The New York Herald Newspaper, January 31, 1854, Page 7

ae well as the statementsia Mr. Cusse—I call the Senet’r to orter, ‘The Cuam—The Senator from I\lincia is certainly out of Mr. Dovoras—Well, if Iam ont of order I will coufise self to showing that the statement: contained in this ‘dress are false Mr/ Douglas quotes from the adireas, and denounced os portions of it in which the Committes, and him as their o-gan, were held up to the world as hav. acted in bad faith, as being unwerthyof men occupy - © position om the floor of the Senate, and even unwor thy of the ebaracter of gentlemen. He asid he wai re n by the rules of the Senate, and from s respect for charscter, from denouncing the authors of that tion in such language as thelr condust ceserved. ‘Would proceed to show that the address itself was pre- Upon falsehoods in fact and falsehoods in law; the spirit which pervaded it was such as forbade im taking ey O1>~ + notice of its authors than an expo ‘their Sonduct, ‘HE Hist declaration in the address ts that the bill is « jross violation of sscred pledge The pledge which is posed by this denunciation to have been violated is specified, but it is presumed to refer to the Missourl ow prom If so I will, in the course of my argument, to the world clearly who it is that has been faithfal and who'ft is that hay violated that “sacred pledge.” The addreg: asserts that it was the original policy of ls country to prohibit slavery im all the territories of Daiiod Btates, and refers to the territory northwest the Ohid r:ver as evidence of the trath of this declar ion, The authérs of the acdress were very carefal to from their readers, wa ile making this statement, fact that the early policy of the ountry wis,eot only Prohibit rlavery north of the Ohio river, but to tolerate protect it in the territories south of that river, as sein by the respéotive aow of 1787 and 1700— Ibe one prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory ihe other tolerating and protecting it in the Southwest ferritory. Thus, it will be seen, that, instead of its being original p>licy of this government, sa established by bs founders, to prohibit slavery in all the territories o! United States, their policy was far different. It wa: ‘ettle all disputes upom the slavery question by a geo Hine, north of which slavery was to be pr>hi- ited and gonth of which it was to be permitted. It is ot my purpose, on this part of the question, to enter to the correctness of that policy,| to inquire as to whe- her @ geographical line ora sound principle would have the best means of settlement. It is sufficient for y present purpose that such was the example set by carly fathers.ef the republic. That geograpical line the Ohio river—which settled the question ia all 0 territories originally belonging to the United tater, extended as far west as our territory then tended, to wit, the Mississippi river. Whea, sub- fyaently, we obtained possession of the Lonisisns tory by @ etssion from France, the question alavery remained quiet for some years, bat even ly arose upon the admission of Missouri into tne jnion asa Btate. The effurt was made on the part of rm men to fix that geographical line on the southern der of Missouri, and to insist upon Missouri territory ining a free territory, or otherwise to be kept out of ibe Union. That controversy was rettled by following example of the founders of the republio—by presorib- & geographicsl line which was to be the boundary tween the free States anti the slave States, ranning in- Befiuitely westward so far as our territory might extend. Phat line has since been known as the Missouri compro Une. Its merit was, not that it simply rau throug he country cedei te us from France, known as the Louis territory, but the object was to acoomplish a far more sirable end; that of settliag th: ry ques ‘ion forever Tonning that line as far as our territory might extend Missouri compromise line was thus observed as the means of avoiding all agitation of slavery until the ques- on again arose upon the annexation of Texas to the jnited States. While the extension of that line through exes was not a matter of any practical importance #0 as the question of slavery was involved, yet it was matter oj vast moment to prererve the principle, ix that ft might be applied te all fatare acquisitions, d eventually be extended to the Pacific Ocean. Hence ‘will be found that in the resolutions for the annexs- of Texas the line of thirtysix degress thirty, [the mame of the Missouri compromise line, was tended westward through the State of Texas to the o Grande, and the provision made that slavery shoul prohibited porth and permitted south of {:. When we acquired New Mexico and California by th . of pesce with Mexico, all the reasons which in- the original establishment of the Misseuri eom- mise line applied with equs] furce for its extension to Pacific; ome @ just regard for the principles of the jis: ouri compromise, forall the objects and censiders- which induced ite enactment in 1820 and its exten- through Texas in 1846, applied to its «ill further tension to the Pacifie Oseaa. If the Missouri compro- hed thas been applied, if ite principles had justly observed, been |, the slavery question would hsve the territories of the Um-ei were borne im mind that in August, 1848, only a mi after the treaty of peace was made between xico and the United S:ates, and we had acquired Mexio> end California, the Senate of the United <2 My Own motion, passed s bill containiog a pr ‘to extend the Missouri comor. whica dill was defeated in the * nourt prom: re) the government of the United States, It was the 4 ‘of the Missonri compromise Ie, a8 applisanle the new territory, that creat d the necessity for t1 ine measures cf 1850. Now, sir, whea me for « violation of the ceupact by not ad Missouri compromise, I 3 that was fait! ban ‘them. history of the question shows that tt wason my that the Missouri compromise line was extended ‘Texas sad les observed