Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-02-23

the nascent condition of the country. A
stipulation might be provided that when the
population reached 5000 the oher form OF
government could be established. He adj
mitted that emigration was expected TO flow
rapidly into the country; but still he thought
it premature give this floating and unset
tied population government of the first or
der. All this, however, was question Of
time. 1t was known that, by the unpOral.
lelled emigration from Europe, amounting
to 100000 annually, mostly adults, and the
natural emigration from the old States west
ward, this difficulty would soon be over
come. The wilderness of oday would be-
come the settlement of tomorrow. Know
ing II to be question Of time, he did not
know that that alone would prevent his vo-
ting for the bill.
The relations OF this government towards
the Indians was question Of greater diff
Guilty. A great belt of this territory was
exclusively occupied by Indians, many Of
whom had been removed thilher from their
former possessions, and some of whom had
been placed there by a second removal. 1t
was well known TO have been the policy of
Jackson's administration to remove the In
dians west of the Mississippi. A cardinal
point of that policy, was that they should
there have permanent home. In nego-
gotiating with the Indians for their removal,
it was represented 10 them that there they
should have home forever, so long as the
tribes existed. He was at that time in the
House, and resisted that policy, but his re-
sistance was unsuccessful. 1t was carried
out, and in his farewell address, Jacks
congratulated the country on It's successful
accomplishment. The permanency OF this
home, was, therefore, stipulation with the
Indians. He knew, however, that since
then great changes had taken place, and
events happened on the Pacific which could
not have been toreseen. A new State had
been created beyond the Indian country
communication with it was necessary, and
he had no expectation THAI under the circum-
stances, this Indian barrier could be pre-
served intact. If, however, it was to be
broken, under the Objectionable plea of
necessity, he hoped The Government of the
United States would treat the Indians with
more than justice-mOre than equity. How
could he say whether this bill did this or
not? He wanted information upon those
points, and he hoped some Senator, familiar
with the facts would furnish information
before the debate was closed Unless the
difficulties respecting the Indians were re-
moved, he would be compelled to withhold
his support from any territorial bill for Ne
braska or Kansas.
With respect TO the other provisions of
the bill he had also objections, but he thought
he might have supported the bill which
passed the House last session, if the rights
Of the Indians were properly secured. The
bill as it stood, excepted from the laws to
be in force in these territories, the Sth sec
ton of the Missouri act, which was said to
have been superseded by the compromise
acts Of 1850, and is, therefore, declared in
operative. The amendment now proposed
by the Senator from Illinois is to change
these words, and insert that the Missouri
act being Inconsistent with the Legislation Of
1850, is declared imperative and void. Hl
said there is no change but in the phrase.
Aogy. The effect and meaning of both wa:
the same. The reason for this proposition
was stated in the committees report, where
in it was sand that the acts of 1850 were no
confined merely to Mexican Territory, bu
were designed to establish certain principle,
for all time 10 come-to withdraw the slave
ry agitation from Congress by giving 10 thu
people of the territories, full power owe
the subject. The language of both the bill
and amendment was indirect. What is I'll,
condition of an enactment declared by al
act of Congress to be imperative and void
1t does not remain in force. 1t is void anC
imperative. If void and imperative, ant
not in force, it is repealed II it be repeal
ed, why not say so? 1t would be far NOR,
direct and parliamentary to say, in so many
words, that the Missouri act "be and tn,
same is hereby repealed"
The substance Of the provision was more
Objectionable than its phraseology. He dlc
not quite understand these words, ''incon
sistent with the principles of the Legislation
of 1850" He took it for granted that th'
Legislation of 1850 meant the New Meric,
and Utah acts. These acts, he did no
think, established any principle applicabl,
to any other territory. Those bills wer'
measured and enacted for the territories
therein named and described, and the boun
J,,;.g of ,,,bioh ,uara Spacifnolly laid Inun