# The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 31

Contents
CHAPTER XXXI.
Repeal of Missouri Compromise. — Kansas and Nebraska Organized.
The democratic convention to nominate candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency was held in Baltimore, June 1, 1852. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, received the nomination on the 49th ballot. The whig convention met in the same city on the 16th of June, and nominated General Scott on the 53d ballot. Upon the subject of slavery, the platforms of the two conventions agree. The democratic convention declared:
"That congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming ​and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
"That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in congress; and therefore the democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by the last congress — the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.
"That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."
The whig convention made the following declaration:
"That the series of acts of the thirty-first congress — the act known as the fugitive slave law included — are received and acquiesced in by the whig party of the United States, as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting question which they embrace; and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them and insist on their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other, not impairing their present efficiency;' and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace; and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the whig party of the Union."
The presidential contest resulted in the election of Mr. Pierce. The "slavery question" was now dead and buried — the democratic party planted itself upon the grave to "resist all attempts" at disturbing the body — the whigs stood by to "discountenance all efforts" at resurrection, "whenever, where ever or however the attempt may be made."
Mr. Pierce was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1853. In his inaugural address he said: "I believe that involuntary servitude is recognized by the constitution. I believe that the states where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the compromise measures of 1850 are strictly constitutional, and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect." "And now," said Mr. Pierce, "I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional, or ambitious, or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability" of its repose.
Congress convened on the 5th of December, 1853. On the next day the President communicated his message. The dead and buried slavery question was again alluded to; and he declared his fixed purpose to leave undisturbed, "a subject which had been set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the ​people." That "this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."
Notwithstanding the legislation of 1850, the platforms of the political parties, and the asseverations of the president, the "shock" came. As Mr. Chase described it, "the rattling thunder broke from a cloudless firmament, and the storm burst forth in fury." But this time the agitation was not to be confined to the floor of congress — the "people" were invited to take a part in it.
On the 15th of December, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, submitted to the senate a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska, which was referred to the committee on territories, and subsequently reported by Mr. Douglas of said committee with amendments. The following is the accompanying report:
"The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles established by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new territory.
"The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitration of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for its consequences. With a view of conforming their action to what they regard as the settled policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other considerations were necessary to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those territories were organized.
"It was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a legal proposition, that slavery, having been prohibited by the enactments of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as they did not conflict with the constitution of the United States; and that a law either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one half of the states of the Union tolerated, while ​the other hall prohibited, the institution of slavery. On the other hand, it
was insisted that, by virtue of the constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any territory of the Union, and carry his property with him under the protection of law, whether that property consisted of persons or things. The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion, were greatly aggravated by the fact that there were many persons on both sides of the legal controversy, who were unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dispute; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and, consequently, that slavery was already prohibited in those territories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon congress making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any binding force, and that the constitution tolerated and protected slave property in those territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon the point, and insisted that congress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of slaves into those territories.
"Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the 8th section of 'an act to authorize the people of Missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories,' approved March 6th, 1820, it was provided, 'that in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and are hereby, prohibited; provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the persons claiming his or her labor or services as aforesaid.'
"Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of ​these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the constitution, and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the territories, so your committee are not prepared to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.
"Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country, and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of the compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment, in all their territorial bills, so far as th"* same are not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among otb"v things less material to the matters under consideration, the following provisions:
"When admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.
"That the legislative power and authority of said territory shall be vested in the governor and legislative assembly.
"That the legislative power of said territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents.
"Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the supreme court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property or amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that, in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the supreme court of the United States from the decisions of the said supreme court by this act, or any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, ​upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United Stales; and the said supreme and district courts of the said territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus, in all eases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia.
"To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of 1850, known as the fugitive slave law:
"That the provisions of the 'act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' approved February 12, 1793, and the provisions of the act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force in, all the organized territories, as well as in the various states of the Union.
"From these provisions, it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions:
"First. — That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.
"Second. — That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'questions of personal freedom,' are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the supreme court of the United States.
"Third. — That the provision of the constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all 'the original territories,' the same as in the states.
"The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850."
Some doubts having been expressed whether the amendments repealed the Missouri compromise, a special report was made, January 4th, 1854, so amending the bill as to leave no doubt upon that subject. The report which proposed to open to slavery all the vast territory secured to freedom by the Missouri compromise, startled the nation from its "repose," and produced an agitation that had never been equaled.
On the 16th January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice of an amendment directly and plainly repealing the Missouri compromise.
The debate on the bill was opened by Mr. Douglas, on the 30th of January. In justification of his proposition to leave the whole territory open to slavery, he insisted that the Missouri compromise had been repealed. One of the grounds upon which this declaration was founded, was the action of congress in 1848, after the acquisition of territory from Mexico, when the senate voted into a bill a provision to extend the Missouri compromise line westward to the ​Pacific ocean; which provision was defeated in the house. This defeat of that proposition Mr. D. construed into an abandonment of the compromise. It was this defeat of that compromise that created the struggle of 1850, and the necessity for making the new compromise of that year; the leading feature of which was non-intervention by congress as to slavery in the territories — leaving the question to be settled by the people therein. It was of universal application — to the country both north and south of 36° 30'.
Mr. Douglas said "the legal effect of this bill, if passed, was neither to legislate slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave the people to do as they pleased. And why should any man, north or south, object to this principle? It was by the operation of this principle, and not by any dictation from the federal government, that slavery had been abolished in half of the twelve states in which it existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution."
In regard to Utah and New Mexico, Mr. D. said: "In 1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those territories inconsistent with their wishes and the right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one of us who was in favor of the compromise measures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated a principle purposing to introduce slavery into those territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced into these territories.
"Well, sir, we did establish the territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true or false. Years have rolled round, and the result is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the territories.
"I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes; yet, out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last compromise.
"Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this country to arnign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever proposed to violate a compact, I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continuance and observance in 1848. I have proved that the free-soilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare notes with these abolition confederates about ​adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made?
"Did not every abolitionist and free-soiler in America denounce the Missouri compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that compromise? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce all of US who went for the annexation of Texas and for the continuation of the Missouri compromise line through it? Did they not, in 1818, denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the principles of the Missouri compromise, and proposing to continue it to the Pacific ocean? Did they not themselves violate and repudiate it then? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this bill?
"They talk about the bill being a violation of the compromise measures of 1850. Who can show me a man in either house of congress who was in favor of those compromise measures in 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of my bill? Is there one? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts; and this whole organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender-footed democrats into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was signed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the state of Ohio; but when we come to examine signatures, we find no one whig there, no one democrat there; none but pure, unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists."