there, ant my motion that Rog senate passed il extenricn to the Pacific Osean, carr, tf also, that it was the abolition aad ‘of this conotry, with thrir allies, who t+ issourl compromise lias to io seme men who now deaounce the Na ‘and Kausas bill os reportei by t ¢ Commits on ritories, ere the men who denounced the Mirnoari promize in 1820, who denous cod its extension througa Texas in 1845, who denounce’ its extension through New lexico and Califernia in 1858, anc ihey are the ssae mon 0 the compromize measures of 1850. The Com mi op Territories, and thias who act with them the support of this bill mw. adhered in good faith to Missourt compromise and its prinsiples, and oaly con to abandon it after they hed been driven from i* it being cefeaied in Oongress by the aid of the tree cil abolition party aed their slivs. Tho men, therefore, yo now Claim to be the especiai champions of the Mis 1 compromise were those who arandoned it and used ite defeat, the men who in-ist oa it so strenuous- now were the men who repudiated its principles aad ured them to be abandoned. Ihave already said that the defe the principles of the Mi: oduced the necessity which promise of 1860; whi or prohibiting slavery, bat shoald lea ee they pleased upon that as wall as all questions a! their owa interests and theirs The establishment of this principle, whieh ts fm its applisation, applies well to old E ~ Pong — own- tothose which we might acg time to tt was 60) tas: we bi pted a rale of farnish, not ouly adequate remedies evisting evils. but >revent similar agttations in ali ture time. Bi ne grat atge Medi pee top expecients, but were de:igned as ra'es of a3 Pabien should apply in jhe organization of all mew order to Plausibility to their sta'emeata, it was Ln aes. bolition ‘oor federates ta thelr mant- to assume and declare to the world that the com- ‘Gestos, I te their le from no! esiee \ sing o: the bilis for the ‘orgeoisation of the rei Hes of Utab and New Mexico they say :— ‘They applied to the reiquwing yor of tnst acaebtien, aad ot thas eons: 8. must stand or fail by their owm merits, It fanot to inquire whether this palpable ecxtined to by these Senators and Raprossata. purpose o” misleacing and de waa the result of igaoranoe or desiga. to denounce it as a palpable falsehood such by tho legislation of the coaa- Cals esg all gFEESY f i Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualit tained im the shit the second sinfon 3 Jom ersten forthe ‘Ranosttion oved March 1, hereatter be formed After making this quotation from the law, these con- federates proceed to Ceolare that it is evident, from this ee, raperastad eyrtae hortntonarer Ie been re; superseded toa affirmed by it. ‘Now Jet usee0 to what 28. he enti at the Mon upon this subject will furnish the answer that no one cap mirun‘erstand it. By that articl as resolution for the annexation of Texas it was i : E Hee JE ‘That new States of convenient size, mot excoedi number, in addition to the sald Bialé of Texas, a: 2 Teafter, by the consen ft teteiiory'thateot, whieh \¢ provisi 0 federal ry te8 a6 may be formed out of that id territory lying south of thirly-six orth latitude, 1b © ise line, shall an men or t \¢ territory north of the Misso tine, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for 1 be prohibited, ty thie provision Texas was guaranteed the right of ake out of her territory four mew States, ia addition tation that such of thirty-six degrees thirty minates might hold slaves, ead in such as should ve formed north of that line should be hibited. This "ny implied that at least one of the font new tes to be formed out of gel effect of the amendment oflered by the Senator from Virginta, was that thereim contained should be construed to deprive tho State ef Texas of the privilege of making four new States within her circumsoribed limiis, the same as she would have had if the act had not been prased, aad that those States should comeiato the Union with or without slavery, as they should see proper. Tne provision was not that the Missouri ocx promise line ef = six degrees thirty minutes should be perpetuated, bat that the stipulation gverantying to Texas four new States should be obse:ved, snd that thore States should have liberty to do as they pieased apom the subject of slavery. the legal elect of that provision, Isa only neosmaty to is the effect t pr it meocessary Jook into the next section of thesame bill, where it will te found that all the territory which was cut off the west part f Texas, and for which ten millions of dcliare was paid by the United States, was immediately incladed within he Territory of New Mexico, with the following provision: said torritory, or any into the Union with or as tholg consiitution may prosoribe at the ‘ime of their admiszion, Thus it will be seen, that in s large tract of country, iy sqvare miles in extent, and which bad up to that time belonged to the State of Texas, and ver pare _ principles of oa Missouri ey sae ere force, that compromise was negatived by the ‘eclaration that’ the territory, im that bill. Then, instead of this bill, (a part of which only was quoted, and the remainder con- cmled ) nega 4 the Missouri compromise, it con- sins provisions whish clearly chow that that compro- use Was superseded and abandoged by the law titeelf. A» Ihave before remarked, New Mexico not only in- cla ‘ed the count: but it also eon- taineo @ sequired trem omprom ise was applied in 1820. In the se tabliaetag-the territory of New ‘tne legi-lative authority of ths territ nd to sll rigatfa’ subj of legislat 06t @veR exe? ler am. oat aan ap eee people to wudject rou Elctoenstagater rie ene be constitu! ‘so lorg a* they chould remain os terri- tary, and to decide for themecives when they came into he Union whether they would oome fa with or without slavery. There provisions were ia Cirect derogation of he terms a8 weil es the principles 0! the Misaouri com. veomise, involve? as neoersary and inevitedle repeal of hat compromis, ard