Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-04
CONGRESS-.
IRrY-rHrRD cosearss--rIRsr SESSION.
Senate, Saturdav, Fsb,,larv 4. 1884

Senate, Saturday, Fsb,uary4, 1854
Mr.. Fish presented the resolutions adopted
Mt large meeting OF the citizens of New York,
demonstrating against the adoption Of any
measure to repeal the Missouri Compromise
He asked that the resolutions be read
Mr.. Douglas said that every Senator had
already read these resolutions. To read every
memorial or paper presented to the Senate, at
length, would consume the whole time of the
Senate. Ii was against the usual practice Of
the Senate.
The Chair Does the Senator object to the
reading?
Mr. Douglas do.
Mr. Fish. move, then, that the resolutions
be read.
Mr.. Seward | ask the yeas and nays on
the motion.
\ The yeas and nays were refused, and then
the motion to read was rejected.
Mr.. Summer presented the memorial Of
three hundred tax payers of Weymouth, New
Hampshire, demonstrating against the repeal
Of the Missouri Compromise,
Mr.. Brodhead presented several memorials
Of a similar character from different parts Of
Pennsylvania; all Of which were laid on the
table.
Several petitions OF a private character were
presented and referred
The Senate then resumed the consideration
of the bill to establish q Territorial Govern
ment for Nebraska
Mr.. Dixon said that the first bill reported by
the Committee on Territories provided that the
people Of the Territories should be free to
adopt or prohibit Slavery in their Constitutions
when they should apply for admission into the
Union But that bill did not put the people of
the United States on an equal footing as to the
right to remove to and take their property into
these Territories. 1t excluded the people Of
the Southern States from going there with their
property, until such time as the people residing
in the Territories should by their Constitutions
allow it. This was unjust. 1t left the deci-
sion Of this question entirely with those who
we're not shareholders and excluded all who
would have an interest in Che adoption Of
Slavery
This being the case, he had proposed an
amendment repeating the prohibition of the
Missouri act and leaving the people Of the
Southern States free to carry their property in
to the Territories. This amendment had been
since adopted by the committee in their new
bill. That committee had not adopted It from
any sinister motive, but with the view Of dis
charging their whole duty in perfecting their
bill. The committee proposed to put the peo-
Missouri Compromise had made m unjust dis
elimination against the people and property Of
the Southern States
The committee were not Shareholders The
proposition came from those who acted upon
high principles Of equal right and justice to
ALL They had also recommended the repeal
of the Missouri prohibition because it was in
consistent with the principles Of the great
Compromise of 1880 The vast majority of
the people of the United States were well salts
fed that the Missouri prohibition was entirely
inconsistent with the principles Of the acts Of
1885, and ought to be repealed
He examined the prohibition of Slavery north
Of SO deg. 80 min. in the Texas resolutions,
and held it to be utterly void. 1t was q direct
deprivation Of State rights It was principle
that States had neither the power to adopt or
abolish Slavery; right that had been exer-
csed by every State. He held that the Consti-
tuition did recognise property, and secure it
and any prohibition Of the property Of any
man from the Territory was void and unjust