Kansas weekly herald., 1854-10-13
Senator. Douglas sIessr Monte.

Senator. Douglas tsgEr Homie.
Senator Douglas addressed a very large
audience at Sprinfeld, Illinois, ,on the 3 inst
and while the State Fair was progressing
at that place. We give a synopsis of his
speech as reported for the ST. Louis Re.
publican. After some Introductory re-
marks ON the Nebraska Bill, he proceededI
WET while all this city is raised against
it, not one Wing or Abolitionist paper has
ever published that bill, Ito my knowledge.
If it was such a bad act, why do they not
publish itl Ifit is such an iniquitous meas
|ure, why not prove it to the world? The
reason is the very bill itself openly and
clearly refutes their assertions. {Applause)
But they contend that there is no necessity
for Its introduction, and that it was a ruth
less, wanton act on my part. But, fellow
citizens, I can assure them, that this is no
new proposition. Ten years ago was
called upon to 1egislatei upon this PROPOSE
ton. This same principle has been sus-
tanned four times-twiceo in. the Senate,
and twice in the lower House Of Congress.
In 1923 this question was up, and Yates
among others, voted for it.. IF it was nee
essary toilegisIate upon this Territory then
why is it now unnecessary The necessi-
ty of opening this vast Territory is, self
evident to every candid intelligent mind.
The thousands of emigrants crossing the
plains could not go through that Territory
without breaking the Indian intercourse
law, and subjecting themselves to heavy
fines and Imprisonment. Such is. the ac-
tual fact. rShould not this Indian. barrier
be broken down? Is that vast country to
remain perpetual wilderness2' Is. the
march of Christianity and civilization to stop
there; and are our railroads and highways
to the Pacific there to end?
If, however, the object is to open up that
country to emigration and to the California
and India trade, we must take the necessa-
ry steps to accomplish that object. :
What plan should be determined upon
to settle it2 Now, admit that this is a
matter of debate. e "
have been Chairman of the Committee
on Territories, in Congress, for the past
ten years, and it was my duty to act in this
matter and bring forward this bill. was
no volunteer in this matter. It devofved
upon me as duty. The Missouri Com
promise line was adopted in 1920. In rs
it was continued through Texas, as far as
our Government claimed the territory
Consequently, when New Mexico came in
| went for that line, not that / approved of
its principles, but considered It better than
to stir up great sectional excitement
That proposition was voted down by NORTH
e7m Dotes. (Applause.) -,
Sectional foeIinrS thoD v-oro ,-oryr ctropr
occasioned by the refusal of Congress to
accedc to this line. The Abolition papers
denounced me then, as they do now, for
advocating it. If the Missouri Compro-
mise line had been extended, then all this
trouble would have been avoided. The
gallant HENRY Clay would nothave been
called to leave his retirement at Ashland.
The rejection of the Missouri Compromise
line then. created the necessity for passing
the Compromise Measures of 1850. Every
Abolition paper, at the time it was rejected
placed my name in black lines: @SrEPHEN
A. DoUeLAss-th solitary exception. =
They say have changed-then so must
they, for we are certainly not alike
{ Applause. .ssr G@ .-ss9i -.a.,;--.
Polk signed the Oregon bill with that
especial understanding ; yet how soon it
vas voted down. How was it with the three
Presidential candidates in 1S4S-VAN BU-
rem, TAYLOR and CAss.2 VAN BuREN's
Buffalo platform prohibited slavery both
North and South of that line, and thus viz
tually rejected the compromise line. have
conversed with many oftie VAN BUREN
electors of Illinois, since then, and they ad-
init that, and it is too well known to be dis
puted. This party were unsuccessful, and
therefore failed In what they tried to do,
and for doing which they now call me trail
tor. Applause. If it were an act Of in
fanny to destroy that compromise line, why
did they try to do itz Applause. The
truth IS, friends, there is only this differ
ence between us /: they could not, did
So much for the Abolitionists and now we
come to the Wing party, and when speak
of it, it is with great respect. have bait
tied against the old Wing party for twenty
one years, and now. fhatit is dead, with
none to preach its funeral sermon, q / ap-
plause. | will not denounce OF. abuse it.
CLA and WEBSTER. and their followers
man who fought Yaliantly for their princi-
ples-are entitled to profound respect But
IN lS4S. the Wing party favored prohibit
ing slavery from all new Territories, and
went totally against the. COMPROMISE line.
Then they would not have it, and .censured
me for standing up to it. If it IS a sacred
compact with the. wings in 1854 how. was
it in 1913 IF I am a traitor now, how
was then 2 EApplause. If you con-
denim me now, you condemn yourselves
You may, therefore, make yourselves out
base, but you are incompetent witnesses
againstme- Applause. g zsza4
The Democratic position il, 1913 was
against the Missouri Compromise. Every
man was against it, alone excepted, ae-
cording to the Abolition papers of that timex
raal l.flrassf fl.,,ca -->.. il. a