Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-03-15
Speech Of Hen.s. P.l Chase, ,oE, Ohio,
i ----- =

-lSpeecn Oh Hon. y. ~. chase, OF Ohio
r. eh IN THE SENATE, FEBRuARY 8, 1854 10 Y
y On The Bin to organize tts Territory Of Hebrdss,
l. and Kdazas. - '..." ''o. i1a- ~ 1es.
7 The bill for the organization Of the Territorie
Eof Nebraska and Kansas being under considera
ton 'a 5I2 30 ''. .7t.'-o'liLi .e"d
4" ." (coNrMUED.) l-2 az tn''y
The second specification of the Senator, denie,
the accuracy of the following statement Of tht
fGddress, in relation to this Pretense Of supese
ldure: "....t 'aA2' - 'ta.
al" The compromise acts themselves fefute this
HPretension. In the third article of the seconC
section of the joint resolution for annexing Tex
as to the United States, it is expressly declared
that in such State or States as shall be formed
out of said Territory north of said Missouri con-
promise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, ex.
cept for crime, shall be prohibited : and in the
act for organizing New Mexico, and settling the
boundary Of Texas, proYiso was incorporated
on the metlon Of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, which
distinctly preserves this prohibition, and outs the
bare-faced preenson that all the territory of the
United States, whether north or south of the Mis-
souri, compromise line, is to be open to- slavery
1t is as follows :i..r r O.. H' "a t.s .rar f.l.l
O. Provided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify ANYTHING
contained in the third article of the second Sec
CiOH VI tnC JOlHL leAdS 10
the United States approved March ], 1916, either
as regards the number of States that may hereaf-
ter be formed out of Texas, OR OTHERWISE
6" Here is proof beyond controversy, that the
principle of the Missouri act, prohibiting slavery
north of 36 Q 80 min., far from being abrogated
by th9 compromise acts, is affirmed and that the
proposed repeal of this prohibition, instead of be-
ing an affirmation of the compromise acts, is re-
peal of very important provision Of the most
important act of the SERIES 1t is solemnly de-
clared in the very compromise acts that nothing
herein C0altain2d shall be construed to impair or
QUALIFY the prohibition Of slavery north OF SO Q
80 min. and yet, in the face Of this declaration,
that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown.
Can presumption further go! To all who, in any
way, lean upon these compromises, we commend
this eXposition."i 5,,, b ....,r. ......0 . -.
"a This is what the Senator says in his speech
about the passages have just read from the ad-
dress f .,'1.ua .r'J 3D. .rrta.s b., rttla@s
"They suppress the following material facts,
which, if produced, would have disproycd their
statement They first suppress the fact that the
same section Of the act cuts off from Texas, and
cedes to the United States, al! that part of Texas
which lies north of 36 80 min. They then sup
press the further fact that the same section of the
law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country
on the west more than three degrees of longitude,
and added it to the territory of the United States
They then suppress the further fact that this terri
tory thus cut Of from Texas, and to which the
Missouri compromise line did apply, was incorpo-
rated into the Territory of New Mexico. And
then what was done! 1t was Incorporated into
that territory with this clauSe: las --,g.e !
"sThat when admitted us a State, The said Ter
ritory, or any portion of the same, shall be re-
ceived into the Union with or without slavery, as
their constitution may prescribe at the time OF its
adoption.'
& Yes sir, the very bill and section from which
they quote cuts off all that part of Texas which
was to be free by the Missouri compromise, to-
gether with some on the south side of the line, |
incorporates it into the Territory of New Mexico,
and then says that that Territory, and every por-
ton Of the same, shall come into the Union with
or without slavery, as it sees proper" ar
The assertion here is, that all the territory
claimed by Texas north of 38 80 mn was cut
off by the Texan boundary and New Mexico act.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Read it. '
Mr.. CHASE. have read it; but will read it
agaiL. h,aHa- ,r,, ost HHs fs,
"Yes, sir, the very bill aud section from which
they quote cuts off all that part OF Texas which
was to be free by the Missouri compromise, to-
gethcr with some on the south side of the line, |
Incorporates it with the Territory of New Mexico,
ton of the same, shall come into the Union with
or without slavery, as it sees proper @s'
Mr.. DOUGLAS, Gin his seat.) Most Of it. a's
Mr.. CHASE. Inhis speech the Senator said ALL
the territory claimed by Texas north of 36 80
min. was incorporated into New Mexico. Now
he SAYS MOST OF IT. These are very different
statements. will show the Senate what was
and what was not Incorporated. The boundary
line between Spain and the United States-lor /
want to make this matter perfectly clear and dis
tinct-was this: , ..,. ,. .,....,-.. q, ....... II
1" The boundary line between the two countries
west of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf
of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in |
the sea, continuing north along the western bank
of that river to the 80 9. of latitude; thence by
line due north to the degree of latitude, where it
strikes the Rio Roxo Of Natchtoches of Red riy-
err; then following the course OF the Rio RoXo
westward; to the degree of longitude 100o west
from London, and % ? from Washington; then
crossing the said Red river, ana running thence
by line due north to the river Arkansas thence
the course Of the southern bank OF the
Arkansas TO its source in latitude AZ Q north, and
thence by that parallel Of latitude to the South
Sea-
Now look at this boundary upon the map
Here tits. Exhibiting the map.] Here we go
up the SABINE 10 tne 5z = pafullel, tHell stTuiSut
north to the Red river; then along the Red river
to the 1905 of longitude; then straight north
again to the Arkansas; then up the Arkansas to
its source then straight north once more to the
AZ Q of latitude. There you see the boundary
between the United States and the Spanish pos
sessions, as defined BY the treaty of 1920. fs SD
Now, what did Texas claim! Here is the most
authentic evidence Of it in her own act, approved
December 10, 1886, by SAM HoUsToN, | will
read it.:
" Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river,
running west along the Gulf of Mexico, three
leugues from land, to, the mouth OF the Rio
Grande; thence up the princpal stream of the
said river to its source; then due northtothe IA 2
of north lattudej thence along the boundary linz
defined in the treaty beta0een the United States and
Spain to the beginnsag.1. 5l6H aa,a sa a
That, sir, is the boundary claimed by Texas