Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-16

not excepting the question of slavery; and die
provide that, when those Territories should b.
admitted into the Union, they should be received
with without slavery as the people thereo
might determine at the date Of their admission
These provisions were in direct conflict with
clause in former enactment, declaring thy
slavery should be forever prohibited in any u
ton Of said Territories, and hence rendered Yen
clause imperative and void to the extey OF
such conflict. This was an inevitable knse-
quence, resulting from the provisions v,nose
acts which gave the people the right to dGde the
slavery question for themselves, in cfiormity
with the Constitution. 1t was not nece'ary 10 go
further and declare that certain preSous enact
| ments, which were incompatible witthe exercise
OF the powers conferred in the bills are hereby
repealed. :" The very act of grantig those powers
and rights have the legal effect of fnoyng all oo-
structions to the exercise of thet by the people,
as prescribed in those territorial bills Following
that example, the Committeepn territories did
not consider it necessary tqaec,aIe tne eightn
4 section of the Missouri actepealed. We were
content to organize Nebrasn in the precise Ian
guage of the Utah and NJ Mexican bills: Our
i object was to leave the /eople entirely free to
form and regulate their omestc institutions and
internal concerns in relr own way, under the
Constitution; and we yeemed 1t wise to accom-
/ plish that object in ye exact terms in which the
same thing had beerdone in Utah and New Mex
| leo by the acts of $50 This was the principle
| upon which the Committee voted; and our bill
was supposed, ad is now believed, to have been
in accordance yth it. When doubts were raised
whether the bn did fully carry out the principle
| laid down in yhe report, amendments were made,
| from time t/time in order to avoid all miscon-
struction and make the true intent of the act
| more explsit. The last of these amendments
was adoptd yesterday, on the motion of the dis
tinpuished senator from North Carolina, (Mr.
| BADGER, Yin regard to the revival of any laws or
regulations which may have existed prior to 1920.
! That amendment was not intended to change the
legal eject of the bill. Its object to repel the
slande which had been propagated by the enc
mics Of the measure in the north, that the south
ern supporters of the bill desired to legslate
slavery into these Territories. The south denies
Tho right Of Congress either to legslate slavery in
toany Territory State, or out of any Territory
| OF State. Non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States Territories is the doctrine
of the bill, and all the amendments which have
been agreed to have been made with the view of
removing all doubt and cavil us to the true mean
ing and object of the measure.
MIR President, think have succeeded in vim
dicating myself and the action of the committee
from the assaults which have been made upon us
in consequence of these amendments. 1t seems
to be the tactics of our opponents to direct their
arguments against the unimportant points and in
cidental questions which are to be affected by
carrying out the principle, with the hope Of re-
lieving themselves from the necessity Of contro-
vertng the principle itself. The senator from
Ohio Mr.. CHASE led off CALAMITY in the charge
that the committee, in the report and bill first
submitted did not contemplate the repeal of the
Missouri compromise, and could not be brought
to that point until after the senator from Ken
| lucky offered his amendment. The senator from
Connecticut DIR. SMITH followed his lead, and
| repeated the same statement. Then came the
other senator from Ohio, Mr.. WADE, and the
| senator from New York, Mr.. SEWARD and the
senator from Massachusetts,, [Mr. SUMNER all
singing the same song, only varying the tune.
| Let me ask these senator's what they mean by
this statement? Do they wish to be understood
as saying that the report and first form of the bill
did not provide for leaving the slavery question to
the decision Of the people in the terms Of the Utah
have already shown that the two measures were
identical in principle and enactment. Do they
mean to say that the adoption of our first bill
would not have had the legal effect to have rem
dered the eighth section of the Missouri act sin
operative and void, = to use the language Of the
present bill; Ifthis be not their meaning, will
they rise in their places and inform the Senate
what their meaning was' They must have had
some object in giving SO much prominence to this
statement, and in repeating it so often. / adj
dress the question to the senators from Ohio and
Massachusetts,, Mr.. CHASE and Mr.. SUMNER |
i despair in cxtortng response from them; for,
no matter in what way they may answer upon
| this point, have in my hand the evidence over
their signatures to disprove the truth of their
answer allude to their appeal or manifesto to
the people oft the United States, in which they ar
| ragn the bill and report, in coarse and savage
terms, as proposition to repeal the Missouri
compromise, to violate plighted faith, to abro.
gate solemn compact, &c., &c. This document
was signed by these two senators in their official
capacity, and published to the world before any
amendments had been offered to the bill. 1t was
directed against the committee s first bill and re-
| port, and against them alone. If the statements
in this document be true, that the first bill did re-
peal the eighth section of the Missouri act, what
are we to think of the statements in their speeches
since, that such was not the intention ofthe COM
mittcc, was not the recommendation of the re-
port, and was not the legal effect ofthe bill On
the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent
speeches are true, what apology do those senators
propose to make to the Senate and country fol
having f,lsified the action of the committee in a
document over their own signatures, and thus
spread false alarm among the people, and mis-
led the public mind in respect to our proceedings
These senators cannot avoid the one or the other
of these alternatives. Let them seize upon either
and they stand condemned and sefconvicted; in
| the one case by their manifesto, and in the other
| by their speeches.
In fact, it is clear that they have understood the
bill to mean the same thing, and to have the same
legal effect in whatever phase it has been present
ed. When first introduced they denounced it as
proposition to abrogate the Missouri restriction
When amended, they repeated the same denunci-
alton, and SO each successive amendment
They now object to the passage of the bill for the
same reason, thus proving conclusvely that they
have not the least faith in the correctness of their
own statements in respect to the mutations and
changes in the bill
| They seem very unwilling to meet the real
ISSUE They do not like to discuss the principle
There seems to be something which strikes them
with terror when you invite their astenton to
that great fundamental principle of popular sove-
rcgnty. Hence you find that all the memorials
they have presented are against repeating the
Missouri compromise, and in favor Of the sanctity
ofcompacts-in favor of preserving plightcd faith.
The senator from Ohio is cautious to dedicate his
speech with some such heading as /" Maintain
Plighted Faith. The object is to keep the
attention of the people as far possible from this
principle of selfgovernment and constitutional
| rights
Well, sir what is this Missouri compromise, of