The daily union., 1854-02-08
The Secretary read as follows !;

al will the Senate the views which induced
oppose this proposition In the early part OF The
Il had two objections to H. oas was that the Indian
least very small portion Of II had been Another was
The Missouri Compromse, or as 10 commonly called me
slavery restrictions was my opinion al that time, ana
very clear that subject--that the law oil
Congress- when the State OF Missouri admiued into the
Union. excluding slavery IRON The Territory Of Lonsanh
north OF 50 deg 10 min, would be enforced in that Terri
tory unless it specisly rescnded and whether that
law was in accordance with The constitution oi lhe united
States not would do s work, aud that wo.k wooid
be preclude shareholders from going into that Territory
But when came look into that 4aestion, iound ths
there prospect, hope Of repeal OF the Missou
compromse. excluding slavery from that Territory Now
sir am free TO admit that al This moment, at this hour
and all time cope should oppose the organization
the settlement Of thst Territory anless my constituents
Of The Union, could into l. upon the same foo'ng win
s .S !. s. sssps .'r
sir i acknowiedss that that would have governed me- but
:. have always been OF opinion that the first
cmi,sd II es ne, political history Tory g S. eoanly wss ,ns
Fl sa hs
mise But they are both irrcmedabe- There Is no renc
% do L. Il !, evident that hs Missouri Compromise
not be repealed so Tar as that question concerned we
nigh. as We. agree TO The admission % Of this Territory now
lCoag. Globe, I'd Sess 32d Cong ,psl. 26, p. l,li3
MIR. CHASE. That. sir, is the speech OF the senator
from MLIsouri, whose authority, think, must 30 for
When came to look into that queston"of the posi-
Bile repeal OF the Missouri prohibiiionthat the
question be was looking into" found that there was
no prospect, no hope, oi repeal OF the Missouri Com
promise excluding slavery from that Territory" And
yet, SIR at that very moment, according 10 this new
doctrine Of the senator from Illinois, !, had been
pealed three years
WE'LL The senator from Illinois said, further that If he
though, possible oppose this restriction successfully
be would consent TO the organization OF the Terri
tory until it was rescinded But. said he, acknowledge
that have hope that the restriction will ever be
pealed. Then he made complaint. other south
gentlemen have frequently done, of the ordinance of
1857. and the Missouri prohibition but 10 say
"tbey both lrremedable; there is no remedy for
them; submit to them am prepared TO do !; ;
it evident that the Missouri Compromise anno be
/ pea led"
Now sir, when was this said Ii was On the morn
ing of the 4h March, just before the close OF the last
session, when that Nebraska bill reported by the senator
from Illinois, which proposed repeal and suggested
supersedure, under discussion think sir, that all
this shows pretty clearly that 10 the very close OF the
last session OF Congress nobody had thought OLA
nsncemeni of lhe present session The senator from
Iowa. early in December, introduced bill Tor the organ
zaon Of the Territory Of Nebraska. | believe il was
bill which under discussion here at the last
session, line for line aud word for word. If wrong,
the senator will correct me.
Did tha senator from Iowa then entertain the idea
that the Missouri prohibition had been ersededi No.
sur neither he any olher here, ar could
be judged from any discussion. or statement or remark.
had received this notion.
Well on the 4h day Of January the Committee on
Territories, through their chairman, the senator from H.
nols, made report The territorial organization OF
Nebraska; and that report was accompanied by bull
Now sr, on that 4h day OF January just thirty daye
ago Gid the Committee on Territories entertain the opn
ion that the compromise Of 1850 superseded the Mis-
sou prohbiion if,hey, did they very careful to
keep it to themselves We will Judge the committee BY
its own report, VIVA, does that say In the first place,
they de,c the character OF the controversy in respect
to The territories acquired from Mexico. They say that
some believed tha, a Mexican law prohibiting slavery
as in force there while others claim that The Mexican
law became imperative a, The moment Of acquisition,
and ha, Shareholders could take their slaves into The
riory and bold them there under the provisions OF The
constitution. The territorial compromise acts, as the
COMMITTEES tell seered clear OF these questions They
SIMPLY provided that the States organized outof these
territories might come IN with or without slavery as they
should elect bu, were entirely silent upon the question
wheihsr slaves could could not be introduced before
the organization Of Stale governments That question
was left entirely to judicial decision
Well. sir, what did The comniiIee propose 10 do with
the Nebraska Tefory In respect 10 that in respect
10 the Mexican Territory. difference OF opinion exists 10
relation the introduction OF slaves. There south
ern gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the
Missouri prohibition they take their slaves into the
Territory covered by il, and hold them there by virtue OF
the constitution On the other hand, The great majority
OF the American people. Norh and South. believe the
Missouri prohbiuon 10 be constitutional and eHsciua
Nov. what did The committee propose DID they pro.
pose 10 repeal the prohibon Did they sngges, thst II
had been superseded Did they advance any idea OF thai
4 kIndi No, sir This is their language
Under hi, section, n The case Of the Mexican Jaw IN
New M rico and Utah, y Z q dlipnted point whsther
actnent Tie decision Of ths question Involves the con-
srntona 20 Congress 10 laws prescribing aud
ny the domestic Institutions oi the various Terrific
res o Union IN he opinion Of those eminent states
mep bod that Congress IL invested with no ghtiu
authority ceiss. upon the subject Of slavery N the Ter
tones the eighth section Of the act preparatory 90 me adj
mission Of Missouri j. nuli aod void while the prevailing
sentiment ia large portion Of the Union snsaDs the doc
trioe that Of the United States 20
every citizen a-uable right into any the
Territories with his properly, o whatever kind and dcscrp
,ou hold and eioy the under the sanction Of
law. Your eomnitsr do not feel themselves called upon
the discussion Of hete ooniroveed qpcstions
rney invOve the Issues which Produced The
/ lr5o"
This language will bear repetition.
"Your COMMITTEES do not ieeI themselves c.iied upon
the discussion Of these conoveted Questions
They involve the grave which produced the
agitation, the sectional strie and the fearful struggle Of
/ 1870"
/ And they so on TO say;
.Copaf,.s deemed II wise and prudent refrain ftom
dectdng the coutroversy then either by Aft
pK or repeating the M~xcaa laws. by deoarsto
~ o the true inen OF the constitution aud the o
tic protection afforded BY 20 slave property 10 the Ist
ruriss yoor committee not prepared now 20 recon-
mend departure from the sued on that mem
orabe occasion either bg affirming repeating the eighth
eoron Of ihr Missouri act by ay act deelss,oy Of TIE
the constitution Ia respect 70 toe legsl points IN
dispute
Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The
Committee on Territories declared that was not wise
that il prudent, that n was not right 70 renew
the oid CONTROVERSY and to rouse agitation. They de-
cared thai they woad abstain from any recommendation
oi q repeal OF The biton, or OF any provision de-
caraiofy OF the construction Of the constitution ~ re-
speci to the legal points IN dispute,
Mr. President, am not one OF those who supposed
that The question between Mexican law and the slave
holding claims svod,d in the Utah and New Mex
co act nor do lhinK that The introduction into The Ne.
1xIt ~. ~