Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17

position 10 the NEBRASKA Dill. III was because
we were unable to carry out that compromise,
that necessity existed for making new one in
1850. And then We established this great prin-
ciple Of selfgovernment which lies at the foun-
dation of all our institutions. What does his
charge amount to- He charges it, as a matter
of offence, that struggled in lo45 and IN ie4e
TO observe good faith; and he and his associates
defeated my purpose, and deprived me of the
ability to carry out what he now says is the
plighted faith of the nation.
Mr.. WADE. did not charge the senator
with anything except with milking very excel.
lent argument on my side of the question, and
wished he would make it again tonight. That
was all.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. What was the argument
which ! made A southern senator had com
planned that the Missouri compromise was mat
ter Of injustice to the south. told him he ought
not to complain of that when his southern friends
were here proposing to accept it; and if we could
carry it out, he had no right to make such COM
plant was anxious to carry il out. Ii would
not have done for northern man who was OPP
posed to the measure, and unwilling to abide III TO
take that position il would not have become the
senator from Ohio, who then denounced the very
measure which lie now calls sacred compact, to
take that position. But, one who had always
been in favor of carrying it out, it was legitimate
and proper that should make that argument in
reply. ~
agree to the Missouri compromise in 1S46. When
il was proposed by me to the Oregon bill, as an
amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the
south agreed to it. The senate adopted that prop
osition, and the House voted it down. In $780,
after the omnibus bill had broken down, and we
proceeded to pass the compromise measures sep
arately, proposed, whent the Utah bill was under
discussion, to make a slight variation of the
boundary of that Territory, SO as to include the
Mormon settlements, and not with reference to
any other question:; and it was suggested that we
he fba 1;pa ofQ rbat
have accomplished the local objects of the amend
ment very well. But when proposed it, what
did these freesoilers say? What did the senator
from New Hampshire, Mr.. Hale,l who was
then their leader in this body, says Here are his
words
/" Mr., HALE wish TO say word reason
why shall vote against the amendment. / shall
vote against 36o 30t. 6ecanse think there Is an
implication IN az. [Laughter.l l will vote for $40
or 36oseither, just as il is convenient; but il is
idle TO shut our eyes TO the fact that here is an
attempt in this bill will not say il is the in,en-
ton OF the mover-to pledge this Senate and Con.
gress TO the imaginary line of 36o 30f, because
there are some historical yecoAecsionS connected
tcah IN regard to his controversy about slavery
! will content myself with saying that Inerer iriH
by rote speech, admit or submit to anything that
may bind The action Of legislation here 10 make
the parallel Of 800 80 The boundary line be,ceem
siave and free territory And when | say that, l
explain the reason why SO against the amend
mentn
These remarks of Mr.. Hale We're not made on
proposition to extend the Missouri compromise
line to the Pacific, but proposition to fix $50
gu as the southern boundary line of Utah, for
local reasons. He was against it because there
might be, as he said, an implication growing out
of historical recollections in favor of the imag-
nary line between slavery and freedom Does
that look as if his object was to get an implica-
tion in favor of preserving sacred this line in
gard to which gentlemen say there was
solemn sompact' That proposition may illus
trate what wish to say in this conncxion upon
point which has been made by the opponents of
this bill as to the effect Of an amendment inserted
on the motion of the senator from Virginia, Mr..
MAsoN,l into the Texas boundary bill. The OPP
ponents of this measure rely upon that amend |
ment 10 show that the Texas compact was pre- |
served by the acts of 1850. ! have already
shown, in my former speech, that the object Of |
the amendment was to guaranty TO the State of
Texas, with her circumscribed boundaries, the |
same number Of States which she would have had
under her larger boundaries, and with the same
right to come in with without slavery, as they
please.
We have been told over and over again that
there was no such thing intimated in debate Us
that the country cut off from Texas to be re-
lieved from the stipulation of that compromise.
This has been asserted boldly and uncendition-
ally, as if there could be no doubt about it. The
senator from Georgia MIR. TooMBs in his speech,
that State, he had proclaimed to the world that
the object to establish principle which
would allow the people to decide the question of
slavery for themselves, north as well as south of
800 80. The line of 36o so voted down
the boundary of Utah, SO that there should not
be even an implication in favor of an imaginary
line TO divide freedom and slavery. Subsequently,
when the Texas boundary bill was under consid-
Grafton, on the next day after the amendment of
the senator from Virginia had been adopted, the
record says:
Mr. SEBASTIAN moved 10 add to the second
article the following:
.''On the condition tina, the TERRITORY hereby
ceded may be. at the proper time, formed into
State. and admitted into The Union with a consti-
tuition with or without the prohibition OF slavery
therein, as the people Of The said Territory may al
The time determine.'"
Then the senator from Arkansas did propose
that the territory cut off should be relieved from
that restriction in express terms, and allowed to
come in according to the principles of this BILL
What was done? The debate continued:
Mr.. FooTE. Will my friend allow me 10 ap-
peal TO him 10 move this amendment when the
territorial bill for New Mexico shall be up for
consideration II will certainly be part OF that
bill, and / shall then vote for il with pleasure.
Now twill only embarrass our action"
Let it be remarked, that no one denied the
propriety of the provision All seemed to ac-
quesce in the principle; but it was thought bet
ter to insert II in the territorial bills, we are
now doing, instead of adding it to the Texas
boundary bill. The debate proceeded:
Mr.. SEBAsTIAS. My only object in offering
the amendment is TO secure the assertion Of this
principle beyond doubt. The principle was ac-
quiesced in without difficulty in regard TO the
territorial government established for Utah. part
of this acquired territory, and il is proper, in my
opinion. that il should be incorporated in this bill
Messrs. CAss, FoofE, and others. Oh, with
draw il.
Mr. SEBASTIAN. think this is the proper place
for il. il is uncertain whether il will be incorpo
rated in the other bill referred TO- and the bill
itself may not pass
It will be seen that the debate goes upon the
supposition that the effect was to release the
country north of $50 So from the obligation of
the prohibition; and the only question, was
whether the declaration that il should be re-
ceived into the Union I" with or without slavery"
should be inserted in the Texas bill or the terri
torial bill
The debate was continued and will read one