The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09

Texas boundary was one of the most embar-
raising of the questions before Congress in
1850. Numerous propositions to arrange the
difficulty were rejected, and after the defeat Of
the Omnibus Bill, the settlement of the CUES
ton seemed almost hopeless. 1t was then that
Mr.. Pearce, of Maryland, submitted his bill in
relation to the subject. This was on the 4th
of August and on the 7th he called it up and
addressed the Senate at length in explanation
oft. His speech is printed in the Congrsss'on-
al Globe, Vol xxi, Part II, page l54l, and en-
pressly recognises the principle of the Missouri
Compromise, applied by the resolution Of GnneI-
alton in ls45, to Teras, as an essential part Of
the basis of the settlement he proposed. Southern
men had objected to several propositions made
before, on the ground that they involved ces-
sion to the United States of portion Of the ter
ritory Of TEXAS, betacesn SO deg. 80 min, secured
to slaue institutions by the Missouri ComPro-
mise Mr. Pearce stated that in drawing his
bill, his object was to avoid two difficulties, and
he therefore aimed
"First, to give such boundary as will avoid
the objection which has 30 often been urged by
Southern gentlemen to other proposed bounda-
ries, that they were proposals to surrender to
the North territory which, by the joint reso-
lutions of annexation, and in the spirit of the
Missouri Compromise, was guaranteed to the
South or to Southern institutions. Secondly, it
was very desirable to avoid the dismember-
ment of New Mexico, to preserve it entire, If
not in the whole of its original extent, as con-
tended for by some, at least so far as the Ter
L. 1 4 6oa eof, 1Ix-o
have endeavored to keep both those objects
in view, and think have appropriated to it.
though may not perfectly have accomplished
both. In order to avoid the Southern objec-
tons l have begun the Northern boundary at
the intersection of the Tooth meridian west of
Greenwich, by the parallel Of SO deg. 80 min.
north latitude"
This, he admitted, would undoubtedly cut
off portion of Territory really belonging to
Texas
"But do not propose to cut off any of the
territory south of SO deg. 80 min. My pro-
posal is to run the northern boundary line
three degrees west on the parallel of 36 deg.
80 min, until it shall reach the 103d degree Of
longitude west of Greenwich"
Several amendments were made to the Bill,
but none touching this boundary. Tho recog-
milton of the Missouri Compromise line, as
part of tho basis of the arrangement, was as
sented to by tho Southern members, and not
opposed by the Northern and to make the
still more explicit on motion of
Judge Mason, of Virginia, the provision was
adopted, that nothing in the Bill should be
to impair or qualify anything con-
tanned in the third article of the second section
of the joint resolutions for annexing Texas,
applying to Texas the principle of the Missou-
ri Compromise. With this recognition of the
as an essential part of the basis
Of the Bill, and as expressly affirmed in pro-
viso to the Bill, it was passed by the Senate
and sent to the House.
Up to this time, the record shows that the
Missouri Compromise was recognised aud re-
affirmed, not suspended. For, although the
Territory of Texas north of SO deg. 80 min.
was cut off from that State, it was still subject
10 the third article of the second section of the
resolutions for annexing Texas-New Mexico,
70 which it was to be attached, being as yet
and no action adverse to the poll
~ of that provision having yet been taken by
Congress.
In the House, by parliamentary device, in
tended to defeat the Wilmot Proviso, an amend
ment was adopted, attaching to the Bill, that
for establishing Territorial Government in
New Mexico, which contained provision that
States thereafter formed out of that Territory
should be admitted into the Union with or
without Slavery, as their Constitutions might
prescribe. The Bill, as amended, went back
TO the Senate, and received its sanction.
Now, as the portion of Texas, cut off above
36 deg. 80 min, had been incorporated in New
Mexico, and as the Bill provided for the admis-
sion of future States formed out Of the Terri
tory, with or without Slavery, as their Consti-
buttons might prescribe, it may be said that the
provision in the Sd art I'd sec. of the resolu-
lions of annexation, declaring that in States
thereafter formed out of Texas, north of SO deg.
30 min, Slavery should be prohibited, was SUI
perseded or annullcd. Would any court, with
clear understanding of the history of both
thus decide? RecOllect, there
were two parties to that provision in the reso.
lutions of annexation-the sovereign, and then
foreign, State of Texas, and the United States
How could an act, requiring the consent of both
Powers to give it validity, be repealed by the
of one of them? Besides that pro-
vision was absolutely necessary to secure the
assent of the North to the annexation of Texas
There were two parties to that transaction in
this country as there were to the Missouri Com
North and South; and the former
was seduced into ratifying the bargain, by the
insertion of that Sd art. I'd Sec securing all
of Texas, north of SO deg 80 min, to Freedom
and Free Labor
Surely, if it had been intended to deprive the
North of her share Of the benefit of that bar
gain, the provision would have been formally
repealed. 1t was not go repealed. The mover
of the Texas Boundary Bill in the Senate, and
the Southern men who sustained him, az the
record shows did not contemplate its repeal.
On the contrary, the bill was framed on the
that it was in force, and to con-
tinue in force, and it was passed in the Senate
on this assumption. The House, having in view
the defeat of the Wilmot Proviso, in relation
to the Territory of New Mexico generally, with
out one thought of the peculiar relations sus-
tanned by that portion of Texas which had just
been incorporated into it, attached the New
Mexican Bill to the Boundary Bill, passed both
as one act which, by the vote of the Senate
and sanction of the President, thus became
Law. Now We hold, that in view of all these
considerations, court would be bound to de-
eide that as the third article, second section,