Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31
KANSAS AND NrBRAsKA.

The debate on the Kansas and Nebraska
bill was opened in the Senate yesterday by
Judge Douglas, in mastery speech, which
we lay before our readers this morning, and
to which we invite their close attention, DIS
well for the eminent ability it displays as for
the vast Importance of the subject of which it
treats.
Foreseeing the great Importance Of the bill
for the organization Of the territory included
within the limits Of Nebraska, we have kept
our readers informed of all the movements in
that behalf which have been made in the Sem
ate, and we have freely and frankly stated our
views as to the policy which Congress ought to
pursue in the premises.
We believed that it was the intent and pur-
pose Of the first substitute, proposed by Judge
Douglas for the original bill offered by Mr..
Dodge, Of Iowa, to give Nebraska territorial
government which would not be contaminated
by the obnoxious features of the Missouri com.
promise But we saw that there was room for
grave doubts as to the legal continuance Of
that compromise while Nebraska remained in
territorial condition, notwithstanding the ad.
verse and hostile principles Of the compromise
of 1850, to which tho democratic party was
fully committed, as o complete and permanent
settlement Of the slavery question. We there
fore urged that all doubts should be removed,
and future difficulty and strife avoided,
by plain, direct, and unequivocal legislation.
The necessity of such legislation was soon
rendered plain and unqucstionable, by the posi-
ton which the leading frcesoil journals as
sumed, when they insisted that the Wilmot pro-
viso restriction of the Missouri compromise
would remain in full force and virtue until Ne
braska should be admitted as State, and by
the declaration ofthe Washington Union, which
is accustomed to speak as if it spoke by au-
thority, when it said that Judge Douglass sub
stitute to Mr.. Dodge's bill left the territory of
Nebraska untouched during its territorial con-
dition and until State government should be
formed. The Washington Union also denounced
Mr.. Dixon, of Kentucky, because he proposed
direct repeal Of the Missouri compromise, and
it endeavored to protect the position of the free
soil press by turning up the whites of its eyes
whilst it deprecated the agitation which such
an attempt to repeal tho Wilmot proviso provi-
sion Of the Missouri compromise would occa-
sion.
Why and wherefore should an effort to annul
the anti-slavery restriction of 1920 produce
agitation? Because the freesoilers and aboli.
tionists would resist it. That is the reason,
and tho only reason. Why did the Washington
Union seek to place the responsibility Of agita-
ton upon those who institute proper legislation,
| rather than upon those misguided and dis
honest men who stir up and foment opposition
to such legislation7 This question is not one
of difficult solution. The Union was at sea
without chart or compass, because it looked
only to policy as its polar star to direct its
course. Having entangled itself with New
York freesoilism, its ideas Of policy taught il to
protect as Ear as il could, its freesol confreres
from detention and exposure. But one Satur-
day, Just nine days ago, it ascertained one Of
two things; perhaps it ascertained both Of
them. II ascertained that the President would