Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-02-23

discussion mere at WV -, '' ~ ''
and word for word. IL AN wrohs' Vhe oena-
tor will CORRECT me.
idea that the Missouri prohibition had been su-
per- eded No, sir; neither ne nor any other
man here. SO far as could be judged from any
discussion, or statement, or remark, mad receiv-
We'll on the 4th day of January, the Com
mittee on Territories, through their chairman,
the senator from Illinois, made report on the
Territorial organization of Nebraska; and that
report was accompanied by bill. Now, sir, on
that 9Th day of January, just thirty days ago,
did the Committee on Territories entertain the
opinion that the Compromise acts Of 1850 su-
pars,ded the Missouri prohibition! If they did,
thew were very careful to keep it to themselves.
We will Judge the committee by its own
report. What does that say In the first
place, they describe the character of the con-
troversy in respect to the Territories acquired
from Mexico. They say that some believed that
a MexiGtn law prohibiting slavery was in force
there, While others claimed that the Mexican
law became imperative at the moment of ac-
quisiton, and that Shareholders could take their
slaves into the Territory, and hold them there
under the provisions Of the Constitution. The
Territorial Compromise acts, the committee tell
us, sesred clear of these questions. They
simplg provided that the States organized out Of
these Territories might come in with or without
slaverytas they should elect, but stuidiously
avoidcdIthe question whether slaves could or
could not be introduced before the organization
of Stafs governments. That question was left
entirely 70 judicial decision. .,,. ",
Welssir, what did the committee propose to
do with Che Nebraska Territory! In respect to
that, as,ip respect to the Mexican Territory,
differences of opinion exist in relation to the in
PRODUCTION of slaves. There are Southern gen
tlemen who Contend that, notwithstanding the
Missouri prohibition, they cnn take their slaves
into the territory covered by it, and hold them
there by virtue Of the Constitution. On the
other hand, the great majority Of the American
people. North and South, believe the Missouri
prohibition to be constitutional aud cifactual.
Now, what did the COMMITTEES propose! Did
they propose to repeal 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they suggest that it had been superseded?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, it is q
disputed point whether slavery is prohibited il
the Nebraska country by raid enactment. The
decision of this question involves the constitution
al power of Congress to passlaws prescribing anc
regulating the domestic institutions Of the vari
GUS territories Of the Union. In the opinion o
those eminent statesmen who hold that Con
grass is invested with no rightfal authority tt
Iogslatc upon the subjcc of Slavery in the terri
tories, the cigth section Of the act preparatory
to the admission Of Missouri il null and void
while the prevailing sentiment in large por
ton Of the Union sustains the doctrine that tht
Constitution of the United States secures to ev
cry citizen an inalienablc right to move into an,
of the territories with his property Of whatove
kind and description. and to hold and enjoy TIN
same under the sanction of law. Your commit
tee do not feel themselves called upon to onte
into the discussion of thes, controyerted ques
tions. They involve the same grave issacs which
produced the agitation, the sectional strife, AM
the fearful struggle of 1850"
This language will bear repetition.
Your committee do not feel themselves callct
upon to enter into discussion of these controvert
ed questions They involve tho same grave is
sues which produc2d the agitation, the ssctiona
strife, and the fewful struggle Of 1850"
Then they 60 on to say:
+" Congress deemed it wise and prudent to re
ifrain from dooidiny the matters ia controyers
Then, either BY affirming or repeating the Mex
ian laws, or " an act decllrltory Of the tru
j intent of the Constitution and the intent of th
protection afforded by ii to slave protection; s
your committee arc not prepared now to recon
mend a departure from the course pursued o
that memoriitbl, occasion, either by affirming o
repeating the eigth section Of the Missouri act
or by any act dccaratory Of the meaning of tn
Constitution in respect to the legal points l
dispute
Mr.. President, here are very remarkable Facts
The Committee on Territories declared that
was not wise, that it was not prudent, that
was not right to renew the old controversy, an
to reverse agitation. They declared that the
would abstain from any recommendation Of
repeal of the prohibition, or Of any proyisio
declaratory of the construction of the Constitu
ton in respect to legal points i'll this dispute.
Mr.. President, am not one of those VIII
supposed that the question between Mexican la'
and the sasoholding prctcnsions, was avoidc
in the L tab and New Mexico act; nor do
think that the introduction into the Nebrask
bill of the provisions of those acts in respect t
slavery, would leave the question between tn
Missouri prohibition and the same slayeholdin
claim entirely unaffected. | am of very di
lercnt opinion But am dealing now with tn
report Of the committee, and show, beyond a
controversy, that the Senator's own repor
made only four short weeks ago, gave no cour
tcnance whatever to the doctrine of repeal b
supersedurc.
Well, sir, the bill reported by the committe
was printed in the Washington Sentinel ON Sal
urday, January7th. 1t contained 20 sections
no more, no less. 1t contained no provisions i
respect to slavery, except those in the u tab an
New Mexico bills. 1t left those provisions
speak for themselves. This was in harmon
with the report of tbe committee. On the lot
of Japuary--on TuCsday--the act appeare
again in the Sentinel, but it had grown longt
during the interval. 1t appeared now with
sections. There was statement i'll the papt
that the 2lst section had been omitted by
clerical error.
8But,, sir, it is singular fact that this twont,
First was entirely out of harmony wit
as committees report. 1 undertook to detel
,aline the effect Of the provision in the U tab an
New Mexico bills. 1t declared, among oth'
things, that all questions pertaining to SLAYER
lin the territories, anu Ill tuc noW Otateo w
Horned thereirom, were to be left to the deci
lion of the people residing therein, through the
Inappropriate representatives. This provision,
efect. repealed the Missouri prohibition, whic
the committee, in their report, declared ougi
to be done. Is it possible, sir, that it was
mere clerical error! May it not be that tn
twenty-irst section was the fruit of some Su'
day work, between Saturday the It'll, and Tue
day the 10th.
But, sir, the addition Of this section, it seen
did not heip the bill. 1t did not, suppos
meet the appreciation of Southern gentlemen
who contend that they have ight to tai
slaves into the territories, notwithstanding an
prohibition, either by Congress or by terrific
rial Legislature dare not say it was foun
that the votes of these gentlemen could not |
had for tho bill with that clause in it, 1t wa
not enough that the committee had abandone
their report, and added this twenty-irst section
in direct contravention of its reasonings an
principles. The twenty-frst section itself mu'
Be abandoned, and the repeal of the Nilsson
II. cod IN n phnpe which would M