Washington sentinel., 1854-02-09
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

i ofthe additional returns Of the militia of the United
| States.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
Mr.. BRODHEAD presented the memorial of
| the committee of the religious society of Friends
of New Jersey Pennsylvania and Delaware ex-
pressing their opposition to the institution of do
i mestlc slavery, and demonstrating against the re-
peal OF the Missouri compromise Mr. b. said
that these memoriaists entertained an opposition
TO slavery arising from religious considerations.
They were not political abotionsts and, while he
| differed from them as TO the constitutional power
Of Congress over the subject, he still respected
/ their motives.
/ He also presented six other memorials from cit-
zens Of Pennsylvania, against the repeal of the
Missouri compromise; all of which were laid on
the table.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFAIRS.
/ Mr. PRATT presented the remonstrance Of
numerous citizens Of the District of Columbia,
against the construction of railroad along Penn
| sylvania avenue.
! Mr.. BRIGHT, from the Committee on the Dis
trict of Columbia, 10 which had been referred the
| petition for the purchase of site and the con-
| struction of new custom-house at Georgetown
asked TO be discharged from the further conside
| ration of the same.
| Mr.. PRATT, from the same committee, report
ed bill TO incorporate the National Hotel Com
pany Of Washington city.
DUTY ON IRON.
Mr.. HAMLIN presented petitions in favor of
the reduction of the duty on iron TO SIS per ton
Also petitions in favor of the reduction of the
duty on charcoal iron 10 $12 per ton.
LAND FOR RAILROADS.
The Senate, on motion by Mr.. STUART, pro-
ceeded TO the consideration Of the bill granting
land TO the State Of Michigan to aid in the con-
struction of railroad in that State; and, after
some debate, it was passed-yeas 80, nays IA.
On motion by Mr.. SLIDELL the Senate pro-
cae cd n he iinraf of he anfin
land TO the State Of Louisiana 10 aid in the con-
struction of railroad in that State from AlgA Ars.
opposite New Orleans, to the Sabine river; and
the same was passed
FRENCH sPoLIATIoNs.
On motion by Mr. HAMLIN, the Senate pro-
ceeded to the consideration Of the bill providing
for the settlement of the French spoliation claims
Mr.. DODGE, of Iowa, moved an additional
section providing for the appointment of an attor-
'ney TO represent the United States before the
board of examiners and il was agreed to.
The bill was then postponed.
NEBRAsKA--sLAvERY.
On motion OF Mr.. DOUGLAS, the Senate pro-
ceeded to the consideration of the bill to estab-
lish territorial government for Nebraska.
The last clause in the 18th section is in these
words:
"That the Constitution and all laws Of the United
States which not locally napplicable shall have the
force and effect within the said Territory
elsewhere within the United States except the 9Th
ton Of the act preparatory to the admission Of Missouri
into the Union approved March g. 1920 (which super
seded by the principles of the legislation Of commonly
called the compromise measures and is hereby declared
imperative"
The question pending was the motion of Mr.
DOUGLAS 10 strike out the words within brackets
and insert in lieu thereof the following
"which being inconsistent with the principle of nonin
terventon by Congress with slavery in the States and
Territories recognised by the Legislation of $780,
monty called the Compromise measures is hereby de-
clared imperative and void 1t being the true intent and
TO
tory State to exclude it therefrom but the
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their way subject only to the
Constitution of the United States"
Mr. EVERETT said that, if time had permitted
il. he would have been glad 10 have expressed his
views upon the great constitutional questions in
volved in the subject of the Territories But the
time which had elapsed since the bill was report
ed had not been sufficient TO enable him to ex-s
anime these questions, nor even the historical
facts connected with them Who could undertake
to say upon the examination which the brief time
had permitted, that this bill is what il should be
with respect TO the relations with the Indians?
He desired to be understood as speaking for
himself and no others, in stating that he was cor
dial supporter of the compromise of 1850, but he
could not give this bill his support.
This bill presented great question. II was no
less than laying the foundation of two independent
States, hereafter TO be admitted into this Union
Though now apparently wilderness, the time
would come when these wild and scarcely existing
territories would be inhabited by the people of
civilized race The time was not far distant when
Kansas and Nebraska would be as familiar names
of States, in the Of their people, as were the
names Of Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, to their
sons
While he had always been warm friend and
supporter of western interests he entertained Sc
rious scruples TO the expediency Of establishing
governments ofthe first order for these territories
at this time. Their present population did not ex-
ceed six hundred white persons-,hervot two
hundred This objection, however, was one mere
ly Of time and would not OF itself prevent his vot
ing for the hill.
The relations with the Indians was another mat
ter of great difficulty. Under the policy Of Cen
eral Jackson, the Indians east of the Mississippi
had been removed to this country, the cardinal
point Of which policy had been TO fix them there
permanent home. This permanency of location
had been guaranteed TO the Indians, and General
Jackson in his farewell address had congratulated
the country upon the success of that policy The
establishment Of these governments would distort
that arrangement While lie knew that since that
time events had happened which then could not
have been foreseen, that State had been formed
on the Pacific, and il was hardly TO be expected
that that Indian barrier could be preserved intact,
nevertheless if il was be broken, he desired that
the Indians should receive more than justice and
equity. How far this bill accomplished that, he
was unable TO say.
the bill which had passed the House at the
| last session was properly provided with guards
Tor the interests oIlne lnulanS, ne might nave given
| il his support
| He considered the difference between the orr
ginal clause in the bill respecting the Missouri
| compromise, and the amendment now proposed
| as one Of phraseology only. The language of the
anne n1ment was indirect. Anact declared inopera-
tive and void was in fact repealed. If So why not
expressly declare the Missouri act repealed Such
| a course would be far more direct and parliament
| tary.
The substance of the amendment was more OBJ
jectionable than its language. He did not quite
| understand the declaration, that the Missouri
act was inconsistent with the Legislation Of 1850.
| The New Mexico and Utah bills were measures
enacted, and not the enactment of principle in
tended to apply Territories in other parts of the
country. He did not find in these any enact
ment of non-intervention of Congress as to slavery
| in the Territories, either principle or mea-
sure. They were specific measures enacted in
| specific cases, and intended to apply to specific
| Territories. How could there be found in them
any principle to act retrospectively and prospec-
lively upon all the other Territories He argued
strongly the impossibility of adopting in these
measures any principle which could by implica-
tion or otherwise apply to any other Territories
| but New Mexico and Utah.
Il