cousutated the very - principle pon which the compromise measures of 1850 rest, to +1, that mstead or a geographical lic great principle frelt government shall settic all questions of slavery in “he territories. I trust that I have now susceeded in showing that the orovision ia the bi!lunder cousideration which declares hat the Missouri compromise was supsrseded by tha Ia- zisiation of 1800, amd ix therefore inoperative, is fally sustained by thore sets themeelres. I m ght have gone farther, apc said, not only thatit was superseded by the legislation of 1850, but that it was absolutely repealed +o far an it related to the territory embraced by the Now Vexieo apé Utah bJis; and by ita prioaiples re astoall the unorganized territories of the Usited States. This view of the case is strengthened also by the fact hatio forming the bounderies of the terri:ories of Utah tion was paid to the suroe from which the tit'e to them was derived. Iosteai of the its of those territories ae orgauized ha: deen coatneé to tho territory acquited from o# is falsely stated by these abolition stes im their manifes’o, it his been showa thi y acquired, not only from Me: and from-Frenoe. If the inteation dad seen to apply the principles of the new co upromise merely to the country acqui-ed frem Mexiso, of course he boundaries of those territories would conform to the vuunéaries of that new parohase; ba; whea Coagress, in 1880, came to the conclusion that they were boand to -bendon Missouri compromise be suse of their ina- bility to maintein ft and exteod it to the Pacitic, th oe: oceeded ty Orgenizs the territories u; eron: fai “amental princtple that the people were to be allowed 4 ey p eared up n that sudj Di flecting their own inatitutio: w y ‘orme | boundaries of the new t rrito with refereocs nienes, without regard to the source of the title or the country from whieh ether from Franee in 1803, or by the ‘rom Mex'eo iu 1848. There abolition confederates, not content with miarepre senting the facte in jespect to the boundaries of those erritcriee and the provisions of the laws of 1650 in regard to the Miseouri cempromiee, also persevere in misstatiag the provivons of the bill ander convideration. They more then once designate it ara bill to throw Nebraske and Kapeas open to slavery, instead of stating that the bill in predicated upon the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, and therefore leaves the people toflegis- late for themscives, im accordance with their own wishes «nd interesta. It they bad stated the provisions of the Mill truly it would have defeated their object, and then they wonid have fsiled in their attempts to excite pm pn egainet it acd the Committee who reported it. ‘hey were unwilling to meet and denounse in direct terms the proposition, that the people of every state and polt a1 organ tation ought to be permitted to decide matters affectiog their own comestic afaire to suit themselves, subject only to ruch limitations as the constitution of the United Biater impores This is the great fandamental principle upon whith all ubiican institution: rest. It was this principle whiek democratic party proc'aimed in the contest of 1948 whion triamphed in the compromise measures of 1860 Why should it not prevail in the teri!itories? Are not the people of the territories capable of self gover: ment? If not, why erect them into s political organi pe be give them s legidlature? Why entras: them wit they are incompetent ot eset g territorial bill you tiope—firet, that the territory po itteal organization; apd giving them s legisla. ‘are capsbie of self-governm: to give the people of tne ge of passing It Jawa affecting the of men. Doss it require soy to the persons aud to entrast th ife, parent and — all subjects people, and yet they deny the propriety cf leaving them to the free exercise of the sare powers where the negro race is coccerned. Tne Committee hi nires avy bigher Cogree of intelligence or civilization to legis late for negroes than for whites, If tae people of the territories be oaps ble of relf-goverament they oan fairly thing thst See ee erely affects their own instita- Usps So far as the question of slavery is concerned, the North certainly ought not to objest to the operation of this principle. The of that institution in the United States is the bent vindication that a Northern man could desire of the principle up»m which this dtl is founded, It will be remembered, that while there States were colonies of Great B itain each ove of them toler tad and protected slavery within its limite, When the couptitution of the United States was formed twrive ont of the thirteen States ware aleve holding S:ates; since ‘that time slavery has been abolished in one half of those Sing ay eee o' flond prea tain) act the ; MY not by \bitton’ imposed om their free others. Rhode Isiand, and Connecticut, of could nately be left to the opera nd under ita operation orovertad ves ire bey | eT eepe bate 5 i lira i i E i i sty é % af. 5 3g FH H H Fe é ip 8g e2eSE to the Wilmot proviso, and in favor of leaving the le of thore territories free to exercise their owa jadg- ment and cheice in their institutions, were de- nounced at that time as slavery propagandis' the 2 id the United States were tol the inevit consequence of leaving the people to i jate for themselves upon the subject, would be to coavert that vast extent of free country into alavehdldiog territories and States. Years have roiled round since this great principle of self government his been in operation 1m those territories, none of these abolition predic jons bi Proved to be correct. True, the people there it to establish the institution if they see pro have an equal right to establish free insti- prefer them. are not the friends of fi ling to trust the people who are to bi fected by them to choose for themselves? And it slayer) bas failed to be introdased into the territories of Ucah apd New Mexico, a [ed ipsa of which lie south of Ne- oruka ond