Washington sentinel., 1854-05-02
Washingtun gsntinsl.
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
SPEECH OF HON. r. PHILLIPS.

OF ALABAMA,
In the House Of Representatives, 4prt "a, 1894
Mr.. PHILLIPS rose and said:
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: We are now called upon, IN
the exercise of our Legislative function, to dis
charge the high duty of organizing govern
ment for a vast extent of territory, the seat oi
future States and empires. Many of us would
willingly postpone, if it were practicable, this
important duty but we are admonished by
events rapidly transpiring around us, as well
as by the vote of the last session, that this is a
foregone conclusion. Let US, therefore, boldly
proceed to fulfil our obligation, and prepare
for the accommodation and protection of that
swelling and resistless tide Of population, which
has been forcibiy described by DE Tocqueville
as the progress of deuge of men, driven
forward by the hand of God"
The bill which is now before us, for the gov
ernment of Nebraska and Kansas, is violently
assailed by many who admit the correctness of
the great principle upon which it is founded,
and yet oppose it as repeal the act of 1870.
Now, sir if that act has no'caim to our con-
sideration beyond its intrinsic merits, it would
be very illogical to say that the wrong of our
predecessors should be bar to rightful action
on our part.
But it is solemnly urged that the act is
something more than one of ordinary legisla-
tion; that in truth, it is the evidence of a
compact or compromise, entered into at that
period between the two great sections Of the
confederacy, intended to be perpetual in its OBJ
legation, and, though not legally binding, would
involve in its non-observance breach of faith.
1t is, then, of the greatest Importance to as
certain the truth Of this allegation; for what
ever may be the merit of the measure before
us, it could not receive the support of honora
bic men if productive of such consequences.
For this purpose, sir, have examined, with
much care, the journals Of the two houses of
Congress for the sessions of 1920 and 1921.
Here, sir, they are. The truth of the PROPOSE
ton is to be tried, not by hearsay, not by the
uncertain memory, but by these solemn re.
cords, faithful chronicles of the past, and un-
erring guides Of the future.
sIn this investigation do not mean 10 rely
upon any technical argument as to the legal
requisites of compact, but intend to pursue
the examination in the most liberal spirit for,
sir, say in advance, and say it boldly, that,
so far from these journals showing that com
pact or agreement, such as is now asserted,
was entered into by the representatives of the
several non-s -slaveholding States with the repre-
sentatives of the several slaveholding States,
there is not page in them, referring to the
subject, that does not absolutely disprove the
assertion.
1t is well known, sir, that the Congress of
1920 assembled under considerable excitement
in reference to the admission Of Missouri into
the Union. Primary assemblies of the north
ern people and Legislative instructions had
been resorted to for the purpose Of preparing
their representatives for the sternest resistance
on this subject. will not fatigue the ear Of
the House by recounting the proceedings which
evinced the repeatedly expressed determination
of a majority in this body against the admission
of Missouri without a constitutional provision
prohibiting slavery or involuntary seryitude
1t is sufficient for the argument to say that a
disagreement between the two houses led to a
committee of conference, and that on the I'd oi
March Mr.. Holmes, from the managers ap
pointed on the part Of the House, recommended
that the two houses agree to strike out Of the
House pill the clause which imposed the re
striction on Missouri, and to add to it re
striction upon the remainder of the territor,
north of 80 degrees 80 minutes, and west of tn.
proposed State.
Upon the question Of concurring in the frs
proposition, the vote was 80 to 81; and upoi
the second, l34 to 40; and, the title being
amended, the bill was passed. BY an analyst
Of the first vote, it will be found that not on
representative from the States of New Hamp
shire, Vermont, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois, voted in the affirmative, and tha
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ney
York, and Pennsylvania, cast, in all, but four
teen votes in its favor!
Now, l repeat, do not deal with this ques
ton according to any technical rule 9ol
may call the transaction by what name yot
please-compact contract, compromise O
agreement They all and each necessarily in
volve the idea of mutual obligation, and no oh
legation can exist without the assent of til,
parties to be bound.
BY what process of reasoning, therefore, car
we arrive at the conclusion that the six States
first named, whose representatives unanimousl,
voted against the measure, dssented to IL, o
that the other FIVE were obligated by the actor
of so inconsiderable fraction of their repre-
sentation?
1t seems to me that / would but insult the
understanding Of intelligent men to argue this
proposition further. Sir, as the non-slavehold
ing States refused their concurrence, and by
their votes sought to defeat the measure, they
we're not responsible for it, they were not NOR
ally bound by it, and could therefore, never
claim it as the basis or consideration of any
compact or agreement whatever.
But it may be said that if the non-slavehold-
ing States did not vote for the act, yet they APP
proved of it after its passage, and thus have en-
titled themselves, through the vote of their
fourteen representatives, to consider the act as
though they had originally assented to it. This
conclusion would be incorrect if the premises
were true; but the premises are false. The
passage OF the act was followed BY increased
excitement at the north, and the gallant band
OF northern representatives, who, truer to the
Constitution than the prejudices of their con-
stituents, had voted for the proposition, were
subjected to the same popular insults and ins
dignities now SO freely bestowed upon the nor
thern supporters Of the bill before us.
lhe subsequent session Of Congress affords
the fullest and most conclusive evidence that
the idea of the act Of 1920 being comnaot o.
agreement was not then entertained. On the
10th Of November, Mr.. Scott presented 10 the
House the constitution Of Missouri, formed on
the 18th July, 1920, by the convention held at
st. Louis, under the act of March, 1920, which
was referred to a committee, consisting Of
Lowpdes, Sargent, and Smith Of MARYLAND