Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1854-06-02
OLD SERIES. VOL. 81, NO. 81.

Mf Douglas gave notice OF another Nebraska
bill, ani also bill Ter Minnesota aud New
Mexico. And on the 20ih of the same month
the Minnesota and Nebraska bills were re-
ferrcd to the Committee on Territories OF that
body, where another opiaic vas administered
to Nebraska. -Four years Of dead silence on
the part Of Congress in relation to Nebraska
now cusucd.
The barren plains aud mountains Of New
Mexico, received a government. Over Min
ncsoil a government, was erected. Utah was
discovered. settled, and organized into gov.
eminent California. disdaining the proba-
lionary state, stepped forth, in the pride and
confidence ofma,ur. strength, and demanded
and received admiuancc into the family o,
States. Why, then, has Nebraska been len
without government ior nine years and more
afirr the recommendation Of the Secretary oi
War above aludcdto.
In October, 1852, the people Of Nebraska
elected a Delegate, fMr Guthrie, ] who camO
to this Capitol, and, as al know Who were
members of the last Congress, urged with
great real the organization of government
fnr lha, Territory 4 bin was reported, and
on the 10Th Of FEBRUARY, 1853, It passed the
House or Representatives by a vote it passed
the House Of Representatives by vote Of
nIncly.eiclt to iony-thrco. 1t wen, 10 the
Senate, received the sanction the Committee
on Territories, bu, the Nebraska bill was
never brought to 4 vote but, on the morning
of,hc llh II March, was consigned to It's
grave. 10 all lllo previous legislation for
Nebraska, no attempt has been made to repeal
the Missouri compromise.
Sir, | am not opposed to the organization
ofa territorial government, bat ! am opposed
to the Nebraska bill in its present form. Nv
objections relate almost exclusively to that
clause of i which rpcals, or renders inopcr.
alive, the Missouri compromise, aud thereby
violates tie compromises Of 1850, and pluucci
the couuiry into another slave agitation. !
can zee no necessity lor disturbing that com.
promise a, this time. !, has been held scered
by the country Tor a period Of l!iry.luur
years. It va, enacted to quc, an agitation
which threatened the peace Of the country.
ly that compromise 4 specific acrecnentwos
made in reference to the future condition Of
the different portions Of thr Louisiana purchase
in respect to slavery. The terms or that ar.
ranrcmcut are too well understood to necl
rcpclilion. They have been regarded as
, fnaluyup To ths moment. Whyshouldlhcy
be- di,rccarlcJ now' The bill proposes to
give the reason, namely lla, the Missouri
compmmiso is inconsistent with the compro-
/ mise Of 1850. How inconsistent, when tho
former related ,olclvto the Louisiana purchase
and the latter solely to territories acquired
from NrXico' The one was adopted 70 allay
agitation In 1890 anl the other TO alIay 9gI-
i,t.on existing IN 1850. How Inconsistent
then Because they diItr in igrms BE.
cause the conditions of settlement arc not
identical Is want orarrecmcnt 10 terms
between Two distinct bargains or transactions,
entered into At widely distant periods, and
under totally different circumstances, To DO
made the prc,cyl Gor setting either the one or
/ the other aside lly what rlle Of law or
logic is this doctrine to be upheld or enforced
+ By none rhairr.
/ The position is maintained only BY bold,
unsupported assertion The compromise Of
ls2O is nnt moons .ient with that Of 1850.
The latter expressly recognizes the formera'
still existing. lfiny argumen, is To be de.
ducsd. from the .ict Of the omission OF the re.
siricti,e clause in the New Mexico snd Utah
bills, 1t is ono favorable to the aiIiniiy of the
two compromises, lor the compromise Of 20
as well as that Of 1850, enact. slavery tolera-
lion sonth Of 30 deg. 80 min, as does also tho
Texas annexation compromise. All three Of
these compromises are perfectly consistent
with each other, and all taken together fix
the curdI,on OF our whole territorial domain
. in rcspcc, to slavery.
This was the understanding OF Congress
and the country at the timo of the passage of
the Compromise Of 1850. 1t was thi, COZ.
slruclJn that lmpaucl to it the character of
Gnalty. 1t was because 1t disposed Of and
hxsd ,hc character Of the remaining ierri'o-
rirs Of the United States, in respect to slave
~, leaving rs room or ground for future agi.
ratinn. ual We should make fresh acquisi.
lion Of territory, that both political parties In
national conventions assembled pledged them.
selves to abide by the compromises as final
ss,,l,meai of the slavery controversies, aud
~ resist the rcucwal Of the agitation, in Con
gross OF out OF 1t, under whatever prciexi II
nigh, be made.
To show it was the general understanding
Of ,hc country tia, the Missouri compromise
VA, untouched anl unimpaIred by tha, Of so
II is only necessary to refer to the fact that
bill was introduced into thc last Coagrcss for
the organization Of territorial government
IN Nebraska, without containing any clause
suggesting either the repeal or superscdoTe
of the Missouri compromise. or that It was
ia conflict or inconsistent with that Of 1850.
+. On the contrary, tic binding force OF the
former was distinctly admitted IN high quar-.
Ter. ON that occasion. Nor did the original
bill. reported at the present session, contain
any such clause, but tha, such provision was
a puro alter.lhoughl, suggested, no doubt, by
Mr.. Dtxon's amendment, directly repeating
the Missouri compromise, which was resisted