Keneas, by authority do these abolition confederates represent t! ‘the ap ‘tion of the same principles of government to tuese new territories ‘8 ® proposition to introduce slavery there? If they wish to argue this question fairly—if they wish to leave the people to judge correctly in regard to the merits of this bili, why do they mot state its provis ions truly, acd say that it proposer nelthor to legislate slavery into the territories nor out of them; that the Oom wittee propose to ppply ‘the ¢oe'rine of non-intervention oy Congress, and to leave the people free to aot accordiag ‘o their own judgments and their own consciences, with- out dictation from avy foreign source whatever? To dea; bis privitege toany people is either to Jeny their caps ty for self-government, or to deprive them of'one of those rights whicn we believe to be faaliensbie under our fmsti- tutions. " Every interierence, every restriction by a power foreign to them, to limit their rights, is ia derogstion of the prisclples uj om whic our institations rest. Tasy are opt represented in the Congreas which prescribes their verritorial governments for th! Taey havexo here spesk for them. Tney have no voies in the formation of law. To deprive them of righta which they may desire to exercise, ard that, too, without the'r consent or without consulting them, {s to si t the principles whieh pervade all of our institutions, which eoned rate the boast of this country aa distinguishing tt from very other goverament on earth. In order to strengthem their argament ags‘ast the bill under cupalderation, the abolition confederates im their rxposition bave referred to the bills ergenizing the terri- tories of Moe mage chy meee ee tele | alla 1} |. Here, agei y to misrepre the pone if barmnta = anisiog thoee territo- Te Wi no previbitien of slaves in the law or: them. By referring to the sixth seo- the territory of Iows; it will ve neon ‘bat ‘the legitla‘ure of said tecritory’” was choriged to exercize all rightful acts of legisiation what- ver’? not excepting that of sl.very. Tne same willbe ‘ound to be the care in the act verritory .of Minnesota, T! viso, BO probidition of elavery, in nope of the territory wore allowed to express bel: own choice and jug Hl ws w) ting ‘an it be argued that the ordiuance of 1787 was in force ‘m there territories by virtue of the prohibi ion declar ug the laws of Wisconsio territory to be im force ia the wrritory of Iows; for if #0, it was abrogated by another ciause Of the same prohibition in whica it was stated that he jaws of Wieconsin were declared in force in lows, sudjret, however, to be modified, altered, or repealed by be territ'yiel legislature of Iowa; ao that if the clause vy which the Iawe of Wisconsin were transferrsd to Lowa sto be construed as carryiog with it ths ordinance i. ‘hose territories to remove the prohibition it they 4 per, for they athoriz44 to Iegislate apon ali ul subjects of legislation, excepting taat of in «ith the lan¢s ena taxing the proporty of the Uaited ¥ Reference bas been made, alto, iv the sams coanestion, oy these abolition confederates, to the bill hich was sed by the House of Represes tatives lait year for the eo teblicbment of the territory of Nr brasks, in which, it 4 raid, it was proposed to orgauins that territory with aa seti slavery clause, The bill contained no such provision {t sald pothiog upon the subject of slavery; but the sizth section, like the provisions of the Iowa sad Miane ote bills, declared the legislative power of the terrivory co extend to ail rightful surjeats of legislsiion, withoat excepting from among those #ubjests, that the legislature might decide upon for themeslr:s. Ths statement, therefore, of this maxifeste by the abolition opfecerates, in regard té each of there ter: ty fo wot pyerted by the fact or the law. I: may be aaked why theneorasiiy of aban ing the form ei tho bill rom that i which it appeared inst yest? I will state necesnity. Since the establishment of the great principle by the m promise mesrures of 1860, which is Ww be of uuiver- applica ivn in sll the nowls-orgsnimed territories, itis Jeemed wire and proper to enabracs of ths provi- stons included in taose laws upor tt \bjeos of alsvery The msim provision, and the one ich haw exeited the mort indigueticn ard denunciation from the sbolition- ata, is the one in which it ts declsred that each of those ¢ ‘itorie pap come into en with or withoat -lavery, as itehell see proper. I; is trae that provision \s Bot to be feund in the nenota nor in the lows terri. torial bills, and for the that that day tt wae not supposed that could be found poifttetans rig miied into this Uvien; to mee it question an amendment was proposed to the Utah jew Mexioo bills, declaratory of the constitutional principle, that each State should have pleared in ite conatitation when it sien into the Union, claure eomferred any new have pever suppored that it which they not have voted to insert that cieuse, not because it was mecewary to Leaure that rivht to the territories, but because it was Seelaratory of & principls whioh sesulted from the eon- ethution, amd to deny which. when it @as propored to ceelare it in the law, might be regarded as a concurrence with those men who were recklew enough to say that they intended in all time to come to deprive tert tori institutions, or to free institutions any more then to slave inativutions, It is not tras taat the » sions of the bill give the slightest prefereces to ia. habitants emigrating from one section of the Union over shove emigratiog from another. Tze alm of the Commit- in not carrying oat the Missouri oompr mise, ble the charge and a wo and not nise, and not by those who susteined that as long as.it was possible to observe it, and then made @ new one when it could no longer be The simple question before us is, whether good faith compacts shall be observei or not? It is hich repudiates the Missouri compromise — te 'p jt mothing more, il, aad it was ex. themselves oder