The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1854-03-08


this abolition manifesto attempted to refutc
this presume olion. and maintain that the
compromise of 1850 did not supersede that
Of 1890, quoting the proviso 10 The first
section OF the act 70 establish the Texan
boundary, and establish the territory Of
New MEXICO. Thai proviso was sdded. by
way Of amendment, on motion Of Mr.. Mason,
Of Virginia.
Irepeat, that in order to rebut the pre-
sumption, as / before stated, that the Mis-.
sour compromise was abandoned and su-
perseded by the princpi Of the compro-
mise Of 1850. these confederates cite the
following amendments, offered TO the bill
to establish the boundary Of Texes and Gre
ate the Territory OF New Mexico IN 1850:
"Pronided, That nothing herein contain
cd shall be construed to impair pr qualify
anything contained In the thir article Of the
second section of the joint resolntion FOR sliL
nexing Texas to the United States, apptD-
vel March 1. l845 either as regards Che
number Of States that may hereafter be
formed out Of the States Of Texas or other
WISE" ssi IL
After quoting this proyisc, they make
the following statement, and attempt to gain
credit FOR its truth by suppressing material
facts which appear upon the face Of the
same statute, and, ifproducea, would con,
clusively disproye Measurement:
at is solemnly declared in the very COM
promise acts, that nothiag hersia contained
shall BE- considered 70 impair or qualify the
prohibition Of slavery north Of thirty six deg.
thirty minutes; and yet, in the face Of this
declaration, that sacred prohibition is said
to beoyerthrown. Can presumption further
go?"
will now proceed to show that presump-
lion could not go further thaa is exhibited
in this declaration.
They suppress the following material facts,
which, il produced; would have disspproyed
their statement. They drst suppress tie
fact that the same section OF the act cuts off
from Texas, and cedes 10 the United States,
all that part Of Trxas which lies north ol
SO deg 80 minutes. They then suppress
the further fact that the same section Of the
law cuts off from Texas large tract of coun-
try on the west, more than three degrees Of
longitude, and addedit to the territory of
the United States. They then suppress the
further fact that this territory thus cut of
from Texas, aud to which the Missouri
promise line did apply was incorpora.
ted into the territory Of New Mexico. And
then what was done? 1t was Incorporated
into that territory with this clause:
"That when admitted as Slate, the said
territory, or any portion Of the same, shal!
be resolved into the Union without slavery,
as their constitution may prescribe at the
time Of its adoption"
Yes, sir, the very bin and sectioa from
which they quote, cuts oil all that part ol
Texas which was TO be- free by the Missouri
com promise, together with the same on the
south side OF the line; Incorporates it into
the territory, and every portion of the same,
shall come into the Univn with or without
slavery, as it sees proper. .....
What else does lido? The sixth section
of the same ACT provides that the legislative
power and authority of this said Territory
of New Mexico shall extend to all righttnl
subjects OF Legislation consistent with the
Consultation OF the United States aud the
provisions of the act, not excepting slavery,
Thus the New Mexican bill, from which
they make that quotation, contained the
provision that New Mexico, including chat
part of Texas which was cut off. should
come into the Union with or without slavery,
rs tt saw proper and in the meantime thar
the territorial Legislature should have all the
authority over any other subject' restricted
only by the limitation Of the Constitution
of the United States and the provisions oil
the act. Now, ask those Senators, do not
those provisions repeal the Missouri com
promise, SO far as 1t applied 10 that coun'
try cut off from Texas? Do they not annu
! it3 Do they not supersede it2 If they do,
then the address which has been put forth to
the world by the confederates is an atroeious
/ falsehood. If they do not, then what dc
they mean when they charge me with hav-
ing, in the substitute FIRST reported from the
committee, repealed it, with having annul.
led it, with having violated it, when l only
copied those precise words? | copied the
precise words into my bill, as reported from
the committee, which were contained in the
New Mexico bill They say my bill annul.
the Missouri compromise. fit does. it had
alaeady been done before by the act Of 1850
for these words were copied from the act d
| 1850,
Mr.. WADE. Why did you do it owe,
again? .... ..e,..
Mr.. DOUGLAS. I vii! come to thai
point presently. and explain Why we did il
over again. l am now dealing with th,
the truth and veraoity Of combination o
men who have assembled in secre: eau
cuR upon the Sabbath day toarraign my con
duct and belle my character. / say
therefore, that their manifesto is q slsndel
either way; for il says that the Misscur
compromise was not Suppressed By the mea
sure Of 1850, and then il says that tAe sam'
words in my bill do repeal and anaal iI.--
they must be adjudgvd guilty OF one false
hood in order to sustain the other asser
tion.
Now, sir. I propose to go little further
and show what was the real meaning 0
i the amendment OF the senator from Virgin
ia, cut Of which these gentlemen have man
ufactured so much capital 10 the newspa
per press. and have succeeded by ttat mis-
representation In procuring an anexpression .
| lopinion from the State Of Rhode Island i
| Opposition to this bill. will state what IL
meaning Is. 1865 i.
Did il mean that the States north Of 3
deg. 80 min. should have clause in thei
constitutions prohibiting slavery? hay
shown that It did not mean that, becaus
the same act says thar they might come !
: with slavery, II they saw proper. ! say
] could not mean thai for another reason: :