Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-02-16

quote their precise language. Speaking Of
the bills for the organization of the terrific
ries of Utah and New Mexico, they say:
They applied to the territory acquired
from Mexico and to that only. They were
intended as a settlement of the controv ersy
growing out of that acquisition, and of that
controversy alone. They must stand or fall
by their own merit"
1t is not my purpose TO inquire whether
this palpable falsehood, certified to by those
Senators and Representatives, and put forth
for the purpose of misleading and deceiying
the public, was the result Of ignorance or
design. 1t is emo gh for me to denounce il
as palpable falsehood, and to prove it to
be such by the Legislation of the country
yes, even by the very bills, from which that
address quotes one or more passages.
So far from the territories of Utah and
New Mexico being confined to the country
acquired by us from Mexico by the treaty
of peace, each one of these Territories in
cludes portions Of other Territories which
we held for years prior TO that time. For
instance, the New Mexico bill, in which
there is also contained provision for the
settlement of the Texas boundary question,
provides for the purchase from Texas by
the United States of tract Of country be-
tween the Rio Grande river, and the one
hundred and third degree of west longitude,
larger then the State of New York, and in
cludes that in the Territory of New Mexi-
co. Thus il viii be seen that the Terri
tory of new Mexico contains q portion Of
the Texas purchase larger in extent than
the entire State Of New York, and l may
also add that it includes small portion ol
TIC territory acquired from France in 1903,
TO which the Missouri Compromise was APP
piled in 1920. may also remark here that
the Territory of Utah contains large tract
of land lying in the Rocky Mountains,
known as the Middle Park, which was ac-
quired from France in 1903, and covered by
the Missouri Compromise in 1920; but yet
by the Compromise measures Of 1850 il
was added 10 and included within the Ter
ritory of Utah.
1t is thus shown by the very laws from
which these confederatcs quote in their ad.
dress, that the statements made by them arc
totally untrue. Then the question arises
why were they made? There is but one an.
swcr to this question. 1t was necessary t,
make these statements in order TO predicate
their arguments upon them. 1t was ncces.
sary to falsify the facts in order to draw
false conclusions from them. Ii was neoes
sary TO declare that the Utah and New Mex
leo bills We're confined to the Territory &C
quired from Mexico, and tc that alone in or
der to prove that tie Missouri compromis,
was not superseded by those acts.
Having put forth that declaration so for
mally and SO solcn!nyas to challenge belle
on the part of tho>e not familiar with sub
{ jcct, these abolition ccnIcdcrates procee,
| next to prove that the Missouri Compromis
t line, instead of being abandoned and superse
, ded by the compromise measures of 1856
was expressly affirmed by these laws. Il
, order 10 give p'ausibi'ity TO this declaratio
| they quote the following Proviso from Ill
= first section Of the bill to establish the boun
/, daries of Texas and to create the Territor
/ of New Mexico:
e provided, That nothing herein containe
9 shall be so construed TO impair or qualii'
anything contained in the third article
the second section Of the joint resolution 70
the annexation Of Texas 10 the United State
: approved March l, lS45, either as regard
the number of States that may hereafter b
4 formed out of the State of Texas or other
: wise"
After making this quotation from the lav
these confederates proceed to declare III;
it is evident, from this provision, that SO ia
;, from the Missouri Compromise having bee
repealed or superseded by the Legislation
1850, it is expressly affirmed by II. Now Il
\ us see to what subterfuges they have rt
sorted, in order to draw this conclusion fro
that provision, and to gain credit for Il
. statement in the country. They supre:
the fact--they conceal from view the all in
!. portOnt fact, that the very section which col
tain that proviso also cuts Off from Texas a
that part OF our territory which lies Mort
Of thirty-six degrees thirty minntes, adds
to the territories of the United States; az
also cuts off from the western side of Tey,
r. about fifty thousand square miles, and ado
g it to the territory Of New Mexico. tt
question then, rises, what was the obje
of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Masor
in moving the proviso: that the third artic
- of the second section of the joint resolutit
= for the annexation of Texas should not
"a impaired as to the number Of States or othe
wise? A glance at the legislation upon Il
a. subject will furnish the answer SO clear th
Z M one can misunderstood IL? Ry that 4