Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-10

moHg the rtscutfs of Inc passengers oi ne su"hh-
er san Francisco were introduced in both Hous-
es.
The Nebraska Bill in the Senate.
Mr.. Dixon, (whig) of Ky, raid that the first
bill reported by the committee, while 1t allowed
the people of the territory to adopt slavery or
not when they framed their State constitutions,
dad not put the people of The States on AN equal
footing as to their e ing to those territories and
carrying their property there. 1t allowed the
Missouri prohibition Ia continue, and under 1t
Shareholders would be excluded from the terrific
rics until tie time when the people were ASSEM-
blcd to form "A State government. 1t therefore
put the decision whether slavery should, or should
not exist i'll the territories exclusively IN the
hands of those who were then in the territory,
and who of course were not Shareholders. Pos
sbly they might be people whose minds were
greatly prejudiced against the Institution. THIS
being tie effect of the bill, he had offered an a
monument which proposed, directly, the repeal
of the Missouri proh bition, 81 as TO allow the
people of the Southern States AN equal chance ot
going To thosc territories with their property
nubst quently, the committee reported a new hll,
in which was incorporated substantially his n
mcndment. With HAT amendment IL corporatod
in it, the bill would receive his hearty support
Under il, the Missouri prohibition would be re
moved, and the peoi lie of the South could 90 there
with their property on an equal footing with
citizens of other states, and would have al
equal Voice in deciding whether the State %consti-
tuition ,hould or slould not permit iayery. This
provision Lad not been put into the bill for any sin
lister purposes Ia hadhecn supposed by the Senator
from Dhio. 1t was the duty of the committee
WHEN they reported II bill, and found 1t incom-
nlrt" At" de-. "tiv". Il" 'uko mcosur"s to mako 1t
perfect. The committee, acting upon the high
principle of doing equal justice to the people of
all sections Of the country, had proposed to "a
mend their bill 30 as to accomplish that end
l he Missouri Compromise made an unjust dis
elimination against the stakeholder as to his right
to carry his property into the territory. This
prohibition the committee had proposed To repeal.
They who proposed it were not slavehold r, they
We're m II, wh., acting on the great principle of
equal justice to all, had proposed to remove AN
unjust and injurious prohibition, because 1t was
unjust and because it was in direct conflict with
the principles of the compromise act oi 1S5U.-
/ he committee, as well as thu vast majority of
the pc tple of the United State, IN all sections,
believe that this prohibition OF the Missouri act
was wrong, and was inconsistent with the prin
ciples OF the compromise Of 1850, and ought to
be repealed. He examined Mr.. Mason's amend
ment, and took the same view of 1t a. Mr.. Doug
las. lie referred to the Texas resolution, and to
the provision therein, that States formed out of
her territory, north of 50 81, should be free, and
contended that that condition was absolutely void.
Congress had no power to impose n condition
upon any State that it should not allow slavery.
If it had such power. it could be exercised in
New York as well as III Texas. Did any one be-
licle that Congress had the power to require New
York to allow slavery And it not, how could
they say that Congress had the power to require
Texas to be a free State! The States alone had
this power. BY them only could it g exercised.
New York and other States had exercised the
power within THEN limits of abolishing slavery
Congress could not have done so. How could
Congress then place "A condition on States to be
formed out of Texas, that they should be either
free or slave ! lie regarded the constitution as
clearly protecting proper Y, as well as person.
The Supreme Court had decided that II slavehol-
der had as much title to his slaves as to any other
property. II the constitution protected proper
", where could Congress derive the power of pro-
hibiting any particular kind OF property from be-
ing carried to the territories | elonging n common
to the whole people! 1t was said that slavery
was an institution which was ruinous to the land,
and impoverished the people. If this was a suf-
icicnt cause to prohibit it, why not prohibit the
cultivation of tobacco, which was Il crop that ex-
hausted the land, and soon wore oft the soil =
The Senator from Ohio had given as a reason for
keeping slavery out of the Territories, that il
would prevent their settlement by Northern pco-
pie and foreigners from Europe. He thereby
understood the Senator as in effect Saying, that
to allow stockholders TO settle i'm the Territories
alongside of Northern men or Foreigners would be
moral pollution--a species of moral treason. The
senator, to sustain this view, must go further,
and u Init that, in % der to allow these Territories
to be settled by foreigners, the pc ople of the
South must be wholly banished from the soil pur.
chased and acquired by the common efforts of the
whole pc pile. If to allow our own people to go
into these Territories necessarily excluded for
eigncrs. he would say, let them toe excluded. The
Soutl asked but equal rights and privileges, and
was she to be deprived OF them becase 1t would
interfere with the notions of European foreigners
He rpfprrpI tp the inunV pp.nplulutS made n1aiDsf
slavery, and called upon those who denounced it
to suggest the remedy for the evil. Enancip.-
ton was not the remedy. The social, and poiiti-
cal condition Of free blacks, showed that their
freedom was but a m~ockery. Many of the free
States, by positive enactment, excluded them from
their limits. Everywhere they were a degrt ded
( race; the aholitionists themselves shrunk from
admitting them to social equality. He proceed
ed ut length to show the Importance of slavery to
the various interests of the United States, par
ticularly to manufactures. Without slavery,
these latter could not exist.