Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-25
spEEcH IoF. M. DOUGH { as,

w
On the Ns6raska Bal and tte nissoxri Coa's1rop. go
On Monday, Jan, 80 Mr.. DouaLAs delivered. s. :
speech in yindieatien Of his previously IN
reduced in the; Senate to organize terrtoral goy
ernments in the country known oy tue 80. 49,
Nebraska, embracing all the unorganzcu -.
now belonging to the United States, amounting :
about 100000 square niles. Mr.. DOUGLAS mac
pressed the early consderatonof ms Dill, put nav
Welded to the solicitation of the Abolition
to defer it for some days on the psa tiis: say
wished an opportunity to look into the PROV lsohs
of the BILL He Afterwards discovered that they la =,
already prepared publication, denolmcng the Dl |,
and its authors in the most scurliloas terms anu
that their motives in asking delay coua oe 4 nuIu
other than to gain time for the circuiatoti u W
slaneerous statements. u 49, -.
8 In the opening of his speech Mr.eDorGLAs ehaTac-
terses these proceedings as they uescrsea o., -
then proceeds to recite briefly the history u IN
cSsionaI leoslaton on the subject of slavery, and
to show that it was characterised rom me his' ~
a determination to settle the maSter en1ctuaiy ~
making geographical line between the STATES ia.
recognised and those that - 5s7 Which
prohibited slavery North of the Ohio River 10 tue
Western limit of our then territory-the Mlsslsspp'
: River The next was the Missouri Compromise'
which prohibited slavery North OF the line Oh 90 oV
and West to the limits of our then territory Final
ly on the admission of Texas, the same Inc was a
dopted to her extreme western limits as raic "
be abided by of her being tlviueo INTO seIe
raj States This last provision was lntrouuCeu ny
Mr. DoueIAs himself then a member of the House,
not because he approved of Congressional iegslation
on the subject but because it had been estaonsheu
by precedent and presenteda feasible way o! aislo
sing of the question by laying the foundation lor
running that line through to the Pacific, whenever
we should acquire the intervening territory notn
Mexico. We have very briefly stated the sPeANyi
positions in the opening part OF his speech. W
now quote him in full, that portion most interesting
to our readers.
In 1913 we acquired from Mexicofhe country be-
tween the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean, I'M
mediately after that acquisitions the Senate, OH my
own motion, voted into bill provision 10 eAteno
the Missouri Compromise indefinitely westward to
the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense, ana WIN 'ne
understanding, with which 1t was OrlghaIty
doptel That provision passed this body by a de-
cided majority think by ten, at least-and went
to the House of Representatives, and was defeated
there by Northern votes.
Now, sir, let US pause and consider Tor a moment
The first time that the principles OF the missouri
COMPROMISE were ever abandoned, the first time
they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the
defeat of that provision in the House OF representa-
tiyes in 1913. BY whom was that defeat eiiecteu'
BY Northern votes with Free Soil proclivlues IL
was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that re-
opened the slavery agitation with all its fury. 1t
was the Nfeat Of that Missouri Compromise that
created the tremendous struggle OF 1901. lt was
the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that created
the necessity for making new Compromise IN 1890
Had we been faithful the principles OF the MIS-
souri, Compromise IN 1913, this question would not
have arisen. Who was it that was taithless. I'M
iertakc to say it was the very men who now insist
that the Missouri Compromise was solemn COM
pact and should never be violated or departed from
Every who is assailing the principles OF
the bill under consideration, far rs am ADVISED
was opposed to the Missouri Compromise IN 1913
The very men who now arraign me for departure
from the Missouri Compromise, are the men who
successfully violated it. repudiated it, and caused II
toebe superseded by the Compromise measures OF
1850. Sir it is with rather bad grace that the men
who proved false themselves should charge upon me
ties and consequences of their treachery.
Then, sir, before remarked, the defeat OF the
Missouri Compromise in 1913 having created the
necessity for the establishment of one in 1850,
let US see what that Compromise was.
The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850 !
was congressional non-nteryention to slavery in
the Territories that the people of the Territories,
and of all the States, to be allowed to do as
they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject
II to the provisions of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States That sir was the leading feature of the
Compromise measures of 1850. Those measures, !
therefore abandoned the idea of geographical line
as the boundary between free States and slave !
States-abandoned it because compelled to do it,
from inability to maintain it; and in lieu OF that,
great principle of selfgovernment,
which would allow the people to do as they thought
proper Now, the question is, when that COM
promise, resting upon that great fundamental prin-
cple of freedom, established, it not aban
donment of the old one-the geographical line?
Was it not supersedure of the old one within the
now under consideration? 1 say it did supersede
it because it applied its provisions as well to the
North as to the South of SO deg 80 min. 1t es-
tablished principle which was equally applicable
to the country north well south of the parallel
36 30-a principle of universal application. The au
thors of this abolition manifesto attempt to rebut
this presumption, and maintain that the Compro-
mise of 1850 did not superscde that of 1920 by
quoting the proviso to the first section of the act to
establish the Texan boundary and establish the Ter
ritory of New Mexico. That proyiso was added by
way of amendment, on motion of Mr.. Mason of Viz
yinia.
repeat, that in order to rebut the presumption
Is before stated, that the Missouri Compromise
vas abandoned and superseded by the principles of
he Compromise of 1885, these confederates cite the
GLOWING amendment offered to the bill to establish
he boundary of Texas and create the territory of
New Mexico in 1850:
! !" I1r0clded, That nothing herein contained shall
De construed to impair qualify nything contained
the third article of the second section of the Joint
resolution for annexing Texas to the United States
approved March 1,1845 either as regards the num-
Der of States that may hereafter be formed out of
he State of Texas, or otherwise"
After quoting this proviso, they make the follow
ng statement, and attempt to gain credit for its
ruth by suPpresslng material facts which appear
upon the face OF the same statute and if produced
would conelusiyey disprove the statement:
IS solemnly declared in the very compromise
acts that nothing herein contained shall be con-
strued to impair or qualify the prohibition of slave
Y north OF 50 deg 80 min and yet, in the face of
TINS declaration that sacred prohibition is said to be
oyerthrown Can presumption go further?'
? 4 VIII now proceed to show that presumption
could go further than is exhibited in this declaration
They suppress thefo following material facts which
II produced, would have disproved their statement: