Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-11

termined the shape which the bill has finally assumed
OF the various mutations which the bill has nndsrao
hardly be mistaken in attributing the last t the
amendment Of the Senator from Kentucky That there
is no effect without is among our earliest lessons
in physical philosophy, and know of no cause which
will account for the remarkable changes which the hin
after the 10th of January other than that
amendment and the determination of Southern Senator'S
support it. and to vote against any provision recop
nsng the right of any Territorial Legislature to prohibit
the introduction of slavery
TWAS just days. Mr. President after the sena,
TOR from Kentucky had offered his amendment that q
lresn amendment was reported from the Committee ON
territories In the shape of BILL enlarged to forty
secuons This new bill cuts off from the proposed Ter
ritory naI degree of latitude the SOUTH and divides
the residue into two Terrtorieshe southern Territory
OF Kansas and the northern Territory of Nebraska Ii
appes 70 each all the provisions of the Utah and New
Mexico bills 1t rejects entirely the tweny-rs clerical
section and abrogaes the Missouri prohibition by
| the very singular prohibition which will read:
The Constitution and all laws Of the United States which
are not locally nappcabe shall have the same force and
effect within the said Territory Nebraska as elsewhere
within the United States except the eighth section of tho act
70 the admission OF Missouri into the Union ap
March 1920 which was superseded by the principles
OF the legislation of 1885, commonly called the compromise
measures, and is therefore declared inoperatiye"
Doubtless Mr. President, this provision operates as
repeal of the prohibition The Senator from Kentucky
right when he said it in effect the equivalent Of
his amendment Those who willing break up and
destroy the old compact Of 1920 vote for this bill
with full that such win be it's effect But
appeal to them not to vote for this supcrsedure clause
ask them not to incorporate into the legislation Of the
country declaration which every knows to be wholly
untrue have said that this doctrine of supersedure is
new. have now proved that it is plant of but ten
days growth 1t was never heard of until the
23d day of January, 1854 1t upon that day that
this tree Of Upas was planted already its poison
fruits.
The provision have quoted abrogates the Missouri
prohibition asserts right in the Territorial Legis
ature to prohibit slavery The Senator from Illinois, in
his speech was very careful to right of egisla
don in Territorial Legislature except subject to the
restrictions and limitations OF the constitution We knew
well enough what the understanding claim Of Southern
these limitations and restrictions
They insist that by them every Territorial Legislature is
absolutely precuded from oil power Of legislation the
prohibition Of slavery warn gentlemen who propose
support this bill that their votes for this provision will
be regarded as admitting this claim.
have thus given q brief account of the mutations
which this bill has undergone. have shown the origin
and duration of the pretence that the Missouri prohb
ton is superseded by the legislation of 1850 now ap
peal to the Senators who sit around me- and who with
participated in the discussions Of 1850 ask them
to say whether any one OF them imagined then believes
that the Missouri prohibition was superseded by the
legislation Of that year, Here, sir sits the Senator from
Virginia, (Mr Mason y will he say that any time be-
fore the 23d Of January 1854 he heard such pro-
position stated or maintained any where by any body?
No. sir, he will not say it, there is evidence that the
assertion made before that day when it made
its appearance in the Senator's bill 1t is remarkable
circumstance that 900 copies Of the committees report
have been printed by the order of the Senate and know
not how many for individual subscribers and circulated
through the country, and sustaining the bill upon the
ground that the Missouri prohibition is neither repealed
nor affirmed, while the bill itself amended ex-
pressy abrogates that prohibition The report circu-
lated condemns the bill amended, and the bill as
amended contradcts the report circulated All this
must necessarily misead and confuse the public
judgment
have proved that the doctrine Of supersedure is
novelty. will proceed to prove that it is as ground
less as it is novel.
The Senator from Illinois, in his speech the other day.
made general charge Of gross ignorance of history and
geography Of the country against the sgners Of the nde
pendent Democratic Address and singled several pa
ragraphs of that address for special apprehension 1t
rather adrot in the Senator to mix the defence
his own bill with an attack upon two Senators whose
opinions on slavery questions at variance with those
most commonly received here But this movement will
not, think, avail him much. l have no fears that he
refute any statement any proposition of
that address Sir, he might well attack Gibraltar.
True in all its statements and rrefragabe believe
in all its reasonngs, it is mpregnabe any assault by
him any
The first specification under his general charge Of igno-
rance and Misrepresentation denies the truth state-
ment which will now read sfa,
These acts were supposed to abrogate touch the
existing exclusion of slavery from what called Ne
and to that only They intended settlement Of the
controversy growing out of that acquisition and of that
That the first sentence which have read is absolutely
true suppose no man doubts. Senators who were
here during the discussions Of 1850 remember that
the report Of the Committee of Thirteen distinctly stated
acquired territory The honorable and distinguished
Senator from Michigan sits me- and can say whether
any syllable uttered in the Committee of Thirteen
or elsewhere to his knowledge which indicated any pur-
pose to apply them to any other Territory If am in
error beg the Senator to correct me. After short
pause am right, then
But the Senator from Illinois says that the territorial
compromise actsdd in fact apply other territory than
that acquired from Mexico. How does he prove that
He says that part of the territory acquired from
Texas But this very territory which he says was &c
quired from Texas acquired first from Mexico After
Mexico coded it to the United States Texas claimed that
that cession Injured to her benefit That claim was re-
nqushed to the United States. The case then stands
thus: we acquired the territory from Mexico Texas
claimed it, but gave up her claim This certainly does
not dsprove assertion that the territory was acquired
from Mexico and certainly it does sustain the Sc
nators assertion that it was acquired from Texas
The Senator tells the Senate and the country that
by the Utah act there included in the Territory of
Utah portion Of the old Louisiana acquisition covered
by the Missouri prohibition, which prohibition was
annucd to that portion by the provisions Of that act
Every at all acquainted with public hisoryk
that the dividing line between Spain and the United
States extended due north from the of the Arkan
sas to the AID parallel of north latitude That arbitrary
line left within the Louisiana acquisition little valley in
the midst of the Rocky Mountains where several branches
of the Grande river of the auents of the Colorado
take their rise. Here is the map Here spreads out the
vast Territory of Utah. than hundred and eighty
thousand square miles Here the little spot hardly
pins point upon the map which with the tpof
my little finger which, according to the boundary fixed
by the territorial BILL cut off the Louisiana acquis
ton and included in Utah. The given Of it in the
Senator's speech would lead to suppose that
important part of the Louisiana acquisition It is in
fact not Of the smallest consequence. There are no in