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

t.4i1 % 'i 1851 8.IE--lfllslf1t '.ll !E- Jil 80
-----=----..--------- ----------rz---
never alluded TO the Missouri compromise, unless
il was BY the allusion to the Wilmot proViso in
the Oregon bill and there he said it was useless,
and, in that connection. senseless thing Why
was it useless aud asenseless thing? Because it
was areenacting the law of God; because slavery
had already been prohibited by physical geogra-
ply. Sir, that was the meaning OF Mr.. Web
ster's speech, Ny distinguished friend from Mas
sachusetts, Mr.. Everett. when he reads the
speech again, will be uttE ] amazed to see how
he fell into such an egregWdsyerror as to suppose
that Mr. Webster had SO far fallen as to say that
the Missouri act of 1920 was an irrepealable law.
Mr. EVERETT. Will the gentleman give way
for moment! 1881 OBI. .2'' M 1904 .st 1S-"''i..
ii Mr. DoUeLAs. With great pleasure. &ea'ia
Mr.. EVERETT. What / said on that subject
was, that Mr.. Webster, in my opinion, considered
the Missouri compromise as Of the nature of a
compact. 1t Is true, us the Senator from Illinois
has just stated, that MIR. Webster made no ailu-
sion in express terms, to the subjecto OF the Mis-
souri, restriction, But thought then, and think
now, that he referred in general terms to that
as final settlement of the question, in the region
TO which it applied. twas not drawn in ques-
ton then on either side OF the House.. Nobody
suggested that it was at stake. Nobody intima-
ted that there was question before the Senate
whether that restriction should be repealed or
should remain infOrce. twas not distinctly, and
in terms alluded to, as the gentlemen correctly
says, by Mr.. Webster or any, body else. What
he said in reference to Texas, applied to Texas
alone What he said in reference to Utah and
New Mexico, applied to them alone; and what he
said with regard to Oregon, to that Territory
alone But he stated in general terms, and four
or five times in the speech OF the 7th OF March,
1885, that there was not foot of land in the Uni
ted States or its Territories, the character Of
which, for freedom or slavery, was not fixed by
some irrepealable law; and did think then, and
think now that the ..irrepealabe laws" as far as
concerned the territory north Of SO 80 min, and
included in the Louisiana purchase, Mr.. Webster
hadreferrence to theMssour restriction,as regard-
ed as of the nature of compact. That restriction
was copied from one Of the provisions OF the Or
dinance Of 1887, which are declared in that in
strument itself to be articles OF compact. The
Missouri restriction is the article OF the ordinance
of 1887 applied to the Louisiana purchase. That
is; the correct Interpretation oil Mr. Webster's
language, is confirmed by the fact that he said,
more than once, and over again, that all the North
lost by the arrangement OF 1850, was the nonim-
position of the Wilmot proviso upon Utah and
New Mexico II, i'll addition to that, the North
had lost the Missouri restriction over the whole
of the Louisiana purchase, could he have used
language Of that kind, and would he not have
attempted, in some way or other, to reconcile
such Il rnomentous fact with his repeated state
mentS that the measures Of 1850 applied only to
the territories newly acquired from Mexico! p
MIR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will explain
that matter very quickly. Mr.. Webstcr's speech
was made on the 7th .. March, 1850, and the ter
ritoriali bills, and the Texas boundary bill, were
first reported to the senate by myself on the 25th
of the same month. Dlr. Webster's speech was
made upon Mr.. Clay's resolutions, when there
was no bill pending. Then the omnibus bill was
formed about the first Of May subsequently,; and
hence this explains the reason why Mr. Webster
did not refer to the principle involved in these
acts, and to the necessary effect OF carrying out
the principle. .i.. ....-.-...
Mr.. EVERETT. The expression OF Mr.. Web
ster, which quoted in my remarks on the 9th of
February, was from speech on Mr.. Soule $
amendment, offered think, in June. In addition
to this, | have before me an extract from still
later speech of Mr.. Webster, made quite late in
the session, on the 18th of July. 1850, in which
he reiterated that statement. In it he said: "
"a i'd now, sir, what do Massachusetts and
the North--the unti-slavery States--lose by this
adjustment! What is it they lose! put that
question to every gentleman here, and to every
gentlemen in the country. They lose the appll-
cation of what is called the 'Wilmot provso to
these Territories, and that is all Therc is moth
ing else, | suppose, that the whole North are not
ready to do. They wish to quiet New Mexico;
they desire to terminate the dispute about the
! Texan boundary in any reasonable manner, cost
what it reasonably may They make no sacri-
| flee in all that. What they do sacrifice is ex-
actly this; the application OF the Wilmot proyiso
to tie Territory OF New Mexico and the Territory
of Utah, and that is aH."9 s., an A'4ss ter 81,
! Could Mr.. Webster have used language like
this il he had understood that, at the same time,
the non-slav ehold!ng Suites were losing the Mis-
souri, restriction, applied to the whole vast ter
ritory included in the bills now before the Sem
ate s.aa ah-- .lah ra"@l aaaa Hg.ar- al an
; MIR. DOUGLASS OF course that was all, and il
be regarded the prohibition in the same light
that he did the Oregon prohibition,it was a use
| less, and, in that connectlon, u senseless provl
so, and hence the north lost nothing by not hav'
ing that same senseless, useless provlso applied
to Utah and New Mexico % Now, to show the
! Senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr. w eD
sters authority, let me call his attention back tt
this passage in his 9TH OF March speech: a2- tH
"Under one or other of thes luWs, every TOO
Of territory in the States or Territories has nov
received Il fixed and decided character" il44 .,
What laws did he refer to when he spoke, o
cone or other of these laws!" He had named
but two--the Texas compact and the law o
nature, of climate, and physical geography
which excluded slavery Hehad mentioned nom
other; and yet he says 'sone or other" prohbite
slavery in all the States or Territores--thus in
cluding Nebraska, as we'll as Utah and New Mex
leo. a5 .1 81 ,rsa .,Hd : aHia t.t"7A '' 1i'"a
Mr.. EVERETT. That was not drawnin ques
ton at all. rtyAi iu Hrpg,e i. te'a eaf.
Mr. DOUGLAS Then if it was not drawn il
question:, the speech should not have been quote
J in support ofthe Missouri compromise. 1t is jus
whatI complain OF, that, if it was not thus draw
in question, that use ought not to have been mad
Of it. Now, Mr.. President, it is we'll known tina
Mr.. Webster supported the compromise measure
} oflS50, ,and the principle involved in them, G
leaving the people to do as they pleased upo
, this subject / think, therefore, that | hav