The whigs and the ube principles ef that compromise. Botn parties rivalled esch other io the ged explicitaess of r good faith is to be wd, or whether its to b(voiated, by either or both great parties. a ® qasstion of ‘question of honor, whether the pri . the principles to are all pledged nball be carried out or not. red pledges ceeded in 1848 in rejecting and de ‘esting it. Th+y had hunted dowa with ferocity, and as if stek ng for their blood every man who, in 1820, had voted for the Mistouri compromise, They bed srr: ed al) who hai rupported or sustained the compro! of 1850. They bad sent out now to the people of the United States the fle statement that the acdress was sigaed oy s maj >r- ity of the Ohio delegates, whev, in fect it had bean sigued only by two Senators, and s fow Representatives ie the H. No whigs, no democrats hai signed it. Toose few attached to {t were the pure. uasdalter ated representatives of abolitionism, free soilism, nig ger iar in the Congress of the United States. Gentlemsn were willing to allow ad = yd ‘to legislate on all othe sud jects baal negroes, rat were KG bet ther to ‘upon pro) ‘taxation, scoial relations, bat would not trast ‘them to Joglalate for negroos, pid Piha a aes ey her degree of 00 to legislate for negroes -rwhite mea? He did rot believe ac. He regretted that 1a consequence of the cousse pursued by the abolition comfederates in sending forth to the pire hm rigid filled with misrepre sente:ions and fale statements, not oaly of the bill, but of those who were instrum-atal in forming it, had compellid bim to use language in the Senate of #80 revere as he had done; but having now presented his views, he would leave the bill to the Senate, and would psrheps hereafter take another occasion of replying to any objectioas waich might be made to it, 4s be sat down, as well as at various parts of his speech, there were evident manifestations of applause in the galleries and lobbies, but they were promptly ehecked by the officers. Mr. Cuasm paid that the Senator had spoken. He had fired his gnm. They had heard the report; they were now in the amoke, but so far as he could see, no one hed been burt They all survived, and he trusted would long eur- vive ruch assaults as thet of the Senator. The Senator had charged him and his fiends with having p:epsred thelr address, somewhere, on the Sabbath. Tne senstor nad seized upon an accidental error of dating, and uponit had made the charge that he and his friends had violsted the Sabbath, for which day the Senator seemed to have such peculiar renpect, and yet, the Sena‘or bim ‘el’ muat have known that it wa an error of date, for he had men- ttoved the fact that om the Monday the address appeared ip the New York Times The Neastor ssid that it was ia tended to produce an effectjupon some tender footed mem bers of the Ohio Legislature and therefore it had been rep resentes by its sautnor that it was sigaed by » maj rity of the Onio delegation. Here, too, the Sinator wes at att. The c-rrerpondi: Tim hed traas , #ed ta bis letter upon ity had atated that it had beea sigue by tion, thet editr had not been or avy one state’. Ta ere; {t bore signatures of those who !: He bad not sent it to Ohio, He korw not how it got there, but be had telegraphed te the Oaio pa pers, telling them not to publish it with soy signatares Dut {howe setaally signed tot. How it had been pul Whee bekmew not. His colleague could say it it (the paper) bad been presented ro him. Mr. Wana, (free sol) of Ohio, raid he had never seen 0; read the document. As it had been made known by the Senator from Ilipoia, he approved of it cordially, and thought, If it had oven presented t» bim, he would e signed it. Mr. Case rai that be did aot eavy the feeling which prompted the Senator fo make the charge, or, now having waco it tefindit unfounded. The Senator had charged that he had beem arraigoed by the addres Hs truly assured the Senator that in writing that aidcecs th» Senater had not for one moment occupied his mind. The Senator was alladed to ip the postssript, but oaly asthe avthor of the bill, The Senator exaggerated his own imporiance—hed considered himself the] whole ‘and took upon bimself all that was said of ure, He knew the gicantic stature of the dynes importance. He knew imwmeme power and in fluenoe the Senator exerted over ths goantry H+ knew he Senator was eurroanded here by a large and powerfal party, ard he koow the disadvantage under which he Iabored, im a controversy provored by the Senator. Hs knew tae odds sga'nst him. He and the Senator from Mareachusetts stood alone. They were ins »mall mivority. They were bat two im « body of six:y-two 4 He challerge: the Senator to polat to any élogle lastaace bcretn he or ibe Senator fron, Massasheeetés hed meessure to promote the interests of the countr, seked the Senstor to re to any instance where bis vote had been inflaenced for or sgainst any measure becacse « Northern or s Southern State was to be benefitted by it, Ail thatthe; had done was fo deny the natioaslity of elavery. This was their position firm ani unalterable, amd op it they were {a @ minority inthe Senate He now bere, in the Senate, and before the country, resffirmed evezy word contained in that address Cevying that it had ‘gpy imputetion upon motive or oalling in question the course of asy individasl He wcul’, at @ proper time, proseei to anawer the argu mept of the Senator; and then he ex; 4 to demonstrate the tra:h of the positions awamed in that address. Io Joing £0 he would not follow i, bessuse it wae an exam pot ft tobe followed He thanked the Senators for brought this adéress so prominectly forward. It hh and be read by thousands who wouic ve ceen it. Ths psople will read it, and they will decide upon it. He denounced this pli, ‘becuase it took ‘rom the people of the territory the booa which has been #0 long secured tothem by a solemn compact, He deffaed d the terms used by the address as appro position which woul! introduces avery y which bad teen doclared to be f p t him by the Seoater, he would defer till to morrow his ar- guwents on the merits cf the bill Mr, Sumns, (fee oii) of Mass.