The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-01


Ae nstanced in point the erro Of altbuung 70
him the Of 1920. Mr. SEwARD nodded assent. The
from New York says that he does renemoer that
Mr. Clay did say So Ii so, how is i, then that ne pre-
to rise and quote that medal as evidence ha
Henry Clay was the author Of the act OF le2o
MIR SEWARD answer the senator IN tins way mat
Henry Clay, while he said he did not disayow or dsap-
prove Of that compromise, transferred the merit OF 70
others who active in procuring Than ne, ~ne
he had enjoyed the praise and the glory which were due
from IT,
Mr. DOUGLAS To that have only TO say that II can
not be the for Henry Clay in that same speech
did take to himself the merit of the compromise OF ls2 ana
hence could have been modesty which made him DIS
the other He said that he did not know whether ne
had voted for the act Of 1920 not but he supposed that
he had done He furthermore said that II did not org
nate In the house Of which he member and that he
never did approve of its principles but that he may nave
voted and probably did vote for IL under the pressure oil
the circumstances
Now, Mr.. President, as have been doing justice to Mr.
Clay on this question perhaps may as well do justice to
another great man, who was associated with hm carrying
through the great of 1880, which mortified the
from New York much because they defeated his
purpose of carrying the agitation alude to Mr., Web
The authority of his great has been quoted for
the purpose of proving that he regarded the Missouri act as
compact, irrepealable compact Evidently the dsn-
guished from Massachusetts MIR, EyERETT sup
posed he doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he
quoted the passage which he read from Mr. Webster's
speech Of The 7h of March, 1885, when he said that he
stood upon the position that every part OF the American
continent fixed for freedom for slavery by rrepeala
BILE law The senator says, that by the expression ire
pcoable law,n Mr. Webster meant TO include the compro
mise Of 1920. Now, will show that that was not Mr.
Mr. Websters meaning-that he guilty of the
mistake of saying that the Missouri act of 1890 was an r
repealable law Mr. Webster said in that speech, hat
every of territory in the United States fixed to
its character for freedom slavery by an able law
He then inquired II it not in regard TO Texas! lie
to prove that it because, he said, there was
compact express between Texas and the United
States He said the parties capable of contracting and
that there valuable consideration and hence he
tended that in that there was contract binding IN
honor, and morals and law; and that 1t was rrepeaabe
without breach of faith.
He say:
'Now, as to California and New Mexico, l hold slavery
be excluded from those Territories by law supe
or TO that which admits and sanctions Texasl
the law Of Naureof physical geogaphythe law of the
formation Of the earth"
That the rrepeaable law which he said prohibited
slavery in Territories of Utah and New Mexico. He
went speak of the prohibition of slavery in Ore
connexioD, senseless proyiso"
He went further, and said:
"That the whole territory of the States in the United
States, ia the newly acquired territory Of the United
States has fixed and settled character fixed and set
tied by law which be repealed in the of Texas
without violation of public faith and cannot be repealed
by any human power IN regard to California or New Mex
that under other IF these acs every foot of ter
rItory the States the Territories, has received
| fixed and decided character
What rrepeaable aws' Zone or the othe," of those
which he had stated One the Texas compact the
oher the law of nature and physical geography and ne
conended that the other fixed the character OF the
never alluded 10 the Missouri Compromise unless by
the alusion the Wmot povso in the Oregon BILL and
there he said il useless and in that connexon sense
less thing. Why useless and senseless thing
Because re-enacng the law of God because slavery
had already been prohibited by physical geography Sir
that the meaning Of Mr.. Webs,ers speech My dis
tingushed friend from Massachusetts, MIR EVERETT, when
he reads the speech will be utterly amazed to see how
he fell into such egregious error as TO suppose that Mr.
Webster had SO far fallen from his high position as 10 say
that the Missouri act of 1920 irrepeaabe law.
! Mr. EVERETT Will the gentleman give away for a
moment
| Mr. DOUGLAS. With great pleasure.
| MIR EVERETT. What said on that subject was, that
Mr. Webster, my opinion, considered the Missouri Com
promise as OF The naiaEe ri nSa MI we5ster made
ne susion in express the subject of the Missouri
restriction But thought then and think now that he
referred IN general that final settem of the
question, IN the region to which it applied Il was not
drawn IN question then either eide of the House No
body suggested that at stake Nobody inmated that
there question before the Senate whether that restrc
ton should be repealed should remain in force 1t
not distinctly and in terms alluded to- the gentleman
rectly says, by MIR. Webster anybody else. What he
said in reference Texas, applied Texas alone What
he said in reference Utah and New Mexico applied to
them none and what he said with regard Oregon that
Territory alone But he stated in general terms, and four
or five times, IN the speech Of the 7h Of March, 1885, that
there not foot Of land in the United States Ter
rtores, the character Of which for freedom slavery
not fixed by some repealable law and did think them
and think now, that by the rrepcaabe law far
concerned the territory north OF SO deg 30 min and ncu
ded IN the Louisiana purchase MIR Webster had reference
the Missouri restrictions regarded as of the nature OF
compact That restriction copied from of the pro-
visions Of the ordinance Of 1851 which declared that
instrument itself to be articles Of compact The Missouri
restriction is the article Of the ordinance of 1871 applied to
the Loueana purchase That this is the nieprea-
ton OF Mr. Wobser's lsngusge is confirmed by the fact
that he said more than and again, that oil the
North lost by the arrangement Of 1880 the nonmpo
siton Oft Wilmo proyfso upon Utah and New Mexico
IT, in addition TO that the Norh had lost the Missouri re-
scton the whole OF the louisiana purchase could he
have used language of that kind and would he AZ
fact with his repeated statements that the measures OIL
1850 applied only the Territories newly acquired from
Mexicoi
Mr.. DOUGLAS. MIR, President, [ will explain that mat
very quickly Mr. Webser's speech was made on the
7th Of March 1880 and the territorial bills and the Texas
boundary bill first reported the Senate by myself on
the 25th Of the month MIR Websters speech was
made upon MIR Cay's resolutions when there no bill
pending Then, the omnibus bill formed about the 81
Of May subsequently, and hence this explains the reason
why Mr. Webster did not refer the principle involved in
these acts and TO the necessary effect Of carrying the
principle.
MIR. EVERETT. The expression Of Mr. Webster
which quoted in my on the 9Th OF February was
from speech on Mr. Soucs amendment offered think
in June In addition to this have before me an extract
from still later speech Of Mr.. Webster made quite late in
the session on the 1th Of july 1885, in which he eiter
ated that statement Ia II he sed
And now, sir what do Massachusetts and the NORTH
the antsiavcry Staeslose by this ndusu,cnti What is
they lose} put that question every gentleman here
and TO every gentleman the country They lose the APP
picntion Of what called the 'Wmot provso, TO these
Territories and that s ALL There is nothing else suppose
that the whole North ready do They wish to
get California into the Union; they wish quiet New