Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31

souri, compromise so long il was in force, aud
advocated its extension 10 the Pacific ocean.
Now, when that has been abandoned when il has
been superseded, when great principle Of self
government has been substituted for IT, choose
TO cling 10 that principle and abide in good faith
not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last
compromise.
Sir do not recognise the right Of the aboli-
tionsts Of this country to arraign me for being
false 10 sacred pledges, as they have done in their
procamations Let them show when and where
| have ever proposed to violate compact.
have proved that stood by the compact of 1920
and 1o45, and proposed its continuance and OBJ
servance in 1913. have proved that the free
soilers and aboltonisls were the guilty parties
who violated that compromise then. / should
like TO compare notes with these abolition confed-
crates about adherence 10 compromises. When
did they stand by or approve OF any one that was
ever made?
Did not every abolitonist and freesoiler in
America denounce the Missouri compromise in
1870! Did they not for years hunt down raven
ously, for his blood, every man who assisted in
making that compromise? Did they not in 1915,
when Texas was annexed, denounce oil OF us
who went for the annexation OF Texas, and for the
continuation of the Missouri compromise line
through II! Did they NOT in lSlS, denounce me
MS slavery propagandst for standing by the prin-
cples OF the Missouri compromise, and proposing
10 continue the Missouri compromise line 10 the
Pacific ocean, Did they not themselves violate
and repudiate II then! Is not the charge of bad
faith true as 10 every abolilionist in America in
stead OF being true as to me and the committee,
and those who advocate this bill4
They talk about the bill being violation Of the
compromise measures of 1850. Who can show
me man in either house of Congress who was
in favor of the compromise measures of 1850 and
who is not now in favor Of leaving the people OF
Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon
the subject OF slavery according to the provisions
OF my bill Is there one? Ii so, / have not
heard OF him. This tornado has been raised by
abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have
made an impression upon the public mind, in the
way in which have mentioned, by falsifcaton
the law and the faets and this whole organiza-
tion against the compromise measures OF 1850 is
an abolition movement. Ipresume they had some
hope of getting a few tenderfooted democrats
into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed
they might do, they sent forth publicly TO the
world the falsehood that their address was signed
by the senator's and majority of the representa-
tives from the State of Ohio; but when we come
10 examine signatures, we find no one whg there
no one democrat there none but pure, unmiti-
gated, unaduterated abolitionsts.
Much effect, know, has been produced by this
circular, coming as it does with the imposing title
of representation of majority OF the Ohio
delegation. What was the reason for its effect?
Because the manner In which it was sent forth
implied that all the whig members from that State
had Joined in it !; that part of the democrats had
signed il; and then that the two abolitionsts had
signed 1t, and that made majority of the delega-
ton. BY this means it frightened the whig party
and the democracy in the State of Ohio, because
they supposed their own representatives and
friends had gone into this negro movement, when
the fact turns out to be that it not signed by
single wing or democratic member from Ohio
Now, ask the friends and the opponents ofthis
measure TO look at il as it is. Is not the question
involved the simple one, whether the people of
the Territories shall be allowed to do as they
please upon the question Of slavery, subject only
to the limitations of the Constitution? That is all
the bill Provides and il does so in clear, explicit,
and uneqnlyocdl terms. | know there are some
men, wings and democrats, who, not willing to
repudiate the Baltimore platform of their own
party, would be willing 10 vote for this principle,
provided they could do so in such equivocal
terms that they could deny that il means what it
was intended to mean in certain localities. ! do
not wish 10 deal. IN any equivocal language II
the principle is right, let it be avowed and main
tanned. II It is wrong, let il be repudiated Let
all this qubbling about the Missouri compromise,
about the territory acquired from France, about
the act of 1890, be cast behind you for the simple
question is, will yoa allow the people TO legislate
for themselves upon the subject of slavery Why
should you not?
When you propose TO give them Territorial
Government do you not acknowledge that they
ought to be erected into political organization;
and when you give them legislature do you not
acknowledge that they are capable Of sefgov-
ernmenta Having made that acknowledgment,
why should you moi allow them to exercise the
rights Of legislation? Oh, these abolitionists
say they are entirely willing TO concede all this,
with one exception. They say they are willing
10 trust the Territorial legislature, under the lmi
tat,ons OF the Constitution, TO egisate upon the
rights OF inheritance, to egisate in regard to rel
gion education, and morals; TO legislae in regard
10 the relations of husband and wife, Of parent
and child, OF guardian and ward, npon everything
pertaining to the dearest rights and interests Of
white men, but they are not willing to trust them
to leglslate in regard 10 a few miserable negroes.
That is their single exception. They acknowledge
that the people ofthe territories capable Of de-
Gliding for themselves concerning white men, but not
in relation to negroes. The renl gist OF the matter
is this Does i require any higher degee of civil
zaton, and intelligence, and learning, and saga
city, 10 legisate for negroes than for white men
If il does, we ought to adopt the abolition doc
trine, and go with them against this bill. II it
does Motif we are willing TO trust the people
with the great, sacred, fundamental right Of pre-
scrbng their own institutions, consistent with the
Constitution OF the country--we must vote for
this bill as REPORTED by the Committee on Terri
ritories That is the only question involved in the
bill. hope have been able TO strip it of all the
Misrepresentation, 10 wipe away all OF that mist
and obscurty with which it has been surrounded
by this abolition address.
have now said all / have to say upon the
present occasion. For all, except the first ten
minutes OI tneSe remarks, the abolition confed-
crates are responsible My object, in the first
place, was only to explain the provisions of the
bill, SO that they might be distinctly understood.
Twas willing 10 allow its assailants to attack il
as much as they pleased, reserving to mysefthe
right, when the time should approach for taking
the vote, 10 answer in concluding speech all the
arguments which might be used against it. l
still reserve-what believe common courtesy
and parliamentary usage awards TO the chairman
of a committee and the author of bill-the right
of summing up after all shall have been said which
has TO be said against this measure.
hope the compact which was made on last
Tuesday at the suggestion of these abolitionists,
when the bill was proposed to be taken up, will
be observed II was that the bill, when taken up
to-day should continue to be considered from day
10 day until finally disposed OF. / hope they will
not repudiate and violate that compact, they
have the Missouri compromise and all others
which have been entered into. ] hope, therefore,
that we may press the bill to vote; but not by
depriving persons of an opportunity of speaking.
am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill
the most ample time. Let us heasAhem all pa
ticntly. and then take the vote and pass the bill
We who are in favor of il know that the princi-
pie on which il is based is right. Why, then,