Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-18
WHOLE NO. 4a7.

n
new State, &C., it is the opinion and Judgment of
= Congress that the admission Of Texas into the
= Union, with the boundaries described by the laws
thereof, not objected TO by the United States A.
the time Of such annexation, is conclusive.
agains the United States Of the right Of Texas "
tue territory included within such boundaries"
I The recognition proposed by this resolution
would give to Texas all the land east Of the Rio
Grande, and line drawn from lis source to the
forty second parallel and west of the line between
the United States and the Spanish possessions al
ready described.
! Now, sir, of the territory within this claim Of
Texas that part between the 800 and $50 Of north
latitude, and west Of 1882 Of longitude, was incor-
porated into the Territory Of New Mexico. That
part between the 3Sth parallel and the Arkansas
river stretching north toward the 42d parallel in
long narrow strip and that other part included
within l0O' and 1882 Of longitude, and 36o IQ
north latitude and the Arkansas river, we're ncy
incorporated into New Mexico. nor rendhishod ts
Texas, but became part Of tic territory Of the
tuitcd States. Here these two tracts of coun.
try, which the Senator says cut OF from
Texas. and incorporated into New Mexico. II
I the claim Of Texas valid, they were cut on
from her territory, but they not Incorporated
into New Mexico. The Senator is totally mis-
taken rs to that; and il is not trihing mistake,
The tract west Of New Mexico, between 36e 3O<
and the Arkansas river contains over twenty
thousand square miles. 1t is not easy 60 estimate
the contents Of the other tract. The first is W
large a. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts.
and New Hampshire put together. The two tracts
probably nearly equal in extent to the whole Of
New England, excluding Maine. There are sevsn
States in the Union neither Of which equals in ex-
tent the larger Of these tracts, nor probably tho
smaller. Not one foot of this territory was in
corporated into New Mexico, and yet the Senator
asserted that il all was. | repeat, sir, that here
was great error. ! show the Senator that no
was wrong in q very material statements but shall
Gccdse him, therefore, Of inlsifying the public
history of the country, with willfu misrepresenta-
ton, with falsehood2 Not at all. The Senator,
like other men, is liable to error. If lie falls into
error upon point material to any controversy
which may happen to have with him, will cor
rect the error, but will not reprOach the man.
will not charge him with violating the truth, or
with intentional Misrepresentation. ,
said the other day to that Senator, when he
propOsedto deny to me posteponcmeht warranted
10y the us0ges Of the Senate, that thought him
incapable of understanding the obligations of cour
teSy. prefer now 10 restrict that statement, and
say that the Senator, that occasion, under som6
excitement, perhaps, and perhaps influenced alsd
by an Oyer-auxous desire to hasten the vote upon
his bill, disregarded the obligations which courtesy
imposes. make this remark because l am un-
willing, under any proyocation, 10 do any injus.
tiee TO political or personal opponent. While
say this however ought perhaps, TO add in refer
encc to a remark which fell from the Senator oh
that occasion, that ut no time did ever approach
him with smiling face, or an angry face, or any
face at all, to obtain from him postponement Of
his bill, in order TO gain time for the circulation
ofattacks uponit. have condemned his bill strong
ly and have condemned his action in bringing
forward this repeal Of the Missouri prohibition.
But have done no injustice to the Senator. AL
thai have done at all have done openly haye
not waged. nor will wage war Of epithets. II
neither accOrds with my principles nor with my
tastes. But while wage no such war dread
none. Neither vtuperatOn, nor denunciation
will move nc while have the approval Of my
own Judgement and conscience. But did not
intend to recur to tLs matter, and willingly dis
miss il.
If the Senator is wrong as have shown lie is.
in respect to the incorporation Of all the territory
cut OF from Texas into New Mexico, then kb IL
also wrong in his declaration that the compromise
act Of 1880 does not preserve and reassert tho prn7
ciple Of the Missouri prohibition.
The facts few and simple and in the infer
ence from them obvious and irresistible
The third article of the joint resolution for the
annexation Of Texas reads thus:
"New States, convenient size, not exceeding
four in number, in addition to said State of Texas,
having sufficient population may hereafter by the
consent of said State, lie formed out of the Terrific
ry thereof which shall be entitled 10 admission
under the provisions Of the Federal Constitution.
and such States as may be formed out Of that por-
ton Of said Territory lying south Of 36' 3O/ ptrth
latitude, commonly known rs the Missouri Com
promise line, shall be admitted into the Union.
with without slavery as the people of each State
asking admission may desire. and in such State OF
States as shall be formed out of the said Territory
north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery
Involuntary scryitpdc Except for crime) shah be
prohibited
/ Here is an express stipulation that slavery shall
be prohibited in any State formed out Of the ter
ritory Of Texas north Of SO 30>. This was u
valuable stipulation for freedom, in the claim
Of Texas was n valid one to the whole territory
within her boundaries. The Senator from Vir-
ginia regarded that claim valid and it was up
on his motion that the prOviso which now proceed
to quote was incorporated into the Texas boundary
bill:
| "Porided, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed to impair or qualify anything contain
ed in the third article Of the second section Of tho
Joint resolutions for anncxing Texas TO the United
States, approved March ], 1915, either as regards
tho number of States that may hereafter be formed
out of the State of Texas or other"
/ Here was a compact between two States. So
far the parties were competent to enter into 1t,
it was obligatory and permanent. That compact
covered all the territory rghtfully within the lms
it's of Texas, until rcscinded. 1t would make no
difference If Il portion Of that territory should DO
subsequently, Ielinqushed to the United States.
That would not disturb The eject Of the compact.
But this matter not left to inference or conjec-
ture. Al tho very moment Of REIMBURSEMENT tho
United States aud Texas, byagrecing to the provi-
SO have quoted, saved the compact, ana eontinued
it in full force in all its provisions.
/ Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, if the
two tracts Of country Of which have spoken were
within the rigiul claim Of Texas, the compact ap,
Piled to them and the prohibition Of slavery in the
States 10 be created cute ihem is still in force
And it is, perhaps at this day the only prohibition
which is in force there for the Missouri prohbl'
lbion enacted in 1870 may be regarded AS rcstric7
ted to the limits oi tic Louisiana acquisition as DC
fined by tho treaty with Spain, which was eonelu-
ded in that year.
But the Senator from Illinois says that the, ,prc1
Inhibition in the annexation resolution was OF no
practioal effect except to preserve the principle of
! Tho Missouri compromise That was true, II fexas
never had any just claim north of 36o SO Upon
that suppostion, also, tho Mason proviso had no