Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17


-
4 position as to say that the Missouri act of 1920
/ was an irfcpealable law.
Mr.. EVERETT. Will the gentleman give
/ way for momentl
i Mr.. DOUGLAS. With great pleasure
/ MIR. EVERETT. What said on that subject
was, that Mr.. Webster, in my opinion, considered
| the Missouri compromise as OF tho nature Of
compact II is true, as the senator from Illinois
has Just stated, that Mr.. Webster made no au-
sion, in express terms, to the subject of tho Mis-
souri restriction. But thought then, and think
| now, that he referred in general terms to that
final settlement Of the question, In the region
to which il applied 1t was not drawn in qnes-
tion then on eithers side of the House. Nobody
suggested that 1t was at stake. Nobody inti-
/ mated that there was a question before the Sem
1 ate whether that restriction should be repealed
| or should remain in force. II was not distinctly,
| and in terms, alluded to, us the gentleman cor
rectly says, by Mr.. Webster or anybody else.
i What he said in reference to Texas, applied to
| Texas alone. What he said in referenceto Utah
/ and New Mexico, applied to them alone; and
/ what he said with regard to Oregon, to that Ter
ritory alone But he stated in general terms, and
four or FIVE times, in the speech of the 7th of
i March, 1850, that there was not a foot of land
in the United States its Territories the char
acter Of which, for freedom of slavery, was not
i fixed by some irrepealabe law; and did think
then, and think now, that by the ''rrepcalabe
! law as far concerned the territory north OF
$50 80, and included in the Louisiana purchase.
! Mr.. Webster had reference to the Missouri re-
| strction, as regarded as of the nature of com
j pact That restriction was copied from one Of
| the provisions of the ordinance of 1887, which are
declared in that instrument itself to be articles Of
compact. The Missouri restriction is the article
of tile ordinance of 1887 applied to the Louisiana
| purchase That this is the correct Interpretation
| Of Mr.. Webster's language, is confirmed by the
fact that he said, more than once, and again,
that all the north lost by the arrangement of 1850,
| was tho non-imposition of the Wilmot proviso
upon Utah and New Mexico. eff, in addition to
i that the north had lost the Missouri restriction
| over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could
| he have used language of that kind, and would
| he not have attempted, in some way or other, TO
l reconcile such momentous fact with his repeat
| ed statements that the measures of 1850 applied
only to the territories newly acquired from
/ Mexico? -
i Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr. President. viii explain
that matter very quickly. Mr.. Webster s speech
was made on the 7th Of March, 1850, and the ter
ritorial bills and the Texas boundary bill were
first reported to the Senate by myself on the 25tl
of the same month Mr.. Webster's speech
made upon Mr.. Clay's resolution, when there
was no bill pending. Then the omnibus bill wae
formed about the 1st of May subsequently,; and
hence this explains the reason why Mr.. Webster
| did not refer to the principle involved in these
acts, and to the necessary effect of carrying out
| the principle.
Mr.. EVERETT The expression of Mr.. Web
ster, which quoted in my remarks on the Sth of
February, was from speech OH Mr.. Soule's
amendments offered, think, in June. In addi-
| tion to this have before me extract from a
still later speech of Mr.. Webster, made quite late
in the session. on the 18th of July, 1850, in which
he reiterated that statement In it he said: W,
| "And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the
/ north the antslavery Sta0es lose by this adjust
menla What is il they loses ! put that ques-
tion TO every gentleman here, and to every gentle
man in the country They lose the application OF
what is called the Wilmot proviso TO these Ter
ri,ories and that is all. There is nothing else
4 suppose that the whole north not ready TO do.
They wish TO get California into the Union; they
wish 10 quiet New Mexico; they desire to termi-
nate the dispute about the Texan boundary in any.
reasonable manner, cost whati reasonably may.
/ They make no sacrifice in all that What they'd
sacrifice is exactly this: The application of the
Wimot proviso 10 the Territory of New Mexico
| and tho Territory of Utah, and that IS all"
/ Could Mr.. Webster have used language like
this if he had understood that, at the same timo,
the non-slayeholding States were losing the Mis-
! souri, restriction, applied to- the whole vast
territory included in the bills now before the SEN
ate'
| Mr.. DOUGLAS. OF course that was all, and
| if he regarded the Missouri prohibition in the
same light that he did the Oregon prohibition, il
was useless, and, in that connexion, a senscless
proyiso and hence the north lost nothing by not
having that same senselass, useless proviso APP
piled TO Utah and New Mexico. Now, to show
| the senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr..
| Webster's authority, let me call his attention
back to this passage in his 7th Of March speech
"Under one o, other of these laws, every foot OF
territory in the States or Territories has now re-
! ceved fixed and decided character"
What laws did he refer to when he spoke OF
90 one or other of these laws" He had named
| but two, the Texas compact and the law of ma
ture of climate, and physical geography, which
excluded slavery. He had mentioned none
other and vet he says g one or other prohibited
slayery,in all the States or Territories--thus in
cluding Nebraska, as well as Utah and New
Mexico.
Mr.. EVERETT. That was not drawn in ques-
ton at all. AXE tr
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Then ifit was not drawn in
question, the speech should not have been quoted
in support of the Missouri compromise. II is Just
what complain Of, that, if it was not thus drawn
in question, that ought not to have been made
| of It. Now, Mr.. President, it is we'll known that
Mr.. Webster supported the compromise measures
of 1850, and the principle involved in them, Of
leaving the people to do as they pleased upon this
subject. think, therefore, that have shown that
| these gentlemen are not authorized to quote the
name either of Mr.. Webster or MIR. Clay in support
of the position which they take, that this bill vio-
| lates the faith of compacts. Sir, it was because
Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the Ter
i TttOIlcS tlo TRut W uO US tiicy pielSeu upon
subject of slavery, and because he in favor Of
carrying out the Constitution in regard to fugitive
slaves, that he wns not allowed to speak in Fan
| uel Hall.
i Mr.. EVERETT. That was not my fault.
4 Mr.. DOUGLAS. know it was not but
say it was because he took that position it was
because he did not go for prohbitory policy il
was because he advocated the same principles
which now advocate, because he went for the
same provisions in the Utah bill which now sus.
tain in this bill. that Boston abolitoniss turned
their back upon him, just as they burnt me in
effigy. Sir, identity Of principle, If identity Of
support as friends, if identity of enemies fix MIR.
Webster's position, his authority is certainly with
us. and not with the abotionists. have right,
therefore, to have the sympathies of his Boston
friends with me, as sympathized with him when
the same principle was involved. sI
| Mr.. President, am sorry that have taken up
so much time; but must notice one or two
| points more So much has been said about the
/ Missouri compromise act, and about faithful