Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-24
[coNcLUDED.1

sst ~ hn--'Ip [coNcLUDED.1 fH p ''i q ~ .'''i
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr.. President with these facts
before me, how could hope 10 escape the fate
which had followed these great and good men!--
While had no right to hope that might be hon
Ored as they had been under Abolition auspices,
have I,not u right TO be proud Of the distinction
and the association Mr. President, ! regret
these digresslons. have not been able tofoIiow
the line OF argument which / had marked out for
myself, becauses of the many Interruptions i do
not not complain of them. Ii is fair that gentle
men should make them, nasmuch as they have
not the opportunity of replying; hence have
yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheertully,
whenever any Senator intimates that justice to
limo his position requires him to say anything
inreply .diirt aad .7fN ... .'i -" q.
; Returning to the point from which / was di-
Verted. ~ rgars3-i s' -1'" '.-
think have shown, that if the act Of 1920,
called the Missouri compromise, was a compact,
it was violated and repudatcd by a solemn vote
Of the House ofRepresentatives in 1921, within
eleven months after it was adopted. 1t was re-
pudiated by the north by majority vote, and that
reputation was SO complete and successful as to
compe. Missouri to make new compromise, and
she was brought into the Union under the new
compromise OF 1921, and not under the act Of
1890. This reminds me of another point made
in nearly all the speeches. against this BILL and, it
| recollect right, was alluded to in'tbe abolition
manifesto;, to which, | regret to say, lhad occa-
sion to refer SO often. Ireter. to the significant
hint that Mr. Clay was dead before any one dar-
edto bring forward proposition to undo the
greatest work of his hands ID The Senutor from
NewrYork fMr Seward has seized upon this iu-
snualion, and elaborated, perhaps, more fully
Than his compeers; aud now the abolition press
suddenly and us if by miraculous conversion,
teens with euogies upon Mr. Clay and his Nus
souri, compromise bl 1920. .1Tra t''. r.'f
Now, President, does not each of these Sena-
tors know thut Mr., Clay was not the author Of
the act OF 1920. Do they not know that he
disclaimed it in 1850 in this body! Do they not
know that the Missouri restriction did not origin
ate the House, Vi which he was member!--
DO they not know that Mr.. Clay never came into
the Missouri controversy as II compromiscr until
utter the compromise OF 1920 was repudiaed, and
it became necessary to make anotItr' dislike
to be compelled to repeat what have conc lusive-
Iy proven. that the compromise Which Mr., Clay
effected was the act OF 1921 under which Missouri
came into the Union, aud not the act OF 1920. Mr.
Clay made that compromise after you had repu-
Diluted the first one. How, then, dare you call
upon the spirit OF this great and gallant states
man to sdncton your charge OF bad faith against
the South on this question: H' .
cen Mr.. SEWARD. Will the Senator allow me a
moment! a#@ts '-9
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Certainly.
Mr.. SEWARD. In the year 1851 or 1907,
think 1851. a medal was struck III honor OF Hen
ry Clay,'of gold, which cost large sum OF mo :
ney, which contained eleven uctS oil the lle ol
Henry CIay.a 1t was presented to him by com
Inittee of citizens OF New York, by whom 1t had
been made. One of the eleven acts oil his life
which was celebrated ON that medal, Which he
accepted was the Missouri compromise OF 1920
This is my answer. f7tii"t tf'".' .''
ri Mr.. DOUGLAS. Are the words "of lo2o' up
on it! NJ .49tNt tr r7''"i'A ."a'''
Mr. SEWARD! 1t commentaries the Missouri
compromise. sat
-s Mr.. DoUGBAs. Exactly. | have seen that
medal; and my recollection is that it does moi
contain the words ''ot 1920" One vi the grea'
acts OF Mr.7Ciay was the Missouri compromise
but what Missouri compromise! Ofcourse tie one
which Heury Clay IN 4de. .tle one which he negotia.
ted,thc one which brought Missouri into the Union
and which settled the controversy. That was the
act of182l, and not the actof 1890. 1t tends tc
confirm the statement which have MADE. HIS
tory is misread and misquoted, aud these state
ments have been circulated and disseminated
broadcast through the country, conceang the
truth when he said, that he stood upon the posi-
ton, that every part of the American continent
was fixed Tor freedom or for slavery by irrepea
able law. The Senator says, thatby the express
sion "rrepealable law," Mr.. Webster meant tt
include the compromise OF 1920. Now | viii
show that that was not Mr.. Webster's meaning--
tlat. he was never guilty Of the mistake ofsayins
tllat the Missouri,dct oi 1920 was an rrepealabit
law. MIR. Webster said in that speech, that eve
ry foot Of that territory in the United States was
fixed,as to its character forreedon or slavery b,
by al, irrepealable law. He then inquired if j
was not so in regard to Texas!4 He went on t.
prove that it was; because, he said, there was
compact in express terms between Texas and thu
United States He said the parties were capable
of contracting and that there.was.u u valuable con
sideration; and hence, he contended, that in tha
case there was contract binding in honor an
MORALS. and law;i and that it was irrepealab