Washington sentinel., 1854-02-05
C0ngrfssi0nal.
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
FIRST SESSION.
Senate-Saturday, February 4, 1854.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.


utions of a meeting of the citizens of New York,
held in the Broadway Tabernacle, against the
adoption OF any measure TO repeal the Missouri
compromise; which he asked might be read.
Mr.. DOUGLAS said that every senator had,
doubtless, read these resolutions; if all memorials
were read at length to the Senate, the whole time
OF the body would be consumed in so doing.
He did not object particularly to these resolu-
tons, but to read them would be departure from
the usual course of proceeding.
The CHAIR. Does the senator object TO the
Mr.. DOUGLAS. LIDO.
Mr.. FISH. / move the resolutions be read
Mr.. SEWARD asked for the yeas and nays on
the motion, but the Senate refused 10 order them
The motion that the paper be read was not
agreed 10.
Mr.. SUMNER presented the remonstrance of
three hundred taxpayers Of Claremont, New
Hampshire, against the repeal of the Missouri
Mr.. BRoDHEAD presented five remonsrranccs
from different parts of Pennsylvania, against the
repeal OF the Missouri compromise; all of which
were laid on the table.
UNITED STATES MINT AT NEW YORK.
Mr.. BRODHEAD presented fourteen petitions
from Pennsylvania, against the removal of the
mint TO the city of New York.
CAPE FEAR RIVER.
Mr. BADGER gave notice Of a bill making an
appropriation for the removal of Instructions in
the mouth Of Cape Fear river, in North Carolina.
NEBRASKA-sLAvERY.
The Senate then proceeded to the consideration
of the bill to establish territorial government for
Nebraska.
Mr.. DIXON said that the bill originally reported
by the Committee on Territories allowed the peo-
pie of the Territories to provide for or against
slavery, as they might think proper in the forma-
ton of their constitutions but it did not put the
people of all sections of the country on an equal
| footing as to the right of going there with their
property. It left the Missouri prohibition still in
force and applicable to the terri ory and conse-
quently the southern people would be excluded
until such time as the people Of the territory had
| assembled TO adopt State constitution There
would be but smal probability of their being adj
mted then, for the decision OF the question would
| be entirely In those who were not shareholders,
| and perhaps the larger portion oi whom would be
| foreigners by birth.
Under these circumstances. he had given notice
OF an amendment, proposing directly the repeal Of
the Missouri prohibitions and thus enable the
shareholders to go 10 the territories at once with
their property. Subsequently the Committee on
Territories reported new BILL in which was in
corporated, in substance, the amendment ofwhch
he had given notice.
The bill, with that amendment incorporated in il,
would receive his hearty appreciation and support.
| II received his support because it repealed the
Missouri line Of prohibition, and because it allowed
| the people of all sections of the country TO go
| there with their property, and enabled them 10
| have voice in the ultimate decision of the uues-
/ tion in the formation Of the State constitution.
The amendment had not been adopted by the
| committee from any sinister motive, as had been
supposed by the senator from Ohio 1t was the
province OF the committee, and it their duty,
when they found their bill defective, that il did
not effect what they intended it should, 10 recon-
i slider the subject and amend their bill The COM
mittee had done no more than this in the present
case. The committee designed TO frame their bill
on the principle Of placing all the people of the
several States on an equal footing TO the right
| of going to this territory. The Missouri proh-
| bition prevented this 1t made an unjