The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-16
FEBRUARY Is, 1854.

Nebraska. believe it was the same bill which
was under discussion here at the last session
line for line, and word for word. If am
wrong, the Senator will correct me.
Did the Senator from Iowa then entertain
the ioea that the Missouri prohibition had been
superseded? No, sir neither be nor anv othe,
man here, SO far as could be Judged from arv
discussion, or statement or remark had rs
ceived this notion. III.
Well, on the 4th day Of January, the Com
mittee on Territories, through their Chairman
the Senator from Illinois, made report on thu
Territorial organization of Nebraska and thai
report was accompanied by BILL Now, sir
on that 4th day of January, Just thirty day.
ago. did the Committee on Territories entertain
the opinion that the Compromise acts Of 1856
superseded the Missouri prohibition If they
did, they were very careful to keep it to them
selves We will judge the committee by it.
own report. What does that say2 In the
| FIRST place, they, describe the character Of the
es's1tfo,5ssy IN RESPECT 10 tlse Territories ..c
guired from Mexico. They say that some be-
iieved that Mexican law prohibiting Slavery
was In force there, while others claimed that the
| Mexican law became imperative at the mo
ment of acquisition, and that Shareholders could
take their slaves into the Territory and hold
them there under the provisions of the Consti-
tuition. The Territorial Compromise acts, as
the committee tell us, steercd clear of these
questions. They simply provided that the
States organized out of these Territories might
come IN with or without Slavery, as they should
elect but studiously avoided the question wheth-
er slaves could or could not be introduced be-
fore the organization of State Governments.
That question was left entirely to judicial de-
cision.
Well, sir, what did the committee propose
to do with the Nebraska Territory =? In re-
spect TO that as In respect to the Mexican
errtory, difference OF opinions exist in relation
TO the Introduction of slaves There are South
ern gentlemen who contend that, notwithstand-
ing the Missouri prohibition, they can take
Their slaves into the Territory covered by it,
end hold them there by virtue of the Constitu-
ton. On the other hand, tho great majority
OF the American people North and South be-
lieve the Missouri prohibition to be constitu-
tional and effectual. Now, what did the COM
mittee propose! Did they propose to rereal
the prohibition Did they suggest that it had
been superseded! Did they advance any idea
OF that kind? No, sir. This is their language
Under this section, as in the case Of
the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah.
1t Is disputed point whether Slavery
is prohibited in the Nebraska country by
raid enactment. The decision of this cues
ton involves the constitutional power Of Con-
gress to pass laws prescribing and regulating
the domestic institutions of tho various Terri
tories of the Union. In the opinion of thoee
eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is
invested with no rightful authority to legislate
upon the subject of slavery in the Territories
the eighth section of the act preparatory to
bio o1r # nj
while the prevailing sentiment in large Dor
ton OF the Union sustains the doctrine that
the Constitution of the United States secures
to every citizen an inalienable right to move
into any of the Territories with his propertv.
of whatever kind and description, and 10 hold
and enjoy the imc under tie sanction of law.
Your committee do not feel themselves called
upon to enter into the discussion Of these CON
yoyeIted questions. They involve thc same
sect'Aeial strife; and the f,2rs,l -tEgn6lc e
1862
This language will bear repetition.
Your committee do not feel themselves
called upon to enter into the discussion of these
controverted questions. They involve the same
grave issues which produced the agitation the
sectional strife, and the fearful struggle OF
1902
Then they go on to say
Congress deemed it wise and prudent to
refrain from deciding the matters in contro-
versy then, either by affirming OF repeating the
Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the
true intent of the Constitution and the extent
Of the protection afforded by it TO slave prop
crty in tho Territories; SO your committee are
not prepared now to recommend n departure
from the course pursued on that memorable
occasion, either by affirming or repeating the
eighth section of tho Missouri act, or by any
act declaratOry of the meaning Of the Consti-
tutlon in respect to the legal points in dis
pute."
Mr.. President, here are very remarkable
facts. The Committee on Territories d. c'ared
that it was not Wise, that it was not prudent
that it was not right, to renew the old contro-
vcrsy and to rouse agitation. They declared
that they would abstain from any recommend
alton of a repeal of the prohibition or OF any
provision declaratory of the construction Of the
Constitution in respect to the legal points in
dispute.
Mr. President, ] am not one of those who
supposed that the question between Mexican
law and the slaveholding pretensions was avoid
cd in the Utah and New Mexico act nor do
think that the introduction into the Nebraska
bill Of the provisions of those acts in respect to
Slavery, would leave the question between the
Missouri prohibition and the same slavehold-
ing claim entirely unaffected. am of very
different opinion. But | am dealing now with
the report Of the committee, aud | show, be-
yond all controversy, that the Senator's own
report, made only four short weeks ago, gave
no cOuntenance whatever to the doctrine Of re-
real by supersedurc.
Well, sir, the bill reported by the committee
was printed in the Washington Sentinel on
Saturday, January 7. It contained twenty sec
lions no more, no less. Ii contained no pro-
visions in respect to Slavery, except those in
the Utah and New Mexico bills 1t left those
provisions to speak for themselves. This was
IN harmony with the report of the committee.
On the 10Th Of January-on Tuesday-the act
appeared again in the Sentinel, but it had
grown longer during the interval 1t appear
ed now with twenty-0ne sections. There was
a statement in the paper that the twenty-frst
section had been omitted 10y clerical error.
But, sir, it is singular fact that this twenty
first section was entirely out of harmony with
the committees report 1t undertookto deter
mine the effect Of the provision in tho Utah
and New Mexico bills. 1t declared, among
other things, that all questions pertaining to
Slavery in the Territories, and in the new
States to be formed therefrom, were to be left
to the decision Of the people residing therein,
through their appropriate representatives
This provision, in effect, repealed the Missouri
prohibition, which the committee in their re-
port declared ought not to bo done. Is pos
sibe. sir that this vas mere clerical error
May it not be that this twenty first section was
the fruit of some Sunday ,cork, between Satur-
day the 9TH, and Tuesday the 10th?
But sir, the addition Of this section, it seems,
did not help the bill IL did not, | suppose,
meet the appreciation Of Southern gentlemen,
who contcad that they have right TO take
slaves into the Territories, notwithstanding any
prohibition, either by Congress or by q Terri
t..;nl I lid, tnrn | dnra snu Il maa fnrnd