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

sacrifice III AL that. W hat they do sacrifice |
is exactly this The application of the will |
mot proyiso TO the Territory Of New Mexico |
and the Territory of Utah, and that is ALL" |
Could Mr.. Webster have used language |
like this if he had understood that, at the |
same time the -slavcholding Stat, were
losing the Missouri restriction, aS applied to
the whole vast territory included in the bills |
now before the senator
Mr. DOUGLAS. OF course that was ALL |
and if he regarded the Missouri prohibition in
the same light that he did the Oregon proh- |
bition, II was useless, anl, in that oonncx-
ION, senselcSs proyiso; and hence the north
lost nothing by not having that sane sense
less, useless provlso applied to Utah and New
Mexico. Nov, to show the senator that he
must be mistaken as to Mr. Wehsters au-
thoiity, I me call his attention back 10 the
passage of his 7th of March speech:
I'll dcr one or other Of these laws, every
foot OF territory in the States or Territories
has now received fixed and decided charac.
ter"
What laws did he refer to when he spoke
of "onc.or other of these hwsyn He had
named but two, the Texas compact and the
law OF nature, Of climate, and physical &C.
ography, which excluded slavery. lie had
J
or v;'.cr' prohibited slavery in all the States
or Tcrritorics-thus including Nebraska, as
well as Utah and New Mexico.
Mr.. EVERETT That was not drawn in
question at all
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Then if it was not
dra@n in question, the speech should not
have been quoted in support Of the Missouri
compromise II is just what complain Of,
tlut , al
that use ought not to have been made of it.
Now, Mr. President it is well known that
Mr. Webster supported the compromise
measures OF 1850, and the principle involved
in them, Of leaving the people to d" as they
please: upon this subject think, there
fore, that have shown that these gentlemen
arc not authorized to quote the name either
Of Mr.. Webster or Mr.. Clay in support of
the position which they take, that this bill
violates the faith Of comparts. Sir it was
because Mr. Webster went for giving the
people IN the Territories the right to do as
they pleased upon the subject ofsiayery, and
because he was in favor of carrying out the
Constitution in regard 10 fugitive slaves that
lac wa not allowed to speak in ranucl Hall.
Mi. ENEltEIT. That was not my fault.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. know it was not; but
1t was because he did not go for Il prohibitory
; policy; il was because he advocated the same
principles which now advocate, because lac
went Tor tiry same provisions in the I tab bill
which now sustain IA tui3 bit, that Boston
abolitionists turned their back upon him,
just as they burnt me in clligy. Sir, if i,lcn-
! thy of principle, if identity Of support as
friends, if identity of enemies fix Mr, Web
Il. IL a, I'll
Us, and not With the abolitionSts have u
! right, therefore, to have the sympathics of
Lis Boston e. nds with me. as sympathiz,
with him when the same prihoiple wasinyol-
we'd
NJ. President, am sorry that have Ia.
ken up 80 much time but must notice one
or t~O points more. So much has been said
J about the Missouri compromise act, and
! aLou. a faithful compliance with it by the
north. th,t must follow that matter a little
!, further. The senator from Ohio Mr.. WADEl
! has referred. tonight, to the tact that /
went for carrying out the Missouri compro-
mise in the Texas resolutions OF $40, and IN
1873, on several occasions ara he ac'niiy
proved that | never abandoned il liriil isop.
lie need not have taken the pains 10 Prove
that fact; for he got all his information on
, me SulJttl from my opening speech upon
, this bill told you then that vas willing,
{ AS northern man. III i5tJ, when the Texas
question arose, to carry the Missouri com
promise line through that state, ana en- 1910
| Offered il as an amendment TO the Oregon
! bill, Although did not like ,.,c I'inL.le
involved in that act, yet Nks willing, for
. the sake of harmony, to extend to the pacif
c, and abide 10y il in good faith in order to
avoid tie slavery agitation. The Missouri
comproinise was defeated then by the same
= class ogpoiiticiaus who are now combined in
opposition to the Nebraska IN. II was be
, cause we we're unable to carr ont that com
/ promise, that n necessity existed for making
! a new one in 1850 And then we establish
J cd this great principle of sclEgoyernment
which lies ut the foundation of all our insli-
tutons. What does his charge amount to !?
lie charges it, As a matter of offence. that
struggled in lsij and in 1913 to observe
good faith -; and he and his associates defeated
nv purpose, and deprived me Of the ability
to carry out what he now SAYS is the plighted
faith Of the nation.
, Mr. WADE. | did not charge the scna-
Tor with ANYTHING cxccpt with makinga very
excellent argument on my side of the 1ics-
ton. and wished he would make it again
tC-ni.lt. That was all
Mr.. DOUGLAS What was the argu-
ment which | made! y southern senator
, had complained that the Missouri cOmpro-
| mise was matter of injustice to the south
, | told him he ought not to complain Of that
when his southern friends were here proro-
sing to accept it; and if we could carry it
out, ho had no right to make such a com
plant ! was anxions to carry it out. 1t
would not have done for anorthern man who
, was opposed to the measure, and unwilling
10 abide it, to take that position. 1t would
not have become the senator from Ohio, who
:. then denornced The very measure which he
nov calls sacred compact. to take that po-
sition But, as one who had always boon in
favor of carving il cut, it was legitimate and
4, proper that should make that argument in
rcpiy. ........