—Before the Senate ad. jovrns I crave « single moment. As one of the assignees { the address referred to by the Semator from Iilinois, acoept now, openly before the Senate and country, my ‘uli rerpoueibility for i', and depresaie no eriticiam upon itfrom apy quarter, That document was pet forth io the cischerge a high public daty,on the presipiiate in troduction into this body of a measure which, an it seems tome, Is not only subversive of ancient iandmarkas but hosti'e to the peace, the harmony, and the pest fpterests of the eeuntry; bat, sir, do ing this, I jadge the act, and sot its suthor | saw on)0 the enormous proposition aa4 nothing of tne Senater. The language ured, i# stroug, but it in not stronger than the exigency required. Hore is a m+as ure which reverses the time honored policy of ovr fabers in the restriction of alsvery, which vets aids the Misoori e-mpromise, a solemn com pact, by which all the territory ‘ceded by France under the ramecf Lousiana, was forever conseerated to freedcm. 104 which violates alse the all*ged compro mise of 1860, and this is to eps an immense territory to the ingrees of slavery. Such & measure cannot be re- garded without ¢motions too strong for epessh. I! oan- ily deseribed in common las; ee i monster, horrid, pon vart—fitly pictured of “Montrum = hurrendum — infec gens cud "and this monster#ts sow let loore y the country. Allow mé one other word of ex- pation It te that I derired that the oons!dera- Bot be pressed at ones with even before the Senate Opposition to the Nebraska-Kansas Bill in tho Tabernacle, Ja acoordance with the fellowing call— No infriv, ont of plighted faith |—Noe violati Mlasverl Gesapeopaion LeRke mnepphanta; meek atiee nak te onli d a . a 'e projest now Gialen for the opoal of that r) ue usry 30, te prot Benate of the United issouri act which forever Orsomus Bushnell, Robert Gracie, ry Geo. N. Cc. 0. gz L. Lo Merril, Jos 0 SPE BE as. FE, aimele e », Thos. By Min on & Con, vem OT Ory od Sundseds of obhers. —s meeting was held at the Tabernacle, Breadway, last evening. The meeting was called for seven o’slock, and no pains had been spared in advertising it. Great posters stared at the passers-by from every corner, and almost every newspaper published the call and alluded to the subject editorially, But, notwithstanding this fast, at seven o’clock there were but three hundred persoms present. At half past seven this mamber had increased to about eight hundred, Near the platform was displayed « large outline map of the United States, with the ‘36 80” line displayed 1m bold relief upon it. Tne time glided away until a quar. tor before eight, when the auditory displayed their im patience by stamping of the feet and other popular signs, At tem minutes of eight, Mr. E. 8. Van Winxzs called the meeting to order, axd nominated the following lust of (foera:— PRESIDENT. SHE°HERD KNAPP. ‘VICE PKEDENTS. Wm. F. Havemeyer, Luther Bradish, pret a New! Motes H. Grianell, Myndert Van Sohaick, Charles H Marshall, Walter R Jones, John Hi h David Oacwise, Joveph Hoxie, sobn Paine Charles P. Kirkland, Moses Taylor, Thomas DeWitt, D. D., ©.0 Hoslatend, E. H Chapin, D. D.. John Q Jones, Robert B. Minturn, T. B. Satterthwaite, Wa. Whitlock, Jr., F. W. Edmonis, Wo, Cailen Bryant, Zavedeo Cook, William A. Ball Etmund M. Young, Joha & King, Adam Norrie, John J. Phelps, Mark Spenser, William Tucker, Benjamia F. Camp, James Saydam, E. H. Ludlow, Freeman Uampbell, Thomas R. Minturn, Walter RB. Jones, Jr. George N Titus, Fanning C. Tccker. “Wm. Cartis Noyes m_ Cartis Ny WED. . Lucius Robin-on, John McKesson, James L. Everitt, Eiward Prime The list was ratified, or at least nobody objected to ft. Mr. Saxrusap Kyarr took the chair, and was greeted with consicerabla applause, 1s eald: Fellow Citizens—1I am sensible of the honor you have Cone me in selecting me to preside over this highly re- wpectable meetiog of * me chants, mechanics, and citi- x-pa of New York, wiihout distinstion of party, who would preserve inviolate the Missourl compremiee.”’ You are assembled this evexing, in consequence of the threat- ened action by Congrera in regard to the Missouri com- promire of 1520. Whether tha; compromise was origi pally @ wise and good one is not now the question; but rimply whether the South, having ha¢ the fall oo: i. jom Cemanded, should be allow Differ as we may tolerate, the doctrine of repudiation. Aa there are gentle men here who can elucidate the subject mach better than I can, I will not detain you with any farther remarks, bat wil declare this meeting duly opened for busi. sas. The CaarMan resumed his seas. Mr. Van Winxis said:— Letters Dave been received from many eminest states men, expressing their-s:ntiments upon this question Ax they are very long I shall wot read thom, they will ail be published ia the morning papers. (Appiause.) ‘A Voica —Who do they ceme from? Mr. Van Wirkia.—Senators Seward and Fish. (Hisses ard applause.) Voiom—Read them. (More hiseen and stamping of feet.) Voicas.