The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-02-15


very compromise act that nothing herein con-
tained shall be construed TO impair or qualify
the prohibition of slavery north of SO deg. 80
min and yet in face of this declaration, that sa-
| cred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can
! presumption go further =
| In the very teeth ofthe statutes saying that
| they should come, in, with or without slavery,
as they pleased these men declare that it IS sta.
ted that it should be forever prohibited. re
peat to them, '.Could presumption go further 2
| Not only presumption in making these state
,neats, but the prssumpti,n that they could
| avoid the exposure OF their conduct.
In order to give greater pausibllity TO this fall
sifcation of the terms Of the compromise meas
ores of 1850, the confedera,es also declare in
their manifesto that they (lhe territorial bills
for the organization of U all and New Mexico)
g applied 10 the territory acquired from Mexico
and to that only. They were intended as a
settlement Of the controversy growing out OF
that acquisition and OF that controversy only
They must stand or fail by their own merits"
! submit 10 the Senate If there intelli.
gent man IN America th.' does not know that,
that declaration is falsiied by the statute from
which they quote They say that the provis
ions of that bill were confined to the territory
| acquired ir"ul Mexico, when The very section
OF The law from which they quoted that p-oviso
the State Of Texas, and the next section of the
law included that territory in tho new territory
of Mexico. 1t took small portion of the old
Lou sana purchase, and added that tn the new
territory OF .Nexico, and made up the rest out
o.! the Mexican &C QUESTIONS. Then, sir, your
statutes show, when applied to the map OF the
country, that tie territory Of New Mexico was
conpos Of territory acquired from Mexico,
and also of territory acquired from Texas, and
e
defiance of that statute; aud in Justification OF
its terms, We are told, in order to deceive the
people, that the bills were confined TO the pur.
chase made f;om Mexico alone, and in order
to give il greater solemnty, as was necessary
while uttering falsehood, they repeal ii
twice, fearing that il would not be believed the
first time. What is now the Territory of Utah
was no, confined 10 the country acquired from
Mexico. That Territory ,as is we'll known to
every man who understands the geography OF
the counuy, includes a large tract of rich and
terti!a country acquired from France in 1893,
and to which the 9th section the Missouri act
applied in 1890
If these contederates do Mt know to what
country allude, only reply that they should
have known before they uttered a ta!sehood and
imputed crime to me.
But will tell you to what country allude.
BY The treaty of 1919, by which we acquired
Florida, and fixed boundary between the Uni
ted States and Mexico, the boundary was made
of the Arkansas river TO its source, and then the
line ran due north of the source of the Arkan-
sas t. the 42nd parallel, then along on the 42nd
parallel 10 the Pacific Ocean. That line, due
north from the head Of the Arkansas, leaves the
whole middle park, described in such CLOWN 2
terms by Col. Fremont, t, the east of the line,
and hence part of the Louisiana purchase
Yet inasmuch as that middle park is watered
aud drained by the waters flowing into the Col
orado, when we formed the territorial limits oil
Utah, ins,ead of running that dir line, we ran
along the ridge of the mountains, and cut oil
that part from Nebraska from the Louisiana
purchase, and included i, within the limits Of
the Territory of Utah.
Why did we do ii Because we sought for
q natural boundary, and it was more natural to
take the mocntains as boundary, than by an
air line to cut the valleys on one side Of the
mountains and annex them 10 the country on
the other side. And why did wo take these
natural boundaries The simple reason was,
that 80 long as We acted upon the principle OF
sc ttling the slave question by geographical
lite, So long we observed those boundaries
strictly and rigidly, but when that was aban-
doned, in consequence Of the action Of free
sellers and abolitionists, when it was suppressed
ed by the compromise measures Of 1850, which
rested upon great universal principle, there
was no necessity for keeping in view the old
and natural boundary. For that reason, in
making the new Territories, We formed natural
boundaries Irrespective of the source whence
the tile was derived. In writing these bills
paid 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 we had established in the bill
would apply equally well TO either.
In fixing those boundaries, paid no attention;
to the fact whether they included old territory or
not-whether the country was covered BY the
Missouri Compromise or not. Why? Because
the principles established in the bills superseded
the Missouri Compromise. For that reason we
dsregarded 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 compro-
mise measures of 1850 to supersede the Miss
ouri Compromise aud all geographical and ter
ritorial lines
Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, |
will state more distinctly what my precise idea
is upon this point. So far as the Utah and New
Mexico bills included the territory winch had
been subject to the Missouri Compromise pro-
vision, 10 that extent they absolutely annuled
the Missouri Compromise. As 10 the unorgan-
lied territory not covered by these bills, it was
superseded by the principles of the Compromise
of 1850. We all know that the object of the
compromise measures of 1850 was to establish
certain great principles which would avoid the
slavery agitation in all time 10 come. Was it
our object simply to provide for temporary
evil? Was it our object just to heal over an
old sore and leave it 10 break out again? Was
it our object to adopt mere miserable expedient
TO apply TO that territory, and that alone, and
leave ourselves entirely at sea without compass
when new territory was acquired, or new terri
torial organizations were to be made? Was
that the object for which the eminent and veneer
able senator from Kentucky Mr.. Clay] came
here, and sacrificed even its last energies upon
The altar Of his country Was that the object
for which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the
patriots of that day, struggled SO long and SO
strenuously: Was it merely the application of
temporary expedent, in agreeing 10 stand by
past and dead legislation, that the Baltimore
platform pledged US 10 sustain the Compromise
of 1850? Was it the understanding Of The
wing party, when they adopted the compromise
measures Of 1850 as an article of political faith
that they were only agreeing to that which
past, and had no reference to the future? If
that was their meaning, if that was their object,
Siicy pdiucu Ou III dlIOCioue Iuuu upon tue
American people. Was it the meaning of the
democratic party, wnen we pledged ourselves to
stand by the Compromise of 1850. that we spoke
only of the past, and had no reference TO the
future! lfso, it was worse than f.aud. When
We pledged our President to stand by the COM
promise measures, did we not understand that
We pledged him as to his future action. Was it
as to his past conducts If it had been in rela-
ton to past conduct only, the pledge would
have been untrue as to very large portion of
the democratic party. Men went into that
Convention who ha been opposed to the COM
promise measures-men who abhorred those
measures when they we're pending-men who
never would have voted affirmatively on them.
But, inasmuch as those measures had been pass.
cd and the country had acquiesced in Them, and
it was important to preserve the principle in
order to avoid agitation in the future, these men
said, We waive our past objections, and We will
stand by you aad with you, in carrying out these
principles in the future.
Such understand to be the meaning Of the
two great parties at Baltimore. Such | under.
stand to have been the effect of their pledges
Ii they did not mean this they meant merely to
adopt resolutions which were never to be carri
&c out, and which were designed TO mislead and
deceive the people for the mere purpose Of car.