Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-04
rHIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS lsT SESSION I,y

MospAYs Jan. 80, 1854
SENATE.
The galleries were crowded to excess at an early
hour
Mr. Allen presented the resolutions of the Rhode
Island Legislature nstructng its Senators to oppose
and resist any appeal of the Missouri Compromise
Laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Brodhead presented twenty-seyen petitions
from Pennsylvania against the removal of the Mint
to New York.
The bill making Quincy, Illinois, port of delive-
nv, was then taken up and passed.
The Joint resolution from the House appointing
select committee the proposed amendment to the
constitution in respect to the manner of electng
President was adopted
The Nebraska bill being the order of the day,
was then taken up, and Mr.. Douglas delivered an
elaborate speech in explanation and defence OF its
provisions
Mr. Douglas said that, on Tuesday last, when he
desired to open this discourse, he had proposed to
speak about fifteen minutes, in explanation OF two
points embraced in this bill These points were,
first with respect to the Indians, and the second,
that part relating to slavery. The committee on
preparing the BILL desired to protect the rights and
title of the Indians from any Infringement. He
thought this had been done by the bill. 1t secured
to the Indians all their rights, until such time as
they might hereafter by treaty, agree to be 1ncoTpo-
rated within the Territory.
On the other point it the object and desire OF
the committee to be equally explicit. They had ia
ken the principles of the compromise act of 1850 as
their guide, and had made each and every provision
of this bill accord with those principles. These
principles were based upon, and recognized to its
fullest extent the great right of the people to self
government; and leaving to the people of the terri
tories the privilege of governing themselves, free OF
all control, except by the Constitution OF the United
States and limited and restricted upon particular
subject by their position north south of any arbi
trary ge ogTaphcal line.
The second bill reported by the committee had for
its object to make that plain which in the first one
seemed to be in doubt or uncertainty. In some
places the first bill was understood as repeating the
HrIrDCr
so. AS this bill was intended by the committee to
carry out fully the principles of the Compromise of
1850, and as they considered that Compromise had
superseded the Missouri Compromise, that fact had
better be plainly and distinctly stated. This
all he had intended to say, had the discussion gone
on last Tuesday. On that day, when he proposed to
say this much the Senator from Ohio and the Sena
tor from Massachusetts, asked that it be postponed
till this day, to give them time to examine it.
He had yielded to this request matter Of cour
tesy to them. Little, however, did be then know
that at that time they had prepared an address to
the American people, charging upon this bill want
Of faith in solemn compacts, and charging him per-
sonally with concocting atrocous plot and apply
ing to him chets which could not be used in inter
course between gentlemen.
In the National Era the abolition organ published
in this city, these two Senators published the adj
dress, signed by themselves and their abolition con-
federates in which they misrepresented the motives
of the Committee, falsifed the bill ITSELF and in
postscript to it, he referred to by name, and
coarse epithcts applied to him. Had he known any
thing of this conduct on their part when they asked
him on Tuesday last to postpone the bill on the
ground Of courtesy to them he would have replied
in a manner which their gross conduct deserved.
He read portion of the address, in which the bill
is styled "a gross violation Of pligeted faith, crm
nal betrayal, :" atrocious plot" &C., and then read
the names of Messrs. Sumner and Chase of the Sen
ate, and Messrs. Wade, Gddines of Ohio Smith of
New York, and De Witt Of Massachusetts,, Of the
House. and said these included lie whole
abolition party in Congress. This address was di-
nd to
meetings, ministers Of the gospel, to use up and
crush this measure intended TO cover up meditatcd
wrong.
Mr. Douglas animadverted at length upon the
course pursued by the Senators from Ohio and Mas
sachusetts, charging that representation was made
that ma ority of the members of the Ohio delega
ton had signed the Free Democracy address in ord
to influence the action Of the Ohio Legislature
the subject.
Mr. Chase 1 deny the fact.
Mr. Douglss said he would undertake to prove that
the Senator's denial and the statement alike
false.
The chair called Mr.. Douglas to order
Mr.. Douglas said he would confne himself to
showing that the statements contained in the ad-
dress false. He stated that in the Missouri
compromise the plan of separating the free from the
slave States by geographical line had been resorted
to. When the Texas resolutions before the
House he had moved an amendment extending the
Missouri line through Texas and to the west inde
nely, in order to recognize the principle of the
compromise of 1920. After California and New
Mexico were acquired on his the Senate by
majority of 10 votes, voted to extend the Missouri
compromise to the Pacific but the proposition
rejected in the House by the votes Of Northern Free
Sellers.
They were the men who violated the solemn COM
pact and opening the whole slavery agitation
rendered the Abandonment of the geographical line
and new compromise necessary. Had the North |
then maintained the Missouri compromise, there !
would have been excitement and alarm. The !
reproach of violating that compact, with bad
grace from those who repudiated it in 1913. He |
then proceeded to show that the compromise of
1850 established the principle of non-intervention by
Congress and set aside the geographical line. This
he regarded the establishment Of new principle
and total abandonment of the geographical line. |
He referred to the amendment proposed by Sena-
tor Mason, to the New Mexico BILL that nothing |
therein contained should supersede the Texas reso-
lutons and in citing this he said the abolition con-
federates had suppressed the fact that by that very
act large portion of Texas lying north of So 80 was
added to New Mexico, for which admission was pro-
vided into the Union with without slavery, thus
setting aside the principle Of the Missouri compro-
mise. The charge therefore, that his bill repealed
the Missouri compromise fell to the ground because
it had already been repealed by the act of 1850 on
which his bill was founded.
Mr.. Douglas said the amendment of Mr.. Mason
cited in the address, designed to to Texas
the same number of States with her reduced hound
airy to which she before entitled. He said that
the assertion contained in the address, that the COM
promise of 1850 was intended to apply only to the
territory acquired from Mexico contradicted by
the fact that New Mexico, as organized contained a
portion of Texas and of the old Territory of ou;