Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-01-24

In the Senate, yesterday, Judge Douglas re-
ported from the Committee on Territories
new bill for the organization of the territory
now included within the limits of Nebraska,
which is substitute for that which was brought
forward some weeks since as an amendment to
the bill introduced by Mr.. Dodge, of Iowa.
The substitute reported yesterday was ordered
to be printed, and its leading features are:
L. The organization of two territories within
the present limits of Nebraska, the one to be
called Kanzas and the other Nebraska.
2. A definite distinct, and positive repeal Of
the anti-slayery restriction Of the Missouri com.
promise.
That portion of the new bill which relates to
the Missouri compromise is in the following
words: " The Constitution and laps Of the
United States, phich are not locally inarplicd-
Die, shall hare the same fore and effect in the
said territory Of Nebraska as elseWhere rithin
the United States, ercept the eighth section Of
the act preparatory to the admission Of Missouri
into the Union, approved March 6, 1920, Which
aeas superseded by the principles Of legislation
ofls5O, commonly called the compromise meas
ures, and is hereby declared imperative"
The same provision is applied to the pro-
posed territory of Kanzas. 1t is hardly neces-
sary for us to say that we heartily approve Of
this method Of disposing Of the slavery agita-
ton, by removing all distractions to the full
and entire operation of the principles sanctioned
by the democracy at Baltimore. From the be-
ginning of the Nebraska discussion, we have
commended that no room should be left for
doubt and future difficulty and strife; and that
the eighth section of the Missouri compromise
should be definitely and distinctly disposed OF,
because it was in derogation Of those principles
which the good faith Of the democracy is
pledged to uphold and maintain, as q full, COM
plete, and final settlement Of the slavery ques
ton, which has caused so many discords and
SO much bitter and unfriendly feeling in the
confederacy.
We are not advised Of the purposes and in
tentioLs Of the administration but we have
reason to believe that the President has deter
mined to sustain, with whatever influence he
can legitimately exercise TO that end the posi-
tive repeal of the Missouri compromise, for the
reasons we have hitherto insisted on. If this be
so, the Washington Union, misled by its soft
shell and Van Buren, allies, has repeated the
blunder which it made touching the Pacific rail
road. And in this connexion we would remark
that, because of an error in our article Of Snn
day, which was not detected in time for cor
rection, we did not state exactly and DEFINITELY
the relative positions which Mr.. Sumner, Q
Massachusetts, and the Washington Unio'
occupied at that particular time on the Ne
braska question. 1t Was our intention to hay'
said that practically they occupied the sam'
ground. Mr. Sumner desired to reqtrm th'
Missouri compromise, whilst the Washington
Union opposed any attempt to repeal the re
strictive clause Of the Missouri compromise
but was willing to give the future State Z
be erected the power to settle the question
Of slavery by her constitution, when it shoulc
apply for admission into the Union. Prdc
ticaliy this would exclude the stakeholder az
effectually as the Missouri compromise from
Nebraska in all time to come, inssmuch as
the prohibition Of slavery in q territory is
as perfect and absolute an assurance as can
be given that the prohibition will be perpetnated
when State government is formed.
But strange to say-no, it is not strange to