The daily union., 1854-02-11

WA no part of The original compromise or OF Inc org
lnal bill AS understand II, the compromise consisted
in not putting in the Wlmot proyiso. That poylso
moved and rejected and the Territory 10 be organ
lied without il That the compromise. After iha,
proyiso voted down, the disng senator from
Louisiana abroad in the foreign service oil his coun
tIy-Mr. Soule moved this proviso which have Just
Iecited He did IL he stated. ITO feel the pulse OF the
Senate. And Nr Webster, III voting for the motion OF
Mr.. Souie as he had Just voted against the Wilmo pro
vso used these remarkable words .'Be il remembered
SIR. that now speak OF Utah aud New Mexico and of
tAsa alone" II not for the purpose argued for now
that he voted for the proyso that forms characteristics
portion OF that legislative compromise and which is
this whole Temo o I aa bs
the Compromise of 1920 Er Webster said, "Be II re-
msmbered. sir, that speak OF Utah and New Mexico,
and OF them alone" He had ON former occasion, in
his great speech OF the 9th OF March, 1850, which
shall presently particularly refer, used this remark
able language:
',And now ssy as the proposition upon which stand
until IL overihown, that there is this
within tho United States, any Territories OF the United
gard its being soil territory slave territory, is not
hxed by some law. and nepealable law beyond the
power and action OF the government
He meant, OF course, give the Missouri restriction
the character of compact which the government, in
good faith, could not repeal There greal deal
more said TO the purpose.
And now. having referred TO this speech OF Mr.. Web
ser Of the 7h OF March, 1850, allow dwell upon il
Tor moment was IN apostion the next year, having
been requested by that aented superin,end
the publication his works. particularly
the comparative estimate which he placed upon his
parliamentary efforts. He told me, occasion, that
be thought his second speech Mr. Foots resolution, in
1882, was that in which he had best succeeded
torial effort specimen OF parliamentary diaeccs. But he
added, with emotion which he unable TO Suppress
The speech Of the 7lh of March, 1850, much have
been rcviled for il, when am dead will be allowed 10
be the most important TO the country" He took the
greatest interest in that speech He wished il forth
with SPECIFIC title; and after considerable delberaon IT
was called, BY his own direction speech for the con-
q
of Massachusetts in dedication OF the emphatic
tenderness And he affixed TO i that motto which you
all remember, from Lvy The most appropriate and elic
tous quotation, perhaps, that was eyer made: True
things instead Of pleasant things'-"Pera pro gratis "
and with that he sent IL forth to the world. In that
speech his gigantic intellect brought together all that II
could gather from the laws OF Nature, the constitution
OF The country past legislation, and the physical lea
lures OF the region described TO strengthen hun In that plan
of concaton OF peace, which he feared be might not
carry along with him the public sentiment OF The section
Of the country which be particularly represented
Al the Close where he dated upon The disastrous effects
of q separation of the States, he rose 10 strain oil I'M
passoned eoquence that has been surpassed within
these walls. Every topic every argument, every iact
was brought TO bear upon The points at issue and ne e
that Oil his popularity al stake upon the result.
Now | must commend TO the attention OF senaloTs-l
must ask them to consider seriously what weight is due
TO the authority OF such man, speaking under such cir
cumslancee and such occas when he tells you
that the condition OF every foot OF country in regard
to the question oil slavery slavery is fixed by some
irrepeaisbls law. And YET you are now going about to
the Senate will allow me TO offer them the opinion OF
m Individual humble myself, will say that be-
Asve that Mr. Webster in that speech, went 10 the very
verge Of public sentiment in the non slaveholdng States,
and to have gone hars-breadh further, would have
been step too bold even Tor his great weight OF char
acter.
4 pass over number of points TO which had wished
10 make ailusion, and will say that think the
chairman OF the Committee on 1errlones Mr. DouGLAsj
did return sufficient answer 10 the argument drawn
from the fact that the Missouri resction--the Compro
mise Of ls2ois actually and in terms recognised and
affirmed by the act organizing the Territory oi New Mex
leo. The argument is this That that act contains the
psovso that nothing therein contained shall be
slrued to impair qualify the third article OF the second
section OF the JOIN, resolution Tor The annexation oil
Texas. And when you turn TO that thlrd article oil the
second section OF that joint resolution you hnd that II
recognlses by name the Missouri Compromise. Now,
understood the chairman OF the Committee on Terrilo.
meet this BY stating that all that part oil
Texas north OF 80 deg 80 min, 10 which that Compro-
mise o 1920 applies, cut of and annexed to the Ter
rtory OF New Mexico.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Not all anne xed. A large potion
annexed. and all cut oh.
MIR. EVERETT II does not 10 me that this is
adequate answer TO that Argument In the hrst place,
il was not all annexed as the chairman admits; con.
siderable territory. enough 10 make four States large
Connecticut remains unincorporaied into New Mexico,
and 10 which the poyso still attaches But whether
that be or not would it not be strange phenomenon
in legislation 10 constue subsequent enactment TO
psrsede nulliy 10 render imperative and vod by any
operation or in any wsy former act which i expressly
states nothing therein shall qualify or impar II does
that that is SO formal recognition that 1t is
unnecessary TO inquire whether there any portion oil
territory which point OF fact attaches, especial
when the question is not whether exists in Texas
but in the Louisiana purchase TO which il originally APP
piled.
But the senator stated that in point OF fact, ex
tent, the Missouri Compromise actually repealed by
the territorial legislation OF 1850. And The facts By
which he supported that statement these: that a
portion OF The territory taken from Texas where
subject to the Missouri resricon and incorporated
in New Mexico where IL comes under the Compromise OF
1850 and IN like manner portion OF territory IN Utah
iakenrom the old Louisiana purchase, where II was
before subject the Missouri restriction and incor-
porated into the Territory of Utah. where II is not sub
jec TO that restriction. but comes under the same Com.
promise OF 1880
Now, think the answers 10 be given TO those state
mens perfectly Satisfactory and IN the first place,
it a very small potion OF tertlloryvery small in
deed, compared with The vast residpum Can sup.
square mile taken oil in this way from the State of Texas
and the old Louisiana purchase, and thrown into New
Mexico and Utah. in the way OF esisb shng principle.
or any other way, modify, annu repeal potI-
tive enactment covering space large all the British
isles France Prussia, the Austrian empire and all the
German States put together But in reference TO New
Mexico "a understand II, this Territory, which was
thus transferred. subject TO the restriction OF
1620to the real promise now 10 be declared In0per-
ative and void II subject 10 the Texas annexation
restriction, which extended the Missouri Compromise
lines II part Of the Louisiana purchase had
been. and not subject any lime The specific
stncon TO be declared imperative and void w the
next place, 1t was mere question OF disputed boan-
dary do not wish 10 do the statements Of my worthy
friend the chairman of the Committee Territories any