—Order | order! Mr. Van Winnia continued —S:nator Sammer, of Man sachvsette (hisses and applause); Garrit Smith (hisses); Giddings (biases). Mr. Van Winkle read soveral more names, which were received in rilence. ‘The following are ths letters referred ‘o:— LETTES OF SENATOR 8. P. CHASE. Wasuixaton, January 23, 1854. Gantixuxy—I have to acknowledge the honor o/your oe SK iyry Bp ew ia LA a to ist the repeal ci a Misourt act ef 1820.7 Out of all the territories acquired by treaty, or annex- ed by Congress, since the organization of our fe‘eral gov. ernment, but two free States—lowa sod Usliforais—hare been crested; while out of the same territory no less than five slave States— Florida, Louisiana, Arkaonas, Mis- souri and Texas—hare been organized. Tae Missouri act, conceding to the slave interest the admisaton of Missouri, with eee provided, common consent, for the ex slusion of slavery from all the resicue of tecritory north of thirty six degress thirty minutes. It is said, some times, that this probibition was ork of Northern men, and that lave interest is not bound b; pretext is without foundation. The prohihition, as it bow stands in the stetute, was moved by Mr. Toomas, of Illinois, on the 34 of F J, 1820, a am amend ment to the Misourl bill, which he thea be by the Semate to the bill for the admission o! ae. It aes agreed toon the 17th, eyes 84, nose 10 by the foliow ig vote:— Sim Morril and Perrot, of New Hampshire, Mellen and O {4, of Massachaseits. Yana and Larmaa, of Coonecticut. of Rhede Island, x, of Vermont. Kieg and Sanford, of New York. Dickerson and Wilson, of New Jersey, Lowrie and Roberts, of Pennsylvania, Ruggles and Trimble, of Onto. Horvey and Vaa Dyke, of Delaware —_ ‘end Piokney, of Maryland. Stokes, of North Caroline. Johnsen and Logan, of Kentucky, Eston and Wilhams, of Tennessee, Brown and Johnson of Louisiana, Leake, of Minsissi ppt. King and Walker, of Alabama. Edwards and Thomas, of Ilinois. Nons—Noble and Teylor, of Indisma. Barbour an: wants, of Virginia. Macon, of North Carotna Gaillard and Smith, of South Carolia. Eliott and Walker, of Georgis. Wiliams, of Musisaippi. It will be seon that fourteen Serators from slave States voted for Mr. Thomas's amendment, and (1 Senators from free States, while eight from the former voted sgainrt it, with two from the latter. When @ separate bill for the admission of Missouri came up from the House, it was amended ia the Senate, by striking out the slauwe requiring » provision in her constitution probibitiog elavery, and by inverting Mr Thomas's suendment, without vebate— the sense of dena- tors haviog been fully ascertained by former vo.es. lt fe therefore periectiy clear, tbat so far an toe Senate fy concerned, wh: re the slave States are, and always have Ween strongest, that the South joined with the Norta ia he prohibition. In the Hours, the fi vote om concurring in the amendment for strikivg out the restriction om slavery in the State, was eyes 90, mays 67, After this vote had been taken it was cerisin that Missouri was to be admitted as a plave State, ad the only remaining question was, i plavery be yrodibited im the residue of tne territory norta of vbtity six degrees thirty minutes? The vote on con- curring ta thie peebibition was, yeas 134, mays 43. OF thirty-eight were from slave, aud nimiy-stz from ¢ States, Of th #, thirty-seven were trom slave ates, and fire from free It is clear, from the above statement, that in the Senate alirge majority of Soathera m ted ior the prohibl ios mong them Mr. King, uf Alabama, recently Vice President cf the Uniei States With thase voted the few Northerm con«nters to the admission of Missouri with slavery, ae well aa those who {osisted on a clause in her constitutios forbidcing slavery, as & condition of ad ion. In the Bow mar ein ton a ke ee Proportional sunt: the prohibition, them wa: Downs , of South Garofian, whose vote, ertimated by the worth and hosor o; the maa, ont weighs many Op) It is absoiutely eortein that, without the prohibition laure, Miasouri with slavery could mever heve been ad- mitted. The admission was the cou ideration ef the claare, and the a e mre ry of the admis sion. Taken together y conatital a mot pbeclutely Invio able, indeet—for say eompect! may violated—but not to be broken without dishoaor. tine,” said Mr. Niles, ta bis Kegister, at the have honored me, has been received. tendance here ts en Tee Le of New York and the State of New York ag Avvo measure pprebensions of the cit no’ be safely ab: stances, even if my attendance in New York would other- wise be proper, You bave kindly asked me, in view of this inability, 60 ive you ruch an eqgnoasias my “sentiments ag Ip to aroute the North to the defence of its rights the South to the maintenance of its piighted honor,” Permit me to say, in reaponse to the appeal, tha: wham the slavery laws of 1850 were under discussion in the Senate, I regarded the ground thea demanded to be com ceced by the North a» s rantage grouad, which, whem once y would be retrieved with infaite dittsulty attervarce, if, indeed, it should not be absolutely irre- trievable; and that I, therefore, in my place ana repre sentative here, asid and did ail tha: itwasin my power to do and say, and all tha: I could now do and aay, to to rouse the North to the defence of its zp aset ‘bem, the ith to the maintenance of its honor.’ afterwards, emineat membsra of Cong: ess, who had been engaged ip those laws, an appeal azeinst thove who had op) them before the people ia their pri- mary assemblies, I decliaed to follow them then,and | have ever since unwilling to ipjare so just cause by discussions might seem to betray undue solicitade, if not faction. We bave only now arrived at a ne age the tril of that appeal. For it ie quite olnar that if the slavery Inwa had not been parsed in 1860 fer the territe- ‘ies aequired from Mexioo, there would have been mo pretence for extending such slavery laws now, over'the territories before acquired from Louisiana, and that if we had maintained ou; ground on which then protectes New Mexico aad Ui we bot pow have been atiacked im our strorghol It is equally evident, also, that Nebraska is not aif in to be saved or lost. If we are drivem from this there will yet remain 0) we who thought, only #o latel, tortion at least of the shore of the Gulf of Mexico ama sil of tbe Pacific const to the inatitations of tree iom, will be, before 1809, brought tos doubtfal struggle to pre- vent the ex‘enson of # avery to the shores of the great Lakes, and thence westward to Paget’s Sound. I gontismen, that for one I may be aliowed to continue to have heretofore practiced, welf respect than from my confidence in the sagacity aad virtue of the people I represent. Nevertheless, | beg you to be aisured that, while deo ining to go into popular as- sembleges, as an