Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-03


never believed what he states in his Report or
he has fundamentally changed his views in
the short space Of nineteen days.
But let us examine the terms of this propo-
sition in the i4th section Of the new bill,
which Congress is asked to sustain. The Mis-
souri, Compromise act, it is averred, was SUI
perseded by the principles Of the Legislation Of
1884, ID is not pretended that it was super
seded in express terms or by formal enact
ment What were these principles? Con-
gress established Territorial Governments for
New Mexico and Utah. omitiing any restriction
ia relation 10 Slauery, and inserting in each Of
the acts establishing them, the following pro-
vision
aThat when admitted as State, the said
Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be
received into the Union with or without Sla-
very, IA their Constitutions may prescribe at the
time Of admission
The principles" 80 vaguely referred to by
Mr.. Douglas resolve themselves into single
Principle, or rule Of action, which is the mean
ing of the term, as here employed. 1t il, that
States formed out Of Territory should be re-
ceiped into the Union NTH or Wiihom Slavery
as their Constitutions might prescribe.
This Principle could not and did notsupersede
the Proviso Of the Missouri act because it was
not in conflict with, or repugnant to, it. They
refer to different snbjects-one, to Territory, in
territorial condition, the other, to territory,
in the act Of becoming State, under authority
Of Congress The Prooiso prohibits Slavery
forever IN TERRITORY; the Principle is, not
that Slavery mag erist IN Territory, but that a
Territory, becoming State, shall be received
into the Union, whether it tolerate or reject 1t.
One act might embody both the Proviso and
the Principle without any direct contradiction.
Again: This Principle was confined in ex-
press terms TO the Territories Of New Mexico
and Utah. 1t was not enunciated as general
rule Of action The language of tho provision
is unmistakable on this point that when
admitted as State, the said Territory, or any
portion Of the samen-that is Utah, or New
Mexico, or any portion OF either. Whereas
the Proviso Of the Missouri Act embraced, in
express terms, all that portion Of Louisiana
Territory, exclusive of the State Of Missouri,
iying aboue SO deg. 80 MN. 1t is sheer abb
surdity to say that Principle or rule of action,
confined in express terms to the former Terri
tories, superseded or could 'supersede Proviso
adopted in express terms for the last-named
Territory.
The omission Of any restriction as to Slavery,
in the acts providing Territorial Governments
for New Mexico and Utah, may be pointed to
as establishing Principle. 1t established no
rule Of action for the future of course, no Prin-
ciple. 1t was simply an expodient, adopted in
peculiar circumstances, for peculiar reasons,
which might never exist again. The non-ex-
ercise of power in single case does not imply
its non-existence, or involve pledge of its nom
exercise in other cases. Congress prohibited
Slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1887 it
did not prohibit il in the Missouri Territory in
1912; it did prohibit it in Louisiana Territory
north of SO deg 80 min. in 1920, in Texas,
north of the same line, in ls45, in Oregon in
lS4S; and in 1850, it did not prohibit it in
New Mexico and Utah. Its several acts in re-
lation to these Territories, imposing restrictions
or emitting restrictions, do not conflict with
one another, nor was it ever before suggested
that they successfully superseded each other
Look at the ridiculous length to which the ar.
gument Of MIR. Douglas on this point would
lead. Congress having omitted to impose any
restrictions as to Slavery, in the acts providing
Territorial Governments for New Mexico and
Utah in 1850, therefore, the restriction as to
Slavery in the act for the admission Of Mis-
souri, into the Union in 1920, was superseded
and therefore, similar restrictions in the Oregon
Territorial Government of ls4s, and the Texas
Annexation resolutions of 1s45, were also So.
perscded! And again, Congress having omitted
to interpose any restriction as to Slavery, in
the acts establishing Territorial Governments
for Missouri in 1912, and Mississippi in 1898,
therefore, the former restriction in the Ord.
nance Of 1887, for the Government Of the
Northwest Territory, was also superseded
Why waste any more words upon such
proposition IL Congress vote for this Bill,
with the averment in it that the Missouri
Compromise Proyiso twas superseded by the
Principles Of the Legislation Of 1882 it will
assert what nobody ever dreamed Of till the
4th Of January 1854 what Mr.. Douglas, in
his report Of that date, insists it ought not to
assert; what if true, would have utterly
prevented the passage Of any Of the acts Of
1850, commonly called the Compromise it
will vote for what in politics is sheer after
thought, what, in logic, is an absurdity, what,
historically, is false land all this il will do
for the purpose Of breaking covenant agreed
to by the North and South in 1920, and giving
up to the South and Slavery, which have got
already the whole Of their share Of its benefits
nearly the whole Of what was secured by il to
the North and Freedom
Will the Congress Of the United States dare
do all thisa
As to the second portion OF the speech Of
nz.- Il. - a