the senator
, says the south received from the north fol
| the Missouri compromise. The compact, h'
. he saws. was that in consideration oi riaHe
nv being permitted in Missouri, 1t should b'
, prohibited in the Territories. After having
9 prcrsred the prohibition in the Territories
5 Inc north, by majority OF her votes, relus
A cd TO admit Missouri IA slavcholding State
; and, in violation Of the alleged compact, re
I ouircd her to prohibit slavery as iurthc
1 condition of her admission. This repudia
1 ton O: the alleged compact by the north i
: recorded by yeas and nays, sixty one to thir
] ty.thrce, and entered upon the Journal, a
r an impcrishabc evidence of the fact Wit
q this evidence before us, against whom shoul
c the charge Of per!idy be preferred:
: Sir. if this was a compact, what must b
thought Of those who violated II almost in
p. mediatcly after twas formed: say II wa
y a calumny upon the north to say that 1t wa
U a compact. should feel flush OF sham
upon my check, as northern man, II
u were to say that it was a compact, and tina
> the section of the country to which belon
,, received the consideration, and then repud
!, atcd the obligation in eleven months after
u was entered into. deny that it was con
i pact in any sense of the term. But il it wa
J the record proves that faith was not ol
y served: that the contract was never carrie
','.o I"i., .I n,sSa,c Of the act prohibiting Il,
&c .u.vi GUY. =; ~" ,ha Terr;tor;cs with a majority
y the House large enough to prevent its repca
o Mss" M,ss" s " si,vcholdinr State in conformit
is ',;,% w;'a ,ha % act Of March & 1870 If the pr,
WILL; Man ."' az a., corroct ~ as conended for bv III
k p"n. pos,''vn w os ,h;s Sl, that there was n so
r "pl'"c "inn "omnoct between the north and sout
that @ in consideration of the prohibition
slavery in the Territories, Missouri was
g hc ,,i,n;ttcd into the Union in conformit
It With the net Of 1870, that compact was RI
: undated by the north and rescindcd the .ioil
D; acton Of Inc two parties within twel,
o months from its date. Missouri was nev,
l. admitted under the act of the 9th of Marcl
d Is2O. She was refused admission under thi
$, net She was voted out of the Union b
nor,bcrp votes, notwithstanding the stipul
4, tion that She should be received; and,
le consequence r of these facts, a new compron
ia - rnnd.r,i necessary nv the terms