Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-02


recognition still more explicit, on motion OF
Judge Mason, of Virginia, the provision was
adopted, that nothing in the Bill should be
construed to impair or qualify anything con-
tanned in the third article of the second section
of the Joint resolutions for annexing Texas,
applying to Texas the principle Of the Nilsson
ri Compromise. With this recognition Of the
Compromise, az an essential part of the basis
Of the Bill, and a. expressly affirmed in pro-
yso- to the Bill, it was passed by tho Senate
aud sent to the House.
Up to this time, the record shows that the
Missouri Compromise was recognized and re-
affirmed, not suspended. For, although the
Territory Of Texas north Of 80 deg. 80 min.
was cut of from that State, it was still subject
to the third article Of the second section Of the
resolutions for annexing Texas-New Mexico,
to which it was to be attached, being ~ yet
and no action adverse to the poll
cy Of that provision having yet been taken by
Congress.
In the House by a parliamentary device, in
tended to defeat the Wilmot Proviso, an amend
ment was adopted, attaching to the Bill that
for establishing Territorial Government in
New Mexico which contained provision that
States thereafter formed out Of that Territory
should be admitted into the Union with or
without Slavery, as their Constitutions might
prescribe The Bill, as amended, went back
10 the Senate, and received its sanction.
Now, as the portion of Texas out off above
So deg. 80 min, had been Incorporated in New
Mexico, and az the Bill provided for the admis.
sion Of future States formed ont Of the Terri
tory, with or without Slavery, as their Consti-
tutions might prescribe, it may BIO said that the
provision in the Sd art. I'd sec. of the resolu-
tons Of annexation declaring that in States
thereafter formed out Of Texas, north Of SO deg.
80 min, Slavery should be prohibited, was SUI
perseded or annulled. Would any court, with
clear understanding Of the history Of both
transactions, thus decide? Recollect, there
were two parties to that provision in the reso
lutions Of annexation-the sovereign, and then
foreign, State Of Texas, and tho United States.
How could an act requiring the consent Of both
Powers to give it validity, be repealed by the
authority Of one Of them? Besides, that pro-
vision was absolutely necessary to secure the
assent Of the North to the annexation of Texas.
There were two parties to that transaction IN
this country, as there were to the Missouri Com
Ipromise---the North and South; and the former
was seduced into ratifying the bargain, by the
insertion Of that Sd art. I'd Sec securing all
Of Texas north Of SO deg 80 min, to Freedom
and Free Labor.
Surely, if it had been intended to deprive the
North Of her share of the benefit of that bar
gain, the provision would have been formally
repealed. 1t was not so repealed. The mover
Of the Texas Boundary Bill in the Senate, and
the Southern men who sustained him, as the
record shows, did not contemplate its repeal.
On the contrary, the bill was framed on the
assumption that it was in force, and to con-
tinue in force, and it was passed in the Senate
ON this assumption. The House, having in view
the defeat Of the Wilmot Proviso, in relation
to the Territory of New Mexico generally, with
out one thought of the peculiar relations sus-
tanned by that portion of Texas which had just
been incorporated into il, attached the New
Mexican Bill to the Boundary Bill, passed both
as one act, which, by the vote Of the Senate
and sanction of the President, thus became
Law. Now we hold, that in view Of all these
considerations, court would BIO bound to de-
eide that, as the third article, second section,
Of the resolutions for annexing Texas was never
expressly repealed, and could not be, except by
the formal consent Of the two Powers that gave
il validity, and as it was in the nature OF q
compact between the North and South, it could
not be inyalidated or superseded by mere
arrangement by which, for the purpose of set.
thing question Of boundary, portion Of Texas
was cut of and incorporated in another Terri
tory 10 the act for organizing which general
provision was inserted, repugnant to said third
article,--in q word, that that general provision
must DO qualified and limited by said article.
But, even admitting that there is reason for
doubt on this point the main fact asserted by
us still remains untouched, viz: that the prin-
ciple Of the Missouri Compromise adopted in
tho joint resolutions for the annexation Of
Texas was re affirmed in the Compromise Of
1850. Mr.. Douglas denies this, because all Of
Texas north Of SO deg 80 min. was cut OF, and
incorporated with New Mexico. What then
he asks with an air Of triumph, was left for
the Missouri Compromise to act uponi And
he then proceeds to explain that the object Of
MIR. Mason in Offering his proviso, re-affrming
the article so often quoted from tho. annexa-
ton resolutions, was merely to provide against
any reduction Of the number Of States which
were TO be formed in virtue Of that article. The
record disproves this. The language Of the
proviso itself shows that the object Of Mr.. Ma
son was 10 re-afirm the whole article, and So
cure all the objects proposed by il. aPro-
vided," is the language, that nothing herein
contained shall DO construed to impair or quail
fy anything contained in the Sd article Of the