On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, senator from Ohio, moved to strike out from the bill the words, "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," so that the clause would read: "That the constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoperative."
Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglas: "Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago, to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) against myself and the other signers of the independent democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or in history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the Missouri prohibition.
"A few days only have elapsed since the congress of the United States ​assembled in this capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political, elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in congress or out of congress. The president, in his annual message, had referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country.
"The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the chief magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this repose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the country. Our number was small in congress. By some we were regarded as visionaries — by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. But suddenly all is changed; rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury. And now we find ourselves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can foresee.
"Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into congress — not we, who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir: the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery. This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and more slave states. And what does slavery ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded — a compact which has endured through a whole generation — a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, north and south — a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide.
"It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act, and such a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was advanced the other day by the senator from Illinois, that the compromise acts of 1850 'superseded' the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', in the act preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, 'superseded' is the phrase — 'superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures
"It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in ​history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed During the long discussion of the compromise measures in 1850, it was never suggested that they were to supersede the Missouri prohibition. At the last session, a Nebraska bill passed the house, came to the senate, and was reported on by
Mr. Douglas, who also made a speech in its favor; and in all there was not a word about repeal by superseding. The senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) had also spoken upon the hill, and had distinctly declared that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed." An extract win here read from the speech of this senator, of which this is a part:
'I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the northwest territory free territory. The next great error was the Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence.'
"Now, sir, when was this said? It was on the morning of the 4th of March, just before the close of the last session, when that Nebraska bill, reported by the senator from Illinois, which proposed no repeal, and suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. I think, sir, that all this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of congress, nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what took place at the commencement of the present session? The senator from Iowa, early in December, introduced a bill for the organization of Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill that was under discussion here at the last session, line for line, and word for word. If I am wrong, the senator will correct me. Did the senator from Iowa then entertain the idea that the Missouri prohibition had been superseded? No, sir; neither he or any other man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, or remark, had received this notion."
Mr. C. then referred to Mr. Douglas' own report of the 4th of January last, made only thirty days ago. "Nor did this report express the opinion that the compromise acts of 1850 had superseded the Missouri prohibition. The committee said that some affirmed and others denied that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico, were still in force there; and they said that the territorial compromise acts stood clear of these questions. They simply provided 'that the states organized out of these territories might come in with or without slavery as they should elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of state governments. That question was left to judicial decision.'
"So in respect to the Nebraska territory. There were southern men who contended they would, by virtue of the constitution, take their slaves thither, and hold them there, notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, while a majority of the American people, north and south, believed that prohibition ​constitutional and effectual. But did the committee propose to repeal it, or suggest that it had been superseded? No. They said they did 'not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the territories; so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.'
"Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The committee oh territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute."
Mr. Chase traced the progress of the committee's bill. "As published January 7th, it contained twenty sections. On the 10th, it was published again: it then had twenty-one sections. The omission of the last section was alleged to be a clerical error. It was, he said, a singular fact that this twenty-first section was not in harmony with the committee's report. It in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Was it possible that this was a mere clerical error?
"But the addition of this section did not help the bill. It declared, among other things, that the question of slavery in the territories and in the states to be formed therefrom, was to be left to the decision of the people through their representatives. But this did not meet the approbation of the southern gentlemen, who claimed the right to take their slaves into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition either by congress or by a territorial legislature. It was not enough that the committee had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section in direct contravention of its reasonings and principles; the section must itself be abandoned and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape which would not deny the slaveholding claim. He next alluded to the amendment of the senator from Kentucky, which came square up to repeal and to the claim. The amendment probably produced some fluttering and some consultation. It met the views of southern senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill had assumed. For it was just seven days after the amendment had been offered by senator Dixon, that a fresh amendment was reported from the committee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. This new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories." This new bill thus provided for the repeal of the Missouri prohibition:
"The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally ​inappliable shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth Motion of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative.'
"Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the prohibition. The senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to break up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I have now proved that it is a plant of but ten da.y's growth. It was never seen or heard of until the 23d day of January, 1834. It was upon that day that this tree. of Upas was planted: we already see its poisonous fruits.
"The provision I have quoted abrogates the Missouri prohibition. It asserts no right in the territorial legislature to prohibit slavery. The senator from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful to assert no right of legislation in a territorial legislature, except subject to the restrictions and limitations of the constitution. We know well enough what the understanding or claim of southern gentlemen is in respect to these limitations and restrictions. They insist that by. them every territorial legislature is absolutely precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibition of slavery. I warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that their votes for this provision will be regarded as admitting this claim."
Having thus endeavored to prove that the doctrine that the Missouri compromise had been superseded by the acts of 1850, was new, Mr. Chase attempted to prove it unfounded. Mr. Douglas had charged as a misrepresentation, the statement in the appeal of the independent democrats, that the acts of 1850 were intended to apply to the territory acquired from Mexico only; and that they did not touch the existing exclusion of slavery from what was now called Nebraska. Mr. Chase referred to the report of the committee of thirteen in 1850, which distinctly stated that the compromise measures applied to the newly acquired territory, and he appealed to Gen. Cass, who sat near him, whether any thing had been said in the committee of thirteen, or elsewhere, which indicated a purpose to apply them to any other territory. (Mr. Cass remained silent.) Mr. C. therefore assumed that he was correct; and he proceeded at length in attempting to disprove the assertion of Mr. Douglas, that the Missouri compromise had been superseded. He said:
"But the senator from Illinois says that the territorial compromise acts did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. How does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory was acquired from Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired from Texas, was first ​acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico' ceded it to the United States, Texas claimed that that cession inured to her benefit. That claim only was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, stands thus: we acquired the territory from Mexico; Texas claimed it, but gave up her claim. This certainly does not disprove the assertion that the territory was acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it does not sustain the senator's assertion that it was acquired from Texas.
