The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1856-07-24

at this election, - 1t all former elections in
the Territory.
To be Continued.l
For the Gate City.
Richsrdsen's speech, No. =.
The most labored part Of Richardson's
speech was his attempt to make it appear
that the Missouri Compromise was already
repealed by the Compromise Of 1850, or to
Use the peculiar humbuging slang of Doug
lass, Ut was repealed by the principles Of
the last compromise" Then why convulse
aec country by an attempt to annul that which
no longer existed9 But these conspira,ors
are not to be permitted thus to shirk the
responsibility Of their own deed. NJ. Rich
ardson is now on trial before the people Of
Illinois, and this plea, so far from extenu :
ating his offence, adds darker shade to his
guilt. How the abstract principles of law
can repeal the solemn stipulations Of a Com
promise, "A National Bargain,--the benefits
OF which have been enjoyed. by one OF the
Parties, and thus defraud the other Party Of
its equivalent before the time arrives for i.
guarantees to be fulfilled, | leave for Mr..
Richardson and his friends to explain. The
man that can do this, will possess more ac-
cumen than the metaphysical Squire Of Hu-
dibras, who
Could extract numbers out Of matter
ana Keep them in glass like water
am aware that this absurd and ;r.r,,;r.
Idea is embodied in the Kansas Nebraska
Bill, and that It was pat there with view to
cheat and cajole the people Il was me, upon
Its hrst introduction into the U. s. Senat.
and characterized BY an honest Southerner
- "a bill having stump speech in its b,l-
ly.' This stump speech. thus Incorporated
lato the repeating act, is a fragrant aggraya-
ton OF the outrage, because every intelligent
man knows it to be false and slanderon.
On this point ! present the unimpeaohable
authority of Mr. Benton, the Statesman and
Historian, who was prominent actor in n.
drama. Let this part OF Mr.. Richardson.
speech pass between the upper and neither
mill-ssones OF Mr.. Benton's clear statement
and ponderous logic, and see what there will
be left Of it.
1t has bscn circulated that the eomprum.. ma.
ares OF 1880 settled il; II Is q mistake: il wa. SET
tea oei"rc Ana the msrit Of that session was nor
that Vt so.tlns any qu .aon, Lu, tina, IL NOT al.
turning what tbs Jaws had already settled n.
non-intcricrsnce, was non -int.rfer nee win ,.w
aud tae Lesson which ii taught was the wis. ,es.nn
70 iet tne laws aione. There Wa not an inch .ona,
u territory ut that zine in the Union n wh,,,. H.
Slavery custom Was not air adv settled bv ~
LOOK ov-r tn map II the Unil aud YOU VIII seai,
IA -, Tue euiu.i. of .he AofthweSt Territory, above
NA.sSSA St,a Al 81 -.
in the former Province II LOUISIANA il wns ..,, .a ~
10 the Kocay Mountains, and out To the Bfili,b in
by the Missouri Compromise lin. II 1850 in Urrg ~
~ WAS s't.ed by lac trEane r,rrnoria NV Of ,sl..
IN New Mexseo, ALL and sallfornia IL va. s,ttlea
W tAe laws u N. CO IN the DisSr,et Of Uoumb,n
y Was ss,tisd ny ~ laws of the stat from VIII h
the Dssrct haa been acquired Tuis con,tiiu,es IN.
entire extent II thu lni,d States Territories NJ tina
time-ai quiet under tn operation Of inr laws
And NO way ~ open the slavery au stt,n apxwha.a
eXcsp. W repeating sumo of tnese Laws: and ti.ut
Was thing VIII ch the Congress of 1880 wound no,
a., anu oii MOI do. Attempts were made to REPEAL
'ns mexican Anil-Slayery laws in New Mexco Jftnh
and CALIFORNIA;; Congress refused to do H. Attemn,.
we're mai 10 extend the Missouri COMPROMISE line N
the Pac,ne Ocean; Congress refused 10 extend IL
Aiempts w-re male to confirm the Me 4 can laws by
ehc WiMot proyisoi Congress refus ed to adopt the
psoviso IL would pass no new law upon the suL ~
OF slavery because to do that would REQUIRE the re-
peal oi SOM existing laws, and thereby reopen he
SLAVERY question. eong.sss refused 10 pass the Wiz
rIes to which IL was applied. had already abolished
slavery there and the proviso, while unnecessary in
itseit 70 the object Ut its friends was by
.eopening the Slavery agitation. At The session OF
Asoo @u before II commencet, Il slavery
legislation had been force the whole
extent VI our territories ecoscd 81 pre- ous ~
isiation and Congress refused to reoptn the cues
.lon ~ repeating, Abrogating, altering. in any
way, that previous legislation.
LUIS was ths state Of the Slavery question, and
the slavery agitation, when the first Congress met
under Mr. PIerces hdministIal In the session Of
Aoos-o4. 1he agitation was deas legislation was
cioseu up upon "; there was way to reopen the
QUESTION but to abrogate, Or repeal some existing
law; no way 10 get up agitation but by brcskiny
oown law and that was done. bill was broupht
- " so'ish the Missouri Compromise line, pretext-
o. on ihs principles established by the legislation
" Ai.O. Ahe Pretext wAs q ib,l upon the legisla
tion Vt that year. and esp -cialy upon the msmory
o. NJ. Cay who had taken prorninen part in ,hs
Legislation. Ii assumed by the autLorr az ,ha
repeal that the legislation he'd the DrncinIe
81 non-inteffsrence with Slavery in Territories IL
was m assumption without foundation-contrary To
tncfact-and c9ntradieted by recorded history. The
principle established, far as any principle could
BE- established by nc sati,c action, was exncllv N.
contrary exactly the principle " not interfering
with existing laws exactly the principle Of not re-
opening the siassry sasitation BY altering repeal
ing nny law that hau foreclossd the subject !. ana
That WAS the principle declared in the platform Of
dSo1. And thus the p.ccxt for the repeal Of III,
compromise wa Just 10 unfounded, and xratut,us
= 70 act Itself was depiorabic and mlschievous
no c.tixens the authors VI that repeal find, not
asiincation, bui cond> mnstion In the Of
io-V. And the further prsttxt (for bad cause re-
Yulres many ireteA!s, and even contradictory and
;neonsis',n. ones] III further preteAt Thai til. Com
Psomiss WIS unconstitutional and void, is inst M
gra'uitons and nnfonndcd and lagrun,ly contra
uieted ny the previous conduc. IL It's au hors-a ~
wasn are upon tn. record, in votes or In specs hes
10y ihe salidity OF hat Compromise up to the time Of
sne plot to destrvy 1t. They had voted for il in tn.
vreg Territorial bill Of lSAs-;n the California
above all, in ths Tsxas anne ian solutions ~
lS43. "
ladduce the above testimony for two rea-
sons: First, aside from its being that Of