Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-05-11
House of Representatives.
NEBRAsKA-KANsAs BILL.

MIR. RICHARDSON said he rose to move that
the House resolve itself into Committee Of the
Whole on the state of the Union, but, before do
ing so, he desired to notify the House of his in
tention, Tomorrow morning, to introduce reso-
luton terminating the debate on the bill to organ
| ize the Territories Of Nebraska and Kansas.
Cries of "when2" "at what tmeg'] He had to
state that the time at which he would terminate
the debate would depend on the opponents of the
bill Ii they should show disposition to go on
and debate, he should be disposed 10 give the ut
most time before the special order takes prece-
dence, the Pacific railroad bill, on Monday next.)
Ifnot, he should act accordingly.
Mr.. CAMPBELL Mr.. RICHARDSON yielding the
foor) asked, what does the gentleman mean by
that Does he expect US 10 continue here for ten
or twelve hours?
Mr.. RICHARDSON moved that the House re-
solve itself into Committee Of the Whole on the
state of the Union.
Mr.. CAMPBELL expressed the hope that, as
the gentleman from Illinois had been permitted to
make statement, he would be INDUCED in pro-
pounding an enquiry.
The SPEAKER asked: Is it the pleasure of the
House 10 hear the gentleman
Objections were made.
The House then resolved itself into Commit
tee of the Whole on the State Of the Union, Mr..
OLps in the chair, and resumed the consideration
OF tie bill TO organize the territorial governments
of Nebraska and Kansas.
Mr.. BAYLf, of Virginia, said there were three
distinct propositions, material ones, which. il
struck his mind are involved in this discussion.
The first is, are the principles Of the compromise
OF 1850, in respect TO the Territories, the princi-
pies of American liberty, and are they repugnant
TO the Missouri compromise Secondly. If so,
ought not Congress, with view Of disembarrass-
ing the court to its Intention so to declare?
And, thirdly. Is the principle of nonntervention
by Congress, with regard TO slavery in the Terri
tories, embodied by the act Of 1850, violated by
ha adoor panIt art
To make himself properly understood, and 10
present the subject fairly to the committee, il
necessary that he should review the relation
which this government has borne 10 the question
OF slavery from the time the States first came to-
gether He alluded TO the history Of the forma-
lion of the Constitution, and 10 subsequent great
political events, for the purpose of showing that
the question Of non-intervention had never been
departed from until the celebrated Missouri con-
troversy. Gentlemen were in error who had said
of 1850, nobody maintained that it abrogated me
Missouri compromise. He had here, and else
where, in presenting this question, proclaimed
what the south had gained by the act Of 1850,
namely, the abrogation of the Missouri compro-
mise, and the establishment of better and truer
princple--that of non-intervention.
In the course of his remarks he alluded TO the
history Of the inception of the compromise mea-
sures of 1850, and was replying 10 Mr.. MILLsoN,
his colleague, when the hour TO which he was
limited in debate expired.
Mr.. GROW SAID this bill proposed to organize
governments for Nebraska and Kansas, embra.
cling territory embracing six hundred and sixty
FIVE thousand square miles, an area twice as large,
as that ofthe original thirteen colonies, extending
from New Mexico to the British possessions, and
from the western limits OF Minnesota and the
States TO the Territories of Washington and Ore
gon. The Territories contain four hundred and
twenty-five millions of acres, more than one-fourth
Of all the public lands owned by the government
The bill before the committee contained principles
like those in similar territorial bills and proposed
TO repeal the Missouri compromise.
The Clayton amendment he condemned, be.
cause il restricts the elective franchise TO citizens
alone. This exclusion was not only unjust, but
inconsistent with the principles Of the bill adj
vocated by its especial friends. He saw reason
for the organization of those governments One
would be enough, embracing one-inh of the en-
tire area but he would object TO one, il in or
ganizing il the Missouri compromise was TO be
repealed We came here, not expecting the slave
ry question 10 be agitated, but was disappointed.
The best way 10 have peace is not TO talk about
The subject.
He argued, at length, in support the manen-
ancc Of the Missouri compromise, saying IL il