"The senator next tells the senate and the country, that by the Utah act, there was included in the territory of Utah a portion of the old Louisiana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibition, which prohibition was annulled as to that portion by the provisions of that act. Every one at all acquainted with our public history knows that the dividing line between Spain and the United States extended due north from the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north latitude. That arbitrary line left within the Louisiana acquisition a little valley in the midst of rocky mountains, where several branches of the Grand river, one of the affluents of the Colorado, take their rise. Hero is the map. Here spreads out the vast territory of Utah, more than one hundred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. Here is the little spot, hardly a pin's point upon the map, which I cover with the tip of my little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by the territorial bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisition and included in Utah. The account given of it in the senator's speech would lead one to suppose that it was an important part of the Louisiana acquisition. It is, in fact, not of the smallest consequence. There are no inhabitants there. It was known that the Rocky Mountain range was very near the arbitrary line fixed by the treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adoption of that range as the eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the Missouri prohibition. The senator reported that boundary line. Did he tell the senate or the country that its establishment would have that effect? No, sir; never. The assertion of the senator that a 'close examination of the Utah act clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the compromise measures of 1850 to supersede the Missouri compromise, and all geographical and territorial lines,' is little short of preposterous. There was no intent at all, except to make a convenient eastern boundary to Utah, and no legal effect at all upon the Louisiana acquisition, except to cut off from it the little valley of the Middle Park."
Mr. Douglas had charged the signers of the appeal with misrepresentation in assuming that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to prohibit slavery in all the territories ceded by the old states to the Union. Mr. Chase commenced with a reference to the sentiments of Jefferson, and traced the history of the action of the government on the subject, through a long period of years, in vindication of the statement controverted by Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Chase's amendment was negatived, 13 to 30.
Mr. Houston advocated the rights of the Indians included within the territories, who were to be disturbed by this bill. He adverted to the pledges made to them from time to time, and especially the assurance given them in the treaty ​of 1835, that their lands beyond the Mississippi should never, without their consent, be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory. He objected to the bill on other grounds. There was do necessity for joining three such important subjects. The organization of Nebraska without a sufficient population to warrant it, nearly all being Indian territory; the organization of Kansas, entirely held and occupied by Indians; and the repeal of the Missouri compromise, an important consideration for the American people, were all placed in this omnibus shape, and presented for action. He had on former occasions supported the Missouri compromise, assisted by the south, because they regarded it as a solemn compact. Texas, he said, had been admitted upon that principle. It was an express condition of her admission, that in all new states formed out of her territory north of 30° 30', slavery should be prohibited.
Mr. H. said he had voted for the compromise of 1850; but he did not suppose that he was voting to repeal the Missouri compromise. He regarded it as a final settlement of this mooted question, this source of agitation. Great trials and emergencies, he feared, would arise between the north and the south. The south was in a minority; she could not be otherwise. If she should accede to the violation of a compact so sacred as this, she would set an example that would be followed when she did not desire it. He averred that he would resist every attempt to infringe or repeal the Missouri compromise.
On the 15th of February, the question was taken on the substitute of the committee reported by Mr. Douglas, to strike out the words which declared the Missouri compromise to be superseded by that of 1850, and to insert the provision declaring the Missouri compromise inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention of congress with slavery in the states and territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, and inoperative and void; and declaring the people free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States. The substitute was adopted, 35 to 10.
Mr. Cass expressed his regret that this question of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which opened all the disputed points connected with the subject of congressional action upon slavery in the territories, had again been brought before the senate. The advantages to result from the measure would not outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling accompanying the discussion would produce. Nor would the south derive any benefit from it, as no human power could establish slavery in the regions defined by these bills. He was, however, in favor of the amendment of the committee which declared that the people, whether in the territories, or in the states to be formed from them, were free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.
Mr. Cass, in the course of his speech, replied to the complaints that the south was excluded from, and robbed of the territories, and that they were appropriated to the north. While he repeated the opinion that congress was not authorized to restrain a person, by legal enactment, from taking slaves into any territory of the United States, he maintained that the prohibition of slavery ​by local legislation was not an exclusion of the south more than the north, as a slaveholder and a non-slaveholder could go into such territory on equal terms; and he denied the charge of the south, that congress, by admitting a state whose constitution interdicts slavery, is responsible for that act.
In relation to the power of congress over the territories, he contended that the power granted by the constitution to regulate and "dispose of the territory and other property of the United States," meant simply the power to dispose of the public lauds, as property, and did not include the power of life and death over the inhabitants.
The bill was further discussed until March 2d, when the vote was taken on Mr. Chase's amendment, to allow the people of the territory, through their representatives, to prohibit slavery, which was rejected by a vote of 36 to 10. Mr. Badger's amendment, "that nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of March 6th, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery," was carried, yeas, 35; nays, 6.
On the 3d of March, the bill was put upon its final passage, when a long and earnest debate ensued. Mr. Seward addressed the senate at a late hour, as follows:
Mr. President: — I rise with no purpose of further resisting or even delaying the passage of this bill. Let its advocates have only a little patience, and they will soon reach the object for which they have struggled so earnestly and so long. The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteed and certain liberties of all the unsettled and unorganized portions of the American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the United States. To-morrow's sun will rise in dim eclipse over them. How long that obscuration shall last, is known only to the Power that directs and controls all human events. For myself, I know only this — that now no human power will prevent its coming on, and that its passing off will be hastened and secured by others than those now here, and perhaps by only those belonging to future generations.
Sir, it would be almost factious to offer further resistance to this measure here. Indeed, successful resistance was never expected to be made in this hall. The senate floor is an old battle ground, on which have been fought many contests, and always, at least since 1820, with fortune adverse to the cause of equal and universal freedom. We were only a few here who engaged in that cause in the beginning of this contest. All that we could hope to do — all that we did hope to do — was to organize and to prepare the issue for the house of representatives, to which the country would look for its decision as authoritative, and to awaken the country that it might be ready for the appeal which would be made, whatever the decision of congress might be. We are no stronger now. Only fourteen at the first, it will be fortunate if, among the ills and accidents which surround us, we shall maintain that number to the end.
We are now on the eve of the consummation of a great national transaction — a transaction which will close a cycle in the history of our country — and ​it is impossible not to desire to pause a moment and survey the scene around us, and the prospect before us. However obscure we may individually be, OUT connection with this great transaction will perpetuate our names for the praise or for the censure of future ages, and perhaps in regions far remote. If, then, we had no other motive for our actions but that of an honest desire for a just fame, we could not be indifferent to that scene and that prospect. But individual interests and ambition sink into insignificance in view of the interests of our country and of mankind. These interests awaken, at least in me, an intense solicitude.
