The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-03

tnlS pTetenslOns III the tnlTu uItCle OI tne
second section of the joint resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United STATES, il Is ex-
pressly declared that 'in such State or States
as shall be formed out of said Territory north
of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or
involuntary servitude, except for crime. shall
be prohibited;' and in the act for organizing
New Mexico, and settling the boundary of
Texas, proviso was incorporated, on the
motion OF Mr.. MASON, of Virginia, which dis
tnctly preserves this prohibition, and floats
the bare-faced pretension that all the territory
of the United States, whether north or south
Of the Missouri compromise line, is to be
open to slavery. 1t is as follows:
"Provided, That nothing herein contained |
shall be construed to impair or qualify ANY
THING contained in the third article of the |
second section of the joint resolution for an
nexing Texas to the United States, approved |
March |, lS45, either as regards the numter
OF States that may hereafter be formed out of
the State of Texas OR OTHERWISE
"Here is proof, beyond controversy, that
the principle Of the Missouri act, prohibiting
slavery north Of SO , 80, fur from being abro-
I gated by the compromise acts, is expressly
affirmed; and that the proposed repeal of this
prohibition, instead Of being an affirmation OF
the compromise acts, is a repeal Of Il very i'm
portant provision Of the most important act
Of the series. 1t is soemnly declared
ed in the very compromise acts That nothing
herein contained shall be construed 10 impair or
quality the prohibition of slavery north of SO
80, and yet, in the face of this declaration
that sacred prohibition is said to be over
thrown. Can presumption further 60! To
all who, in any way, lean upon these COM
promises, we commend this exposition
This is what the Senator says in his speech
about the passages have just read from The
address;
, "They suppress the following material
facts, which, if produced, would have dispro-
we'd their statement: They first suppress the
+. fact that the same section of the act cuts of
/. from Texas, and cedes to the United States
T.. all that part of Texas which lies north of SO
;, 80. They tnen suppress the further fact tha
=, The same section ofth law cuts off from
Texas a large tract ofcountry on the west
Il more than three degrees of longitude, anC
). added it to the territory of the United States
il They then suppress the further fact that this
territory thus cut off from Texas, and to which
the Missouri compromise line did apply, was
v incorporated into the Territory of New Mexi
y CO. And then what was donel 1t was in.
!. corporated into that Territory with this clause
. "That when admitted as a State, the said
# Territory, or any portion of the same, shall
y be received into the Union with or without
n slavery, as their constitution may prescribe a
the time of its adoption
sir bn nd
" which they quote cuts off all that part of Tex
@ as which was to be free by the Missouri
q compromise, together with some on the soutl
.. side of the line, incorporates it into the Terri
J. tory of New Mexico, and then says that thai
q Territory, and every portion of the same
!, shall come into the Union with or without
- slavery, as it sees proper"
# The assertion here is, that all the tcrritor,
claimed by Texus north of SO Q 80 was Gu
n off by the Texan boundary and New Mexic,
7 act.
a Mr.. DOUGLAS. Read it.
Mr.. CHASE. | have readt; but will reat
q it again.
y "Yes, sir, the very bill and sect ion from
n which they quote cuts off all that part o
a Texas which was to be free by the Missouri
compromise, together with some on the sontl
. side OF the line, incorporates it with the Ter
# ritory of New Mexico, and then says tha
@ that territory, and every portion of the same
shall come into tn, Union with or withou
, slavery as it sees proper"
Mr. DOUGLAS, Gin his seat.) Most of it
q Mr. CHASE. In his speech the Senate
i said ALL the territory claimed by Texas nortl
4 Of 80 80 was incorporated into New Mexi
10 CO. Now he says, MOST OF IT. These ar
- very different statements. | will show tn
!, Senate what was and what was not incorporat
ed. The boundary line between Spain an
the United States-for want to make thi
Z matter perfectly clear and dstnct-was this
"The boundary line between tho two coun
y tries west of the Mississippi, shall begin OF
the Gull Of Mexico, at the mouth of th,
river Sabine, in the sea, continuing nortl
. along the western bank of that river, to thu
32 : of latitude; thence by line due nortl
: to the degree of latitude where It strikes The
Rio Roxo of Natchtoches or Red river; then
following the course of the Rio Roxo west.
L ward, 70 the degree of longitude 100 . ives,
u. from London, and 90 . from WASHINGTON.
: then crossing the said Red river. and running
thence by line due north to the river
Arkansas; thence following the course of the
southern bank of the Arkansas to its source
; in latitude AZ north, and thence by that
parallel of latitude to the South Sea-"
,, , Now look at this boundary upon the man.
Here it is. Exhibiting the map Here we
go up the Sabine to the 80 parallel; then
straight north to the Red river; then along
the Red river to the 100 of longitude; then
, straight north again to the Arkansas; then
up the Arkansas to its source; then s,raigbt
north once more to the ~ oof latitude =
There you see the boundary between the u
States and the Spanish possessions, as detin-
ed by the treaty Of 1920.
Now, what did Texas claim, Here is the
most authentic evidence of it in her own act
approved December 10, lsi6,by SAM HousroS
| will read it:
beginning at the mouth of the Sabine
river, running west along the Gulf of Mexi.
co. three leagues from land, to the mouth of