The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1854-03-08


qdence Of the action OF freesoilers and aOo-
litionists-when it was superseded BY the
compromise measures OF 1850. which rest
ed upon a great universal principl ple-there
was no hecessIty for keeping in view the old
and unatural boundary. For that reason,
in making the new territories irrespective Of
the source whence our title was derived
In writing these bills raid no attention TO
the fact whether the title was acquired from
Louisiana. from France, or from Mexico; for
what difference did it make? The principle
which we had established in the bill would
apply equally well to either.
In fixing those boundaries, l paid no at
!ention to the fact whether they include old
territory or no.--whether the country was
covered by the Missouri compromise or not.
Whys Because the principles established
in the bills superseded the Missouri com
promise. For that reason we disgarded the
old boundaries; disregarded the territory to
which it applied, and disregarded the source
from whence the title was derived. say,
therefore, that close examination Of this
act clearly establishes the fact that it was
the intent. as well as the legal effect Of the
coWpro mise, and all geographical and ter
ial lines. . .... ....-.-.. .
Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction
| will state mere distinctly what my precise
idea is upon this point. Solar as the Utah
and New Mexico bills included the terrific
ry which had been subject to The Missouri
compromise provision, to that extent they
absolutely annulled the Missouri eompro-
m Sc. As to the unorganzed territory not
covered by those bills, it was superseded by
the principles of the compromise Of 1850.
We all know that the object Of the conpro-
mise measures OF 1850 was to establish GER
tain great principles which would avoid
the slavery agitation in all time to come.
Was it our object simply to proyid for a
temporary evil? Was it our object to heal
over an old sore, and leave it TO break out
again? Was it our object to adopt mere
miserable expedient to apply to that terrific
ry. and TO that alone, and Leave ourselves
entirely at sea, without compass when now
territory was acquired or new territorial or
ganizations we've to be made?
Was that the object for which the emf
nent and venerable senator from Kentucky
| Mr. Clay came here and sacrificed even
his last energies upon the altar Of his eoln-
ttty2 Was that the object for which Web
steI. Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that
day, struggled 50 long and SO strenaously :?
Was it merely the application of temPora-
ry expedient, in agreeing to stand by past
and dead legislation that the Baltimore plat
form pledged Us to sustain the compromise
Of 1850? Was it the understanding Of the
whig party. ghen they adopted the conprq-
fiticai fTitb, that they were only agreeing 70
that which WAS past, and had no reference
to the future? If that was their meaning;
if that was their object, they palmed off an
strocious fraud upon the American people.
Was it the meaning OF the Democratic party
when we pledged ourselves to stand by the
compromise Of 1850, that we spoke cHly OF
the past, and ned no reference to the fu'
tule? If so. it was then a fraud. When
We pledged our President to stand BY the
compromise measures did we not undeS-
stand that we pledged him as to his future
action? Was it as to his past conduct p
IL il had been in relation to past conduct
only. the pledge would have been untrue
as to very large portion OF the Democrat
ic party. Men wtnt into that convention
who had been opposed to the compromise
measures--men who abhorred those meas
ures when they were pending-men who
never would have voted atirmatively on
them. But inasmuch as those measures
had been passed, and the country had ac'
guessed IN them, and it was important to
preserve the principle in order to avoid agi-
tation in the future, these men said, we waive
our past objections. and we will stand by
YOU and wilh youin carrying out these prin
ciples in future.
| Such understood to be the meaning o.
the two great parties at Baltimore. Such
understand to haze been the eIfecfof theii
pledges. Ifthey did not mean tlils, they
meant merely 10 adopt resolutions which
were never to be carried out, and which
we're designed to mislead and deceive th'
people for the mcre purpose Of carrying a
election.
hold, then, that as to the territory Gov
cred by the Utah and New Mexico bills
there was an express annulment of the Mis-.
1 souri, compromises; and as TO all the otha
unors anized territories; it was superseded
BY the principle Of thar legislation, and we {
bound 70 apply tho e principles in the or
fganization OF all new Territories: 10 al
which VIZ now own, or which We may here
after acquire. If,his construction be given
it makes that compromise = final adluNniens
No other construction can pJssibiy impair
I6nality to il. By any other construction tn
/ que.tion Is to fe re.cpened the moment yo
rasify anew treaty acquiring aninch OF ccan
It.y from Mexico BY any other construction
you reopen the issue every time you max
4 new territorial government. But, sir,
you treat the compromise measure OF 1876
10 the light Of greae principles, sufficient
remedy temporary evils, at the same Tin,
that they prescribe rules Of action applicabl
everywhere IN all time t. come, then yo
avoid the agitation forever, if yoU obsefy
good faith to tile PROVISIONS Of these enact
lnents. and the principles established b
them.
/. Mr. President / repeat, that 50 far as th
question Of slavery ia concerned, there
( nothing in the bill under considerable
which does not carry oat the principle ofth
compromise measures Of 1883 by leavin
the people to do as they please, subject onl
to the provisions Of the Constitution Of II
United States, If thai principle is wroa:
the billis wrong. Ifthat principle Ii righ
Z isthe bill Is right II il unnecessary to qdif
ffble about phraseolosy or words; j. i Is
lthe mere words, The mere rflsasaovsy
Il that our coasutdents wish to Vsiyo by.-