It was said by some in the beginning, and it has been said by others later in this debate, that it was doubtful whether it would be the cause of slavery or the cause of freedom that would gain advantages from the passage of this bill. I do not find it necessary to be censorious, nor even unjust to others, in order that my own course may be approved; I am sure that the honorable senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] did not mean that the slave states should gain an advantage over the free states; for he disclaimed it when he introduced the bill. I believe in all candor, that the honorable senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] who comes out at the close of the battle as one of the chiefest leaders of the victorious party, is sincere in declaring his own opinion that the slave states will gain no unjust advantage over the free states, because he disclaims it as a triumph in their behalf. Notwithstanding all this, however, what has occurred here and in the country, during this contest, has compelled a conviction that slavery will gain something, and freedom will endure a severe, though I hope not an irretrievable, loss. The slaveholding states are passive, quiet, content, and satisfied with the prospective boon, and the free states are excited and alarmed with fearful forebodings and apprehensions. The impatience for the speedy passage of the bill, manifested by its friends, betrays a knowledge that this is the condition of public sentiment in the free states. They thought in the begining that it was necessary to guard the measure by inserting the Clayton amendment, which would exclude unnaturalized foreign inhabitants of the territories from the right of suffrage. And now they seem willing with almost perfect unanimity, to relinquish that safe-guard, rather than to delay the adoption of the principal measure for at most a year, perhaps for only a week or a day. Suppose that the senate should adhere to that condition, which so lately was thought so wise and so important — what then? The bill could only go back to the house of representatives, which must either yield or insist 1 In the one case or in the other, a decision in favor of the bill would be secured; for even if the house should disagree, the senate would have time to recede. But the majority will hazard nothing, even on a prospect so certain as this. They will recede at once, without a moment's further struggle, from the condition, and thus secure the passage of this bill now, tonight. Why such haste? Even if the question were to go to the country before a final decision here, what would there be wrong in that? There is no man living who will say that the country anticipated, or that he anticipated, ​the agitation of this measure in congress, when this congress was elected, or even when it assembled in December last.
Under such circumstances, and in the midst of agitation, and excitement, and debates, it is only fair to say, that certainly the country has not decided in favor of the bill. The refusal, then, to let the question go to the country is a conclusive proof that the slave states, as represented here, expect from the passage of this bill what the free states insist that they will lose by it — an advantage, a material advantage, and not a mere abstraction. There are men in the slaves states, as in the free states, who insist always too pertinaciously upon mere abstractions. But that is not the policy of the slave states to-day. They are in earnest in seeking for, and securing, an object, and an important one. I believe they are going to have it. I do not know how long the advantage gained will last, nor how great or comprehensive it will be. Every senator who agrees with me in opinion must feel as I do — that under such circumstances he can forego nothing that can be done decently, with due respect to difference of opinion, and consistently with the constitutional and settled rules of legislation, to place the true merits of the question before the country. Questions sometimes occur which seem to have two right sides. Such were the questions that divided the English nation between Pitt and Fox — such the contest between the assailant and the defender of Quebec. The judgment of the world was suspended by its sympathies, and seemed ready to descend in favor of him who should be most gallant in conduct. And so, when both fell with equal chivalry on the same field, the survivors united in raising a common monument to the glorious but rival memories of Wolfe and Montcalm. But this contest involves a moral question. The slave states so present it. They maintain that African slavery is not erroneous, not unjust, not inconsistent with the advancing cause of human nature. Since they so regard it, I do not expect to see statesmen representing those states indifferent about a vindication of this system by the congress of the United States. On the other hand, we of the free states regard slavery as erroneous, unjust, oppressive, and therefore absolutely inconsistent with the principles of the American constitution and government. Who will expect us to be indifferent to the decisions of the American people and of mankind on such an issue?
Again: there is suspended on the issue of this contest the political equilibrium between the free and the slave states. It is no ephemeral question, no idle question, whether slavery shall go on increasing its influence over the central power here, or whether freedom shall gain the ascendency. I do not expect to see statesmen of the slave states indifferent on so momentous a question, and as little can it be expected that those of the free states will betray their own great cause. And now it remains for me to declare, in view of the decision of this controversy so near at hand, that I have seen nothing and heard nothing during its progress to change the opinions which at the earliest proper period I deliberately expressed. Certainly, I have not seen the evidence then promised, that the free states would acquiesce in the measure. As certainly, too, I may say that I have not seen the fulfillment of the promise ​that the history of the last thirty years would he revised, corrected, and amended, and that it would then appear that the country, during all that period, had been resting in prosperity, and contentment, and peace, not upon a valid, constitutional, and irrevocable compromise between the slave states and the free states, but upon an unconstitutional and false, and even infamous, act of congressional usurpation.
On the contrary, I am now, if possible, more than ever satisfied that, after all this debate, the history of the country will go down to posterity just as it stood before, carrying to them the everlasting facts, that until 1820 the congress of the United States legislated to prevent the introduction of shivery into new territories whenever that object was practicable; and that in that year they so far modified that policy, under alarming apprehensions of civil convulsion, by a constitutional enactment in the character of a compact, as to admit Missouri a new slave state, but upon the express condition, stipulated in favor of the free states, that slavery should forever be prohibited in all the residue of the existing and unorganized territories of the United States lying north of the parallel 36° 30' north latitude. Certainly, I find nothing to win my favor toward the bill in the proposition of the senator from Maryland, [Mr. Pearce,] to restore the Clayton amendment, which was struck out in the house of representatives. So far from voting for that proposition, I shall vote against it now, as I did when it was under consideration here before, in accordance with the opinion adopted as early as any political opinions I ever had, and cherished as long, that the right of suffrage is not a mere conventional right, but an inherent natural right, of which no government can rightly deprive any adult man who is subject to its authority, and obligated to its support.
I hold, moreover, sir that inasmuch as every man is, by force of circumstances beyond his own control, a subject of government somewhere, he is, by the very constitution of human society, entitled to share equally in the conferring of political power on those who wield it, if he is not disqualified by crime; that in a despotic government he ought to be allowed arms, in a free government the ballot or the open vote, as a means of self-protection against unendurable oppression. I am not likely, therefore, to restore to this bill an amendment which would deprive it of an important feature imposed upon it by the house of representatives, and that one, perhaps, the only feature that harmonizes with my own convictions of justice. It is true that the house stipulates such suffrage for white men as a condition for opening the territory to the possible proscription and slavery of the African. I shall separate them. I shall vote for the former and against the latter, glad to get universal suffrage for white men, if only that can be gained now, and working right on, full of hope and confidence, for the prevention or the abrogation of slavery in the territories hereafter.
Sir, I am surprised at the pertinacity with which the honorable senator from Delaware, mine ancient and honorable friend, [Mr. Clayton,] perseveres in opposing the granting of the right of suffrage to the unnaturalized foreigner in ​the territories. Congress cannot deny him that right. Here is the third article of that convention by which Louisiana, including Kansas and Nebraska, was ceded to the United States:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess."
The inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska are citizens already, and by force of this treaty must continue to be, and as such to enjoy the right of suffrage, whatever laws you may make to the contrary. My opinions are well known, to wit: that slavery is not only an evil, but a local one, injurious and ultimately pernicious to society, wherever it exists, and in conflict with the constitutional principles of society in this country. I am not willing to extend nor to permit the extension of that local evil into regions now free within our empire. I know that there are some who differ from me, and who regard the constitution of the United States as an instrument which sanctions slavery as well as freedom. But if I could admit a proposition so incongruous with the letter and spirit of the federal constitution, and the known sentiments of its illustrious founders, and so should conclude that slavery was national, I must still cherish the opinion that it is an evil; and because it is a national one, I am the more firmly held and bound to prevent an increase of it, tending, as I think it manifestly does, to the weakening and ultimate overthrow of the constitution itself, and therefore to the injury of all mankind. I know there have been states which have endured long, and achieved much, which tolerated slavery; but that was not the slavery of caste, like African slavery. Such slavery tends to demoralize equally the subjected race and the superior one. It has been the absence of such slavery from Europe that has given her nations their superiority over other countries in that hemisphere. Slavery, wherever it exists, begets fear, and fear is the parent of weakness. What is the secret of that eternal, sleepless anxiety in the legislative halls, and even at the firesides of the slave states, always asking new stipulations, new compromises and abrogation of compromises, new assumptions of power and abnegations of power, but fear? It is the apprehension that, even if safe now, they will not always or long be secure against some invasion or some aggression from the free states. What is the secret of the humiliating part which proud old Spain is acting at this day, trembling between alarms of American intrusion into Cuba on one side, and British dictation on the other, but the fact that she has cherished slavery so long, and still cherishes it, in the last of her American colonial possessions? Thus far Kansas and Nebraska are safe, under the laws of 1820, against the introduction of this element of national debility and decline. The bill before us, as we are assured, contains a great principle, a glorious principle; and yet that principle, when fully ascertained, proves to be nothing less than the subversion of that security, not only within ​the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, hut within all the other present and future territories of the United States. Thus it it is quite clear that it U Dot a principle alone that is involved, hut that those who crowd this measure with so much zeal and earnestness must expect that either freedom or slavery shall gain something' by it in those regions. The case, then, stands thus in Kansas and Nebraska: freedom may lose, but certainly can gain nothing; while slavery may gain, but as certainly can lose nothing.
So far as I am concerned, the time for looking on the dark side has passed. I feel quite sure that slavery at most can get nothing more than Kansas; while Nebraska — the wider northern region — will, under existing circumstances, escape, for the reason that its soil and climate are uncongenial with the staples of slave culture — rice, sugar, cotton, and tobacco. Moreover, since the public attention has been so well and so effectually directed toward the subject, I cherish a hope that slavery may be prevented even from gaining a foothold in Kansas. Congress only gives consent, but it does not and cannot introduce slavery there. Slavery will be embarrassed by its own overgrasping spirit. No one, I am sure, anticipates the possible reestablishment of the African slave-trade. The tide of emigration to Kansas is therefore to be supplied there solely by the domestic fountain of slave production. But slavery has also other regions besides Kansas to be filled from that fountain. There are all of New Mexico and all of Utah already within the United States; and then there is Cuba that consumes slave labor and life as fast as any one of the slaveholding states can supply it; and besides these regions, there remains all of Mexico down to the Isthmus. The stream of slave labor flowing from so small a fountain, and broken into several divergent channels, will not cover so great a field; and it is reasonably to be hoped that the part of it nearest to the North Pole will be the last to be inundated. But African slave emigration is to compete with free emigration of white men, and the source of this latter tide is as ample as the civilization of the two entire continents. The honorable senator from Delaware mentioned, as if it were a startling fact, that twenty thousand European immigrants arrived in New York in one month. Sir, he has stated the fact with too much moderation. On my return to the capital a day or two ago, I met twelve thousand of these emigrants who had arrived in New York on one morning, and who had thronged the churches on the following Sabbath, to return thanks for deliverence from the perils of the sea, and for their arrival in the land, not of slavery, but of liberty. I also thank God for their escape, and for their coming. They are now on their way westward, and the news of the passage of this bill preceding them, will speed many of them towards Kansas and Nebraska. Such arrivals are not extraordinary — they occur almost every week; and the immigration from Germany, from Great Britian, and from Norway, and from Sweden, during the European war, will rise to six or seven hundred thousand souls in a year. And with this tide is to be mingled one rapidly swelling from Asia and from the islands of the south seas. All the immigrants under this bill, as the house of representatives overruling you have ordered, will be good, loyal, liberty-loving, ​slavery-fearing citizens. Come on, then, gentlemen of the slave states. Since there is no escaping your challenge, I accept it in behalf of the cause or freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas, and God give the victory to the side which is stronger in numbers as it is in right.
There are, however, earnest advocates of this bill, who do not expect, and who, I suppose, do not desire that slavery shall gain possession of Nebraska. What do they expect to gain? The honorable senator from Indiana (Mr. Pettit) says that by thus obliterating the Missouri compromise restriction, they will gain a tabula rasa, on which the inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska may write whatever they will. This is the great principle of the bill, as he understands it. Well, what gain is there in that? You obliterate a constitution of freedom. If they write a new constitution of freedom, can the new be better than the old? If they write a constitution of slavery, will it not be a worse one? I ask the honorable senator that. But the honorable senator says that the people of Nebraska will have the privilege of establishing institutions for themselves. They have now the privilege of establishing free institutions. Is it a privilege, then, to establish slavery? If so, what a mockery are all our constitutions, which prevent the inhabitants from capriciously subverting free institutions and establishing institutions of slavery! Sir, it is a sophism, a subtlety, to talk of conferring upon a country, already secure in the blessings of freedom, the power of self-destruction.
What mankind everywhere want, is not the removal of the constitutions of freedom which they have, that they may make at their pleasure constitutions of slavery or freedom, but the privilege of retaining constitutions of freedom when they already have them, and the removal of constitutions of slavery when they have them, that they may establish constitutions of freedom in their place. We hold on tenaciously to all existing constitutions of freedom. Who denounces any man for diligently adhering to such constitutions? Who would dare to denounce any one for disloyalty to our existing constitutions, if they were constitutions of despotism and slavery? But it is supposed by some that this principle is less important in regard to Kansas and Nebraska than as a general one — a general principle applicable to all other present and future territories of the United States. Do honorable senators then indeed suppose they are establishing a principle at all? If so, I think they egregiously err, whether the principle is either good or bad, right or wrong. They are not establishing it, and cannot establish it in this way. You subvert one law capriciously by making another law in its place. That is all. Will your law have any more weight, authority, solemnity, or binding force on future congresses than the first had? You abrogate the law of your predecessors — others will have equal power and equal liberty to abrogate yours. You allow no barriers around the old law, to protect it from abrogation. You erect none around your new law, to stay the hand of future innovators.
