The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-03

have thus given brief account Of the
mutations which this bill has undergone. l
have shown the recent origin and brief exist
euce Of the pretense that the Missouri prohi-
bition is superseded by the legislation Of 1850.
| now appeal to the Senators who sit around
me, and who with me participated in the dis.
cussions of 1851 ask them TO say whether
any one of them imagined then, or believes
now, that the Missouri prohibition was super
seded by the legislation of that year. Here,
pr, sits the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Ma
soSl--will he say that at any time before the |
23d Of January, 1854, he ever heard such
proposition stated or maintained anywhere,
by any ybody! No, sir, he will not say it.
There is no evidence that the assertion was
ever made before that day when it made its
appearance in the Senator's bill 1t is a re-
markable circumstance, that five thousand
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, sustaining
the bill upon the ground that the Missouri
prohibition is neither repealed nor affirmed
while the bill itself as now amended express
ly abrogates that prohibition. The report as
circulated condemns the bill as amended, and
the bill as amended, controdicts the report as
circulated. All this must necessarily mis-
lead and confuse the public judgement.
have now proved that the doctrine OF su-
persedure is novelty. | will proceed to
prove that it is as groundess as it is novel.
The Senator from Illinois, in his speech
the other day, made general charge of gross
ignorance Of the history and geography ofthe
country against the signers Of the Indepen-
dent Democratic Appeal, and singled ont sew
eral paragraphs of that Appeal for special rep
rehension. 1t was rather adroit in the Sena-
tor to mix the defense his own bill with an
attack upon two Senators whose opinions on
slavery questions are at variance with .hose
most commonly received here. But this
movement will not, think, avail him much
| have no fears that he can refute any state
ment, or overturn any proposition of that ad
dress. Sir, he might as well attack Gibralter
True in all its statements, and rrefragable
as believe, in all its reasonings, it is impreg
nable to any assault by him, or any man.
The first specification under his genera
charge of ignorance and Misrepresentation
denies the truth of a statement which viii
now read:
"These acts were never supposed to abro.
gate or touch the existing exclusion Of slavery
from what is now called Nebraska. The,
applied 10 the Territory acquired from Mexi
co, and to that only They were intended a,
settlement of that controversy growing ou
Of that acquisition, and Of that controvers
only. They must stand or fall by their owl
merits"
That the first sentence which have reat
is absolutely true, suppose no man nov
doubts. Senators who were here during the
discussions of 1850, must remember that the
report of the Committee of Thirteen distinct
ly stated that the compromise measures ap
piled to the "newly acquired territory" The
honorable and distinguished Senator cron
Michigan sits near me, and can say whethe
any syllable was uttered in the Committee o
Thirteen or elsewhere, to his knowledge
which indicated any purpose to apply then
to any other Territory. lf am in error,
beg the Senator to correct me. Mr.. CAss
remained silentl. am right then.
But the Senator from Illinois says that the
territorial com promise acts did in fact appl,
to other territory than that acquired from
Mexico. How does he prove that! He say
that part of the territory was acquired from
Texas. But this very territory which he say,
was acquired from Texas was acquired frs
from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to tht
United States, Texas claimed that that COS
sion Injured to her benefit That claim, only
was ,relinqushed to the United States
The case, then, stands thus: we acquired tn,
territory from Mexico; Texas claimed it, bu
gave upr her claim. This certainly does no
disprove the assertion that the territory IVA
acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it doe
not sustain the Senator's assertion, that
was acquired from Texas.
The Senator next tells the Senate and th
country, that by the Utah act, there was in
cluded in he Territory of Utah portion o
the old Louisiana acquisition, covered by tn,
Missouri prohibition, which prohibition wa.
annued as TO that portion by the provision,
Of that act. Every one at all acquainted Will
our public history knows" that the dividing
line between Spain and the United States ex
tended due north from the source of the Ar
kansas to the AID parallel of north latitude
That arbitrary line left within the Louisiana
acquisition little valley in the midst ol
rocky mountains, where several branches o,
the Grand river, one of the aflluents of the
Colorado, take their rise. Here is the man.
Here spreads out the vast Territory of Utah
more than one hundred and eghty-seven
thousand square miles. Here Is the little spot
hardly pins pointupon the map, which
cover with the tip OF my little finger, which
according to the boundary fixed by the terri
torial bill, was cut of from the Louisiana ac.
QUESTION and included in Utah. The accoun,
given Of it in the Senator's speech would lead
one TO suppose that it was an important part
Of the Louisiana acquisition, II is, in fact,
not of the smallest consequence. There are
no Inhabitants there. lis, as have said, n
secluded little valley in the Rocky Mountains.
visited once by Fremont and penetrated oc.
.casionally by wandering bands of Arapahoes
aud u'ahs. The summit ofthe Rocky Noun
stains was assigned as the eastern limit of
Utah. That limit, in consequence of the
curvature of the mountain range, happened to
include this valley. Nobody here. nj tho