Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-11

| Did any obieetor TO them at the north ever
even suggest, as ground of Condemnation, that
that prohibition was swept away by them? No
sir No man, north or south, during the whole
Of the discussion of those acts here, or in that
other discussion which followed their enact.
ment throughout the country, ever intimated
| any such opinion.
Now. sir, let us come to the last session OF
Congress A Nebraska ball passed the House
| and came to the Senate, and was reported from
the Committee on Territories by the Senator from
| Illinois, as its chairman. Was there any pro.
vision in it which even squnted towards this
notion of repeal by supersedure? Why, sir
| southern gentlemen opposed it upon the very
| ground that it left the territory under the opera
| ton of the Missouri prohibition. The Senator
| from Illinois made speech in defence of it.
| Did he invoke southern support upon the
ground that it superseded the Missouri prohibi-
| ton? Not Mt all. Was it opposed or vindi
Gated by anybody on any such ground? Every
senator knows the contrary. The senator
from Missouri, Mr.. ATcHIsoN,] now the presi-
dent of this body, made speech upon the bill.
in which he distinctly declared that the Mis-
souri, prohibition was not repealed, and could
not be repealed.
will send this speech to the secretary, and
ask him to read the paragraphs marked
The secretary read as tollows
Il will now state TO the Senate the views which
induced me TO oppose this proposition in the early
part ofthe session.
~ had two objections 10 il. One was that the
Indian title in that territory had not been extin-
guished al least, very small portion OF had
been Another the Missouri compromise,
or, as II is commonly called, the slavery restriction.
1t was my opinion al that iime-and am not now
very clear on that subJect-lhat the law of Con-
u Il
the Union, excluding slavery from the Territory OF
Louisiana north OF 800 36', would be enforced in
that territory unless II was specially rescinded;
and, whether that law was in accordance with the
Constitution of the United States not, il would
do It's work, and that work would be 10 preclude
shareholders from going into that territory. But
when came TO look into that question, found
that there was no prospect, no hope of repeal OF
the Missouri compromise excluding slavery from
that territory. Now, sir, am free TO admit, that
this hour, and for all time come, should OPP
pose the organization or the settlement Of that
territory unless my constituents and the consltu-
ents OF the whole south-ofthe slave States Of the
Union-could go into il upon the same footing,
with equal rights and equal privileges. carrying
that species OF property with them other people
of this Union. Yes, sir, acknowledge that that
would have governed me, but have no hopes
that the restriction will ever be repealed.
al have always been of opinion that The first
great error committed in the political history of
this country was the ordinance of 17S7, rendering
the Northwest Territory free territory. The next
great error was the Missouri compromise. But
they are both rremediable. There is no remedy
for them. We must submit 10 them. | am pre-
pared TO do it. II is evident that the Missouri
compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that
question is concerned we might well agree 10
the admission of this Territory now next year,
five or ten years hence."-Congr essionai Globe,
Second Session 32d Congress, roL 26, page lll3.
That, sir, is the speech of the senator from
Missouri, Mr.. ATcHIsoS,] whose authority l
think must 60 for something upon this ques-
ton. What does he say? "When / came to
look into that question" possible repeal
of the Missouri prohibition; that was the
question he was looking into" found that
there was no prospect, no hope of the repeal of
the Missouri compromise excluding slavery
from that Territory" And yet, sir, at that
of the senator from Illinois, it had been re-
pealed three years
Well, the senator from Missouri said fur
Their, that, if he thought it possible to oppose
this restriction successfully, he never would
consent to the organization of the Territory
until it was rescinded. "But," said he, :" l &C.
knowledge that have no hope that the restric-
ton will ever be repealed" Then he made
some complaint, as other southern gentlemen
have frequently done, of the ordinance of 49,
and the Missouri prohibition, but went on t.
say, " they are both irremediable; there is M
remedy for them; we must submit to them
am prepared to do it; it is evident that tn,
the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed
Now, sir, when was this said? 1t was OF
the morning of the 4th March, Just before the
close of the last session, when that Nebrask,
bill, reported by the senator from Illinois, which
proposed no repeal and suggested no superse
dure was under discussion think, sir, thai
all this shows pretty clearly that up to the very
close of the last session of Congress nobod,
had ever thought Of repeal by supersedure
Then what took place at the commencement o
the present session? The senator from Iowa
early in December, introduced bill for the or
ganization of the Territory of Nebraska. be
lieve it was the same bill which was under dis
J cussion here at the last session, line for line
and word for word. fl am wrong, the senate
will correct me.
: Did the senator from Iowa then entertain
the idea that the Missouri prohibition had beel
superseded? No, sir, neither he nor any othe
man here, SO far as could be judged from an
discussion, or statement, or remark, had re
ceived this notion.
Well, on the 4th day of January the Com
lnlllee on IerrllOrleS, through their chairman
the senator from Illinois, made report on tn
territorial organization of Nebraska and tina
report was accompanied by a bill. Now, 81,
: on that 4th day Of January, just thirty day
ago, did the Committee on Territories entertai
the opinion that the compromise acts Of 1876
superseded the Missouri prohibition? If the
did, they were very careful to keep it to then
selves. We will Judge the committee by thei
own report What do they say in that? ]
the first place, they describe the character
the controversy in respect to the Territories az
quired from Mexico. They say that some BIZ
lieved that Mexican law prohibiting SLAYER
was in force there, while others claimed tina
the Mexican law became imperative at the me
ment of acquisition, and that Shareholders coul
take their slaves into the territory, and hol
them there under the provisions of the Const
tuition. The territorial compromise acts, a
the committee tell us, steered clear of thes
questions. They simply provided that tn
States organized out of these Territories Nigh
come in with or without slavery, as they shout,
elect but did not affect the question whethe
slaves could or could not be introduced befor
the organization of STATE governments Tha
| mn lact L.