On what ground do you expect the new law to stand? If you are candid, you will confess that you rest your assumptions on the ground that the free states will never agitate repeal, but always acquiesce. It may be that you ​are right. I am not going to predict the course of the free Stales. I claim no authority to speak for them, and still less to say what they will do. But I may venture to say, that if they shall not repeal this law it, will not be because they are not strong enough to do it. They have power in the house of representatives greater than that of the slave states, and, when they choose to exercise it, a power greater even here in the senate. The free States are not dull scholars, even in practical political strategy. When you shall have taught them that a compromise law establishing freedom can be abrogated, and the Union nevertheless stand, you will have let them into another secret, namely: that a law permitting or establishing slavery can be repealed, and the Union nevertheless remain firm. If you inquire why they do not stand by their rights and their interests more firmly, I will tell you to the best of my ability. It is because they are conscious of their strength, and, therefore, unsuspecting and slow to apprehend danger. The reason why you prevail in so many contests, is because you are in perpetual fear. There cannot be a convocation of abolitionists, however impracticable, in Faneuil Hall or the Tabernacle, though it consists of men and women who have separated themselves from all effective political parties, and who have renounced all political agencies, even though they resolve that they will vote for nobody, not even for themselves, to carry out their purposes, and though they practice on that resolution, but you take alarm, and your agitation renders necessary such compromises as those of 1820 and of 1850. We are young in the arts of politics; you are old. We are strong; you are weak. We are, therefore, over-confident, careless, and indifferent; you are vigilant and active. These are traits that redound to your praise. They are mentioned not in your disparagement. I say only that there may be an extent of intervention, of aggression on your side, which may induce the north, at some time, either in this or some future generation, to adopt your tactics and follow your example. Remember now, that by unanimous consent, this new law will be a repealable statute, exposed to all the chances of the Missouri compromise. It stands an infinitely worse chance of endurance than that compromise did. The Missouri compromise was a transaction which wise, learned, patriotic statesmen agreed to surround and fortify with the principles of a compact for mutual considerations, passed and executed, and therefore, although not irrepealable in fact, yet irrepealable in honor and conscience, and down at least until this very session of the congress of the United States, it has had the force and authority not merely of an act of congress, but of a covenant between the free states and slave states, scarcely less sacred than the constitution itself. Now, then, who are your contracting parties in the law establishing governments in Kansas and Nebraska, and abrogating the Missouri compromise? What are the equivalents in this law? What has the north given, and what has the south got back, that makes this a contract? Who pretends that it is anything more than an ordinary act of ordinary legislation? If, then, a law which has all the forms and solemnities recognized by common consent as a compact, and is covered with traditions, cannot stand amid this ​shuffling of the balance between the free states and the slave states, tell me what chances this new law that you are passing will have? You are, moreover, setting a precedent which abrogates all compromises. Four years ago you obtained the consent of a portion of the free tates—enough to render the effort at immediate repeal or resistance alike impossible—to what we regard as an unconstitutional act for the surrender of fugitive slaves. That was declared by the common consent of the persons acting in the name of the two parties, the slave states and the free states in congress, an irrepealable law—not even to be questioned, although it violated the constitution. In establishing this new principle, you expose that law also to the chances of repeal. You not only so expose the fugitive slave law, but there is no solemnity about the articles for the annexation of Texas to the United states, which does not hang about the Missouri compromise, and when you have shown that the Missouri compromise can be repealed, then the articles for the annexation of Texas are subject to the will and pleasure and the caprice of a temporary majority in congress. Do you, then, expect that the free states are to observe compacts, and you to be at liberty to break them; that they are to submit to laws and leave them on the statute-book, however unconstitutional and however grievous, and that you are to rest under no such obligation? I think it is not a reasonable expectation. Say, then, who from the north will be bound to admit Kansas, when Kansas shall come in here, if she shall come as a slave state? The honorable senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs)—and I know he is as sincere as he is ardent—says if he shall be here when Kansas comes as a free state, he will vote for her admission. I doubt not that he would; but he will not be here, for the very reason, if there be no other, that he would vote that way. When Oregon or Minnesota shall come here for admission—within one year, or two years, or three years from this time—we shall then see what your new principle is worth in its obligation upon the slaveholding stages. No; you establish no principle, you only abrogate a principle which was established for your own security as well as ours; and while you think you are abnegating and resigning all power and all authority on this subject into the hands of the people of the territories, you are only getting over a difficulty in settling this question in the organization of two new territories, by postponing it till they come here to be admitted as states, slave or free. Sir, in saying that your new principle will not be established by this bill, I reason from obvious, clear, well-settled principles of human nature. Slavery and freedom are antagonistical elements of this country. The founders of the constitution framed it with a knowledge of that antagonism, and suffered it to continue, that it might work out its own ends. There is a commercial antagonism, an irreconcilable one, between the systems of free labor and slave labor. They have been at war with each other ever since the government was established, and that war is to continue forever. The contest, when it ripens between these two antagonistic elements, is to be settled somewhere; it is to be settled in the seat of central power, in the federal legislature The ​constitution makes it the duty of the central government to determine questions, as often as they shall arise, in favor of one or the other party, and refers the decision of them to the majority of the votes in the two house-of congress. It will come back here, then, in spite of all the efforts to escape from it.
This antagonism must end either in a separation of the antagonistic parties— the slaveholding states and the free states—or, secondly, in the complete establishment of the influence of the slave power over the free—or else, on the other hand, in the establishment of the superior influence of freedom over the interests of slavery. It will not be terminated by a voluntary secession of either party. Commercial interests bind the slave states and the free states together in links of gold that are riveted with iron, and they cannot be broken by passion or by ambition. Either party will submit to the ascendency of the other, rather than yield the commercial advantages of this Union. Political ties bind the Union together—a common necessity, and not merely a common necessity, but the common interests of empire—of such empire as the world has never before seen. The control of the national power is the control of the great western continent; and the control of this continent is to be, in a very few years, the controlling influence in the world. Who is there north, that hates slavery so much, or who south, that hates emancipation so intensely, that he can attempt, with any hope of success, to break a Union thus forged and welded together? I have always heard, with equal pity and disgust, threats of disunion in the free states, and similar threats in the slaveholding states. I know that men may rave in the heat of passion, and under great political excitement; but I know that when it comes to a question whether this Union shall stand, either with freedom or with slavery, the masses will uphold it, and it will stand until some inherent vice in its constitution, not yet disclosed, shall cause its dissolution. Now, entertaining these opinions, there are for me only two alternatives, viz: either to let slavery gain unlimited sway, or so to exert what little power a ad influence I may have, as to secure, if I can, the ultimate predominance of freedom.
