Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-02-15

to operate upon. IL did not, therefore, relate 10
the country cut off. What did il relate to!-
Why, it meant simply this! By the joint resolu-
ton Of ls45 Texas was annexed, with the right
to form four additional States out of her territory,
and such States as were south of 36 deg. 30. min.
were to come in with or without slavery, as they
saw proper; and in such State OF States as were
north of that line, slavery should be prohibited.
When we had cut off all north Of SO deg. 80 min
and thus circumscribed the boundary and dimn-
ished the territory of Texas, the question arose,
how many States will Texas be entitled TO under
this crcumscribed boundary! Certainly not four,
it will be argued. Why! Because the original
resolution of annexation provided that one OF the
States, if not more, should be north of SO deg.
80 min. 1t would leave it, then, doubtful wheth-
er Texas as entitled to two or three additional
States under the circumseribed boundary.
In order to put that matter to rest, in order to
make final settlement, in order to have IT ex-
plicitly understood, whit was the meaning OF
Congress, the Senator from Virginia offered the
amendment that nothing therein contained should
impair that provision, either as to the number OF
States or otherwise; that is, that Texas should be
entitled to the same number OF States with her
reduced boundaries as she would have been en-
titled to under her larger boundaries, and those
States shall come in with or without slavery, be-
ing all south of SO deg. 80 min. and nothing TO
impair that right shall be inferred from the pas.
sage of the act. Such, sir, was the meaning OF
that proposition. Any other construction OF 1t
would stultify the very character and purpose OF
its mover, the Senator from Virginia. Such, then,
was not only the intent of the mover, but such Is
the legal effect of the law; and say that no man,
after reading the other sections Of the bill, those
to which have referred, can doubt that such
was both the intent and the legal effect OF that
law. .--.ar.|
. 7 ;t 41,o 7 hnyo ppfn
victed this manifesto, issued by the Abolition con-
federates, of being a gross Justification OF the
laws of the land, ard by that Justification that
an erroneous and injurious impression has b zen
created upon the public mind! am sorry to be
compelled to indulge in language of this sever-
, ty but there is no other language that is ade-
quate to express the indignation with which see
this attempt, not only to mislead the public but
to malign my character by deliberate Justification
of the public statutes and the public records.
Sir, this Misrepresentation and Justification
does not stop here. In order to give greater
plausiblity to their statement, they 60 further,
and state that sit is solemny declared, in the
very compromise acts. "that nothing herein con-
tanned ShaHbe construed to impair or quality" the
prohibition of slavery north of SO deg. 80 min.
and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sa-
cred prohibition is said to be overthrown Can
presumption GO further" ...f ...5.- +, a-
In the very teeth OF the statute, saying that they
should come in with or without slavery as they
pleased these men declare that il is stated that it
should be forever prohibited. repeat to them,
"Could presumption go further?' Not only pre-
sumption in making these statements, but the
presumption that they could avoid the exposure
of their conduct. .'i'8'. -.' ..
In order to give greater plausibility to this fall
sfcation of the terms of the compromise meas
ures of 1850, the confederates also declare in
their manifesto that they (the territorial bills for
the organization of Utah and New Mexico) sap
piled to the territory acquired from Mexico, and
to that only. They were intended as a settle
ment of the controversy growing out of that ac-
QUESTION:, and of that controversy only. They
must stand or fall by their own merits" g.
submit>to the Senate if there is an intelligent
man in America who does not know that that
declaration is falsiied by the statute from which
they quoted! They say that the provisions of
that bill were confined t. the territory acquired
from Mexico, when the very section of the law
from which they quoted that proviso did purchase
a part of that very territory from the State of
Texas. And the next section of the law includ-
ed that territory in the new Territory Of Mexico.
1t took small portion, also, of the old Louisiana
purchase, and added that to the new Territory OF
= Mexico, and made up the rest out Of the Mexican
acquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes show
D when applied to the map of the country, that the
Territory of New Mexico was composed of terri
f tory acquired from Mexico, and also of territory
r acquired from Texas. and OF territory acquired
: from France; and yet, in defiance of that statute
and in Justification of its terms, we are told, il
order to deceive the people, that the bills wers
{ confined to the purchase made from Mexico alone;
and in order to give it greater solemnity, as was
d necessary while utterng falsehood, they repeat
it twice, fearing that it would not be believed the
: first time. What is more, the Territory of Utal
, was not confined to the country acquired from
Mexico. That Territory, as is well known Il
g every man who understands the geography of the
country includes large tract of rich and fertile
e country acquired from France in 1903, and tt
: which the eighth section of the Missouri act ap
piled in 1920. If these confederates do not know
= to what country | allude, only reply that the.
n should have known before they uttered false
It hood, and imputed crime to me. . 49, ~
h But will tell you to what country alude.-
J. By the treaty of 1919, by which we acquire
t, Florida, and fixed boundary between the Uni
e ted States and Mexico, the boundary was mad
n of the Arkansas river to its source, and then tn
d hne ran due north of the source of the Arkansa
d to the 42d parallel then along on the 42d parable
Is to the Pacific ocean. That line, due north (rol
e the head of the Arkansas, leaves the whole Mic
= die Park described in such glowing terms b
.e hence part of the Louisiana purchase. Ye
ID inasmuch as that Middle Park is watered an
drained by the waters flowing into the Colorado
when we formed the territorial limits of Utal
instead of running that air line we ran along tn
ridge Of the mountains, and cut off that part frol
a Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purchase, an
E. included it within the limits of the Territory
" Utah. ,..ers,s N .a1
., Why did we do it! Because we sought for
it national boundary; and it was more natural
u takethe mountains as boundary than by an a
it lnc to cut the valleys on one side OF the noun
nd aims and annex them to the country on the othe
le side. And why did we take these natural boune
aries setting at defiance the old toundaries!-
i'd The simple reason was, thet SO long as we acte
d. upon the principle of settling the slave questc
h by geographical line, SO long we observed thos
p. boundaries strictly and rigidly; but when th'
I'd was abandoned, in consequence of the action {