Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31


statement. They first suppress the fact that the
same section of the act cuts of from Texas, and
cedes 10 the United States, all that part of Texas
which hes north of 800 3U. They then suppress
the further fact that the same section ofthe law
cuts on from Texas large tract OF country on the
west more than three degrees OF longitude, and
added 10 the territory ofthe United States. They
tnen suppress the further fact that this territory
mus cut hirom Texas, and 10 which the Missouri
compromise line did apply was Incorporated
INTO the territory of New Mexico. And then what
was done? II was incorporated into that terri
tory with this clause:
That when admitted a State the said territory,
any portion Of the same shall be received into the Union
with or without slavery, their constitution may
scribe at the time Of its adoption"
Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which
they quote, cuts oil all that part of Texas which
was TO be free by the Missouri compromise, to-
gether with some on the south side the line; in
corporates il into the territory of New Mexico and
then says that the territory, and every portion Of
The same, shall come into the Union with or with
out slavery, as il sees proper.
What else does il do? The sixth section of the
same act provides that the legislative power and
authority OF this said Territory of New Mexico
shall extend TO albrghtfu subjects Of Legislation
consistent with the Constitution Of the United
States and the provisions of the act, not excepting
slavery. Thus the New Mexican bill, from which
they make that quotation, contained the provision
that New Mexico including that part OF Texas
which was cut off, should come into the Union
with or without slavery, as il saw proper; and in
the mean time that the territorial legislature should
have all the authority over the subject of slavery
that they had over any other subject, restricted
only by the limitation of the Constitution of the
United States and the provisions of the act. Now,
ask those Senators, do not those provisions re-
peal the Missouri compromise, so far as it applied
TO that country cut of from Texas DO they not
annul Il! DO they not supersede IL! lfthey do,
then the address which has been put forth 10 the
world by these conederatcs is an atrocious false
hood. If they do not, Then what do they mean
when they charge me with having, in the snbsti-
tute irst reported from the committee repealed it,
with having annulled it, with having violated il,
when only copied those precise words? lcoped
the precise words into my BILL as reported from
the committee, which were contained in the New
Mexico bill. They say my bill annuls the Mis-
souri, compromise. II il does, it had already been
done before by the act OF 1850; for these words
We're copied from the act of 1850. #E
Mr.. WADE. Why did you do il over again
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Twill come TO that point pre-
sently, and explain why we did it over again
am now dealing with the truth and veracity ofa
combination of men who have assembled in secret
caucus upon the Sabbath day to arraign my con
duct and belle my character. say, therefore that
their manifesto is slander either way for il says
that the Missouri compromise not superseded
by the measures Of 1885, and then il says that the
same words in my bill do repeal and annul il.
They must be adjudged guilty of one ialsehood in
order to sustain the other assertion
Now, sir, propose TO go little further, and
show what was the real meaning Of the amendment
OF the senator from Virginia, ont Of which these
gentlemen have manufactured so much capital in
the newspaper press, and have succeeded by that
misrepresentation in procuring an expression of
opinion from the State of Rhode of Island in oppo-
sition TO this bill will state what its meaning is
Did il mean that the States north of 800 3U
should have clause in their constitutions pro-
hbtins slavery? / have shown that il did not
mean that, because the same act says that they
might come in with slavery, if they saw proper. |
say it could not mean that for another reason:
The same section containing that proyiso cut off
oil that part OF Texas north of $50 30' and hence
there was nothing for il TO operate upon. Il did
not therefore, relate to the country cut of. What
did il relate to- Why, il meant simply this By
the joint resolution of 1915, Texas was annexed,
with the right TO form four additional States out
of her territory and such States were south Of
800 30' were to come in with or without slavery,
as they saw proper; and in such State or States
as were north OF that line slavery should be pro-
hbited. When we had cut of oil north Of 500 30'
and thus circnmscribed The boundary and dimin-
ished the territory of Texas, the question arose,
how many States will Texas be entitled TO under
this circumscribed boundary. Certainly not four,
twill be argued. Why? Because the original
resolution OF annexation provided that one Of the
States. if not more, should he north of 36o 3O Ii
would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was
entitled TO two or three additional States under
the circumscribed boundary.
In order TO put that matter 10 rest in order 10
make final settlement, in order 10 have il expIi.
clty understood what was the meaning Of Con
gress the senator from Virginia offered the amend
ment that nothing therein contained should impair
that provision, either as to the numbe rot States or
otherwise, that is, that Texas shonld be entitled
10 the same number Of States with her reduced
boundaries as she would have been entitled 10
under her larger boundaries; and those States
shall come in with or without slavery being all
south Of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and nothing 10
impair that right shall be inferred from the passage
of the act. Such, sir was the meaning of that
proposition. Any other construction Of il would
stultify the very character and purpose of It's
mover, the senator from Virginia. Such then was
not only the intent Of the mover, but such is the
legal effect Of the law; and | say that no man
after reading the other sections ofthe BILL those to
which have referred, can doubt that such was
both the intent and the legal effect ofthat law.
Then submit to the Senate if have not con-
vcted this manifesto issued by the abolition con
federates, of being gross Justification of the laws
of the land, and by that Justification that erro-
neous and injurious impression has been created
upon the public mind. am sorry to be compelled
To indulge in language Of severity; but there is no
other language that is adequate to express the in
dignation with which see this attempt, not only
10 misead the public, but to malign my character
by deliberate Justification OF the public statutes
and the public records
Sir, this misrepresentation and Justification does
not stop here. In order TO give greater pausbility
to their statement, they go further, and state that
:" il is soemnly declared in the very compromise
acts that nothing herein, contained shaHbe CONSTRUED
to impair aualy the prohibition of slavery north
OF 3Go 3O'; and yet, in the face of this declaration,
that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown.
Can presumption go further"
In the very teeth of the statue saying that they
should come in with or without slavery as they
pleased these men declare that il is stated that il
should be forever prohibited repeat to them
/" Could presumption go further? Z" Not only
presumption in making these statements, but the
presumption that they could avoid the exposure
Of their conduct
In order 10 give greater plausibility to the ials
fcation Of the terms Of the compromise measures
OF 1850, the confedraes also declare in their mani
festo that they the territorial bills for the organi-
zalion of Utah and New Mexico) "applicd to the
territory acquired from Mexico, and TO that only
They were intended as settlement ofthe contro-
versy growing out Of that acquisitions, and of that
controversy only. They must stand or fall by
their own merits.n
submit 10 the Senate If there is an intelligent
man in America who does not know that that
declaration is falsifed by the statute from which
they quoted. They say that the provisions of
that bill was confined TO the territory acquired