30', and were therefore in no danger of slavery, it only introduces fresh embarrassment by discrediting the action of the Republican party in regard to Kansas, and discrediting the earnest and persistent action of the anti-slavery Whigs and Free- Soilers, who in 1848 successfully insisted upon embodying the Wilmot Proviso in the Act organizing the Territory of Oregon.

Surely, if an anti-slavery restriction were needed for Oregon, it was needed for Dakota which lay in the same latitude.

Beyond doubt, if the Territory of Kansas required a prohibition against slavery, the Territory of Colorado and the Territory of Nevada, which lay as far south, needed it also.

To allege that they could secure the President's approval of the bills in the form in which they were passed, and that Mr.Buchanan would veto each and every one of them if an anti-slavery proviso were embodied, is to give but a poor excuse, for, five days after the bills received the Executive signature, Mr.Buchanan went out of office, and Abraham Lincoln was installed as President.
If, indeed, it be fairly and frankly admitted, as was the fact, that receding from the anti-slavery position was part of the conciliation policy of the hour, and that the Republicans did it the more readily because they had full faith that slavery never could secure a foothold in any of the Territories named, it must be likewise admitted that the Republican party took precisely the same ground held by Mr.Webster in 1850, and acted from precisely the same motives that inspired the 7th of March speech.

Mr.Webster maintained for New Mexico only what Mr.Sumner now admitted for Colorado and Nevada.