In doing this, I do no more than those who believe the slave power is rightest, wisest, and best, are doing, and will continue to do, with my free consent, to establish its complete supremacy. If they shall succeed, I still shall be, as I have been, a loyal citizen. If we succeed, I know they will be loyal also, because it will be safest, wisest, and best for them to be so. The question is one, not of a day, or of a year, but of many years, and, for aught I know, many generations. Like all other great political questions, it will be attended sometimes by excitement, sometimes by passion, and sometimes, perhaps, even by faction; but it is sure to be settled in a constitutional way, without any violent shock to society, or to any of its great interests. It is, moreover, sure to be settled rightly; because it will be settled under the benign influences of republicanism and Christianity, according to the principles of truth and justice, as ascertained by human reason. In pursuing such a course, it seems to me obviously as wise as it is necessary to save all existing laws and constitutions which are conservative of freedom, and to permit, as far as possible, the establishment ​of no new ones in favor of slavery; and thus to turn away the thoughts of the states which tolerate slavery, from political efforts to perpetuate what in its nature cannot be perpetual, to the more wise and benign policy of emancipation.
This, in my humble judgment, is the simple, easy path of duty for the American statesman. I will not contemplate that other alternative—the greater ascendency of the slave power. I believe that if it shall ever come, the voice of freedom will cease to be heard in these halls, whatever may be the evils and dangers which slavery shall produce. I say this without disrespect for representatives of slave states, and I say it because the rights of petition and of debate on that are effectually suppressed—necessarily suppressed—in all the slave states, and because they are not always held in reverence, even now, in the two houses of congress. When freedom of speech on a subject of such vital interest shall have ceased to exist in congress, then I shall expect to see slavery not only luxuriating in all new territories, but stealthily creeping even into the free states themselves-Believing this, and believing, also, that complete responsibility of the government to the people is essential to public and private safety, and that decline and ruin are sure to follow always in the train of slavery, I am sure that this will be no longer a land of freedom and constitutional liberty when slavery shall have thus become paramount.
Sir, I have always said that I should not despond, even if this fearful measure should be effected; nor do I now despond. Although, reasoning from my present convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise of 1820, I have labored, in the very spirit of those who established it, to save the landmark of freedom which it assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I opposed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I have always preferred the compromises of the contitution, and have wanted no others. I feared all others. This was a leading principle of the great statesman of the south, (Mr. Calhoun). Said he:
"I see my way in the constitution; I cannot in a compromise. A compromise is but an act of congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the constitution is stable. It is a rock on which we can stand, and on which we can meet our friends from the non-slaveholding states. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in opposition to fanaticism than on the shifting sands of compromise. Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the constitution."
I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending freedom upon it as Mr. Calhoun did in defending slavery. I was overruled then, and I have waited since without proposing to abrogate any compromises.
It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now; but the proposition has come from another quarter—from an adverse one. It is about to prevail. The shifting sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, and they are now, without agency of ray own, taking hold again on the rock of the constitution. It shall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm. This seems to me auspicious of better days and wiser legislation. Through all the ​darkness and gloom of the present hour, bright stars are breaking, that inspire me with hope, and excite me to perseverance. They show that the day of compromises has past forever, and that henceforward all great questions between freedom and slavery legitimately coming here—and none other ean come—shall be decided, as they ought to be, upon their merits, by a fair exercise of legislative power, and not by bargains of equivocal prudence, if not of doubtful morality.
The house of representatives has, and it always will have, an increasing majority of members from the free states. On this occasion, that house has not been altogether faithless to the interests of the free states; for, although it has taken away the charter of freedom from Kansas and Nebraska, it has, at the same time, told this proud body, in language which compels acquiescence, that in submitting the question of its restoration, it would submit it not merely to interested citizens, but to the alien inhabitants of the territories also. So the great interests of humanity are, after all, thanks to the house of representatives, and thanks to God, submitted to the voice of human nature.
Sir, I see one more sign of hope. The great support of slavery in the south has been its alliance with the democratic party of the north. By means of that alliance, it obtained paramount influence in this government about the year 1800, which from that time to this, with but few and slight interruptions, it has maintained. While democracy in the north has thus been supporting slavery in the south, the people of the north have been learning more profoundly the principles of republicanism and of free government. It is an extraordinary circumstance, which you, sir, the present occupant of the chair, (Mr. Stuart,) I am sure will not gainsay, that at this moment, when there seems to be a more complete divergence of the federal government in favor of slavery than ever before, the sentiment of universal liberty is stronger in all free states than it ever was before. With that principle, the present democratic party must now come into a closer contest. Their prestige of democracy is fast waning, by reason of the hard service which their alliance with their slaveholding brethren has imposed upon them. That party perseveres, as indeed it must, by reason of its very constitution, in that service, and thus comes into closer conflict with elements of true democracy, and for that reason is destined to lose, and is fast losing, the power which it has held so firmly and long. That power will not be restored until the principle established here now shall be reversed, and a constitution shall be given, not only to Kansas and Nebraska, but also to every other national territory, which will be not a tabula rasa, but a constitution securing equal, universal, and perpetual freedom.
Mr. Douglas closed the debate; the vote was taken, and the bill passed; yeas 31, nays 14.
In the house, a bill had been reported on the 31st of January, by Richardson, of Illinois, for which, on the 8th of May, he offered as a substitute the senate bill, leaving out Clayton's amendment. On the 22d the substitute was adopted, and finally passed by a vote of 113 yeas to 100 nays, as follows: ​
| Representatives from free states in favor of the bill | 44 | |
| Representatives from slave states in favor of the bill | 69 | |
| | —— | 113 |
| Representatives from free states against the bill | 91 | |
| Representatives from slave states against the bill | 9 | |
| | —— | 100 |
The bill was sent to the senate, passed, and being approved by the president, became a law, under the title of "An act to organize the territories of Kansas and Nebraska."
COPY OF THE ACT.
Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit: beginning at a point in the Missouri river where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the east boundary of the territory of Utah on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence on said summit northward to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota; thence southward on said boundary to the Missouri river; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby created into a temporary government by the name of the territory of Nebraska; and when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission; provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said territory into two or more territories, in such manner and at such times as congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said territory to any other state or territory of the United States: provided further, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the territory of Nebraska, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the president of the United States to be included within the said territory of Nebraska, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulations respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.
Sec. 2. That the executive power and authority in and over said territory of Nebraska shall be vested in a governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the president of the United States. The governor shall reside ​within said territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offenses against the laws of said territory, and reprieves for offenses against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the president can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Sec. 3. That there shall be a secretary of said territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the president of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the legislative assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the governor in his executive dapartment; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the legislative assembly, within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually on the first days of January and July in each year, to the president of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the president of the senate and to the speaker of the house of representatives, to be deposited in the libraries of congress; and, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the governor from the territory, the secretary shall be, and he is hereby authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy.
Sec. 4. That the legislative power and authority of said territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assembly shall consist of a council and house of representatives. The council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The house of representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of representatives may be increased by the legislative assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters; provided, that the whole number shall never exceed thirty-nine; an apportionment shall be made as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the council and representatives, giving to each section of the territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the council and of the house of representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties, for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the governor shall cause a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the governor shall designate and appoint; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such times, and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall superintend such election, and the returns thereof, as the ​governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the council and house of representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said council districts for members of the council, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected to the council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the house of representatives, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected members of said house; provided, that in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the legislative assembly, the governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the legislative assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the council and house of representatives, according to the number of qualified voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the legislative assembly; provided, that no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days.
Sec. 5. That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the legislative assembly; provided, that the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: and provided further, that no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said territory, by reason of being on service therein.
Sec. 6. That the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the council and house of representatives of the said territory, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the governor of the territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be ​reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yens and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Sec. 7. That all township, district, and county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the governor and legislative assembly of the territory of Nebraska. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first sesssion of the legislative assembly; and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the council and house of representatives, and all other officers.
Sec. 8. That no member of the legislative assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased, while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first legislative assembly; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the legislative assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said territory.
Sec. 9. That the judicial power of said territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The supreme court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified. The said territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the supreme court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the district which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law; provided, that justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each district court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final decision of said district courts to the supreme court, ​under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the supreme court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The supreme court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decision of said supreme court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the supreme court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the supreme court of the United States, from the decisions of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions of the "act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12th, 1193, and the "act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act," approved September 18th, 1850; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the said territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the-same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial oi causes arising under the said constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall be made to the supreme court of said territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the district courts of Utah territory now receive for similar services.
Sec. 10. That the provisions of an act entitled "an act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12th, 1793, and the provisions of the?ct entitled "an act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act," approved September 18th, 1850, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to, and be in full force within, the limits of said territory of Nebraska.
Sec. 11. That there shall be appointed an attorney for said territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the president, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the attorney of the United States for the present territory of Utah. There shall also be a marshal for the territory appointed, ​who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall he appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the president, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts when exercising their jurisdiction as circuit and district courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees as the marshal of the district court of the United States for the present territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.
Sec. 12. That the governor, secretary, chief justice, and associate justices, attorney and marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The governor and secretary to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation by the laws now in force therein, or before the chief justice or some associate justice of the supreme court of the United States, to support the constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said secretary among the executive proceedings; and the chief justice and associate justices, and all other civil officers in said territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said governor or secretary, or some judge or justice of the peace of the territory who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and afterwards the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The chief justice and associate justices shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The secretary shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the treasury of the United States; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the legislative assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles' travel in going to, and returning from, the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually traveled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a sergeant-at-arms, and door-keeper may be chosen for each house; and the chief clerk shall receive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the legislative assembly; but no other officer shall be paid by the United States; provided, that there shall be but one session of the legislature annually, unless, on an extraordinary occasion, the governor shall think proper to call the legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be ​expended by the governor to defray the contingent expenses of the territory including the salary of a clerk of the executive department; and there shall also be appropriated annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the secretary of the territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the secretary of the treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the legislative assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the governor and secretary of the territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the secretary of the treasury of the United States, and shall, semi-annually, account to the said secretary for the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall be made by said legislative assembly for objects not specially authorized by the acts of congress making the appropriations, nor beyond the sum thus appropriated for such objects.
Sec. 13. That the legislative assembly of the territory of Nebraska shall hold its first session at such time and place in said territory as the governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the governor and legislative assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, however, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by the said governor and legislative assembly.
Sec. 14. That a delegate to the house of representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the legislative assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other territories of the United States to the said house of representatives; but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the congress to which he shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the constitution and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6th, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which ​may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery.
Sec. 15. That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the territorial governments, a sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said governor of the territory of Nebraska, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar objects, for the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the governor, legislative assembly, judges of the supreme court, secretary, marshal, and attorney of said territory, and such other persons, and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law.
Sec. 16. That when the lands in the said territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six, in each town ship in said territory, shall be, and the same are herby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said territory, and in the states and territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.
Sec. 17. That, until otherwise provided by law, the governor of said territory may define the judicial districts of said territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said territory to the several districts; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judicial districts by proclamation, to be issued by him; but the legislative assembly, at their first, or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient.
Sec. 18. That all officers to be appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, for the territory of Nebraska, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now existing, or which may be enacted during the present congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursements, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe.
Sec. 19. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit: beginning at a point on the western boundary of the state of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the east boundary of the territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the state of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said state to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the territory of Kansas j and when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or ​any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission; provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said territory into two or more territories, in such manner and at such times as congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said territory to any other state or territory of the United States; provided further, that nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to impair the rights of persons or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the territory of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the president of the United States to be included within the said territory of Kansas, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.
[The next seventeen sections substantially repeat the foregoing, save that their provisions apply to Kansas instead of Nebraska. The final section refers to both territories, as follows:]
Sec. 37. And be it further enacted, that all treaties, laws, and other engagements made by the government of the United States with the Indian tribes inhabiting the territories embraced within this act, shall be faithfully and rigidly observed, notwithstanding anything contained in this act; and that the existing agencies and superintendencies of said Indians be continued with the same powers and duties which are now prescribed by law, except that the President of the United States may, at his discretion, change the location of the office of superintendent.