agitator, I sball endeavor to do my duty here with as many trae men es shall be found in a dele- gestion, which, if all were firm aod united in the maim tenance of publio right and justiee, would be able. to eom- trol the decision of this great question. But the mea- sure of suceess aad effect which shall crown our exer- aT must depend now, ae heretofure, on the fileiity with which people whom we represent sbali to the poloy and principles whi re the foundation of bry own ae prosparity and gre: ee es #m, gentlomen, with great respec: and esteem, your obedient servant, Willa 8. SeWaioo. LETTER FROM SENATOR HAMILTON FISH. Wasuixcron, Friday, Jan. 27, 186, Guvrizman—I havs received your invi-ation to sttead & public meoting o! citiseas of New York, without dle Uverion of party, called to protes! against the repeal oF violation of the Missouri compromise, which prohibits tlevery in that portion of the territory equ ed from, France which is north o! 36 80, and ix not incladed with- in the State of Missouri. The dey named for your meet ing hea been assigned for ths consideration in the Seuate of the United States o/ the bill which propo to abro- gate the solemn compact which, more than the thirdofa cvatury sinee, restored quiet and mutas! confidence te distracted amd estranged portions of the Kegon ns While [ sympathise entirely with your desire to ma! inviola'e the comprom(ses which have been made in rela- tion to the vexed question of slavery, I cannot be with y'u. Duty requires that I remain here to vos any and every measure whic proporss or looks to a repeal or negation of the binding obligation of the Missourt com> promise, The compromise of 1820 is not incon sistent wit that of 1860. Oa the contrary, the reeogaition of the ex- clusion of slavery from tefritory north of 36 30 of north Intatude, is in express term! preserved aud maintained im (xe ot ihe 1850, knowa measures.”? The repeal or the neg: —— would normomnen bes vivlation of faith twies 1 . Iam, gentlemen, with great reapeot. vonr abe- as HAMILTON Fis. LETTER FROM SENATOR CHARLES SUMNER. ‘Wasutactoy, Sat }, Jan. 28, 1864. Gxxtixxan—It is not in my power to be at your meeting «m Monday evening next, bat I am glad of the opportee nity you give me to enroll myeelf in host pow gather ing from every side to pp the sudacious attempt @ overthrow the time honore ed ag of alavery im the national territories north of 36 30. An act of Oo passed with pecuilar solemnit after unprecedent Gitement, and susteined by le Southern stat o neecrated this broad domain to dom forever; ip consideration thereof, Missouri! was admitted into Union as a slave State. This is the Missouri com, Apc here let me quote the language of am{aent Southern authority at the time :—'‘1t is true,” says Mr. Niles, ip bis Re of March 11, 1890, ‘this compromise ia supported only by the letter of a law cee pealable by the authority whieh enacted it; but the clroumstances of the cae give to this la: moral force equal to that of # positive provision of oometi tation; and we do not hazard anything by sayiog that the coratitution exists in its obvervanes. Both parties have sacrificed mach to conelliation. We wish to see the eom- at kept in good faith.” And yet it fs pro; to view jate ti important compact, and to bi this faith, The prohibition of slavery norih of 86 80; was once more -olemply confirmed im the resolutions by which Texas was annexed to this Union in 1846, and still again ia the alleged Compromises of 1250. 1+ hes also been practi- cally enfo1 ic the es of the territories «€ Oregon, Minnesota, and Washington. It rests now with the American people to de!ermiae if this prohibition shall nd this immer pot divisions, ahall be laid opan te ery. Whatever mey be ths fate of the peading man- ture, fot mo maa doubt thst the malediction ones tavoued jepgth be visited by ax indi, tooaptry upoa all join to remove this Iaodmark of freedom. I remain, gentlemen, your obedient servant CH ARLE3 8U, FYROM JOSHUA RB. GIDDINGS, M. 0. Ww ON, Jam, 26, 1854. GENTLEXEN—I rejotoe that th cf the city of New York appreciate the importance of the question new 6 nexpectedly precipitated upon Congress, | John Ham cock, Thoman Jefferson, and the entire Congress of 1776, with upanimocs voice declued ‘‘toa' goveruments are constituted amon men to ecare them tu the 6njoyment of Life, berty, and happiness.” constitu This dootrine is now de @ present Congress insist, that ia ® gevernment for Nebraska, our legislative be put forth to repeal so much 0: the law ef arantees thee rights to the peopls of that vast tecritory. Mr. Jeflerson Principle to bes “ self. al speeder at lone ft trinas proclaimed by that of 1776 Te asked to deny the esrentia! principles on which our government waa bared, to the teachings of humaaity, to wage @ war against buman nature, by consigning the vast tersi- tory tm question to th dlighting carse im the decision of this question, crepy afleot ‘ Cbristisayeopis. I 3 tuly Chistian minivter can keep sileut Christiag peoyle cam rewsin inactive—when tbit great outrage vpon Christianity and civilization is about to be perpe 4 rate T trust the voice of the le from al! parts of the country will be expressed, thatthe pepular ou shall be niaee ate bana Yee are = de taught te spect that tribunal comes of ‘every ade to fear and tremble, pers For the bon >r of your invitation, I tender you and jour associates my humble thanks. Mr 7 1k. @ LETTER FROM GBORGR A. SIMMONS, M,C. WasiinGrow, Satorday, Jan. 28, 1864, Gxvrixnen— Yours of the 2ist inst. informing me of & proposed Of the citizens of New York to protest pm Rag re of hed gree ioe meg req my attendanos, if not inconsistent pe He duties, has been reosived and respsotfally conridered, It ia not im my power to attend, but I hope there will be . ma ee ‘Ueanimous expression of your city. The Iegtalate slavery into Sy ont ots territory, i ltear @ or ont of & ’ week ents ere 8 false nod fraadaleat pre~ tenes to Lop a or wi i H ¥ie i IMEI (ii ie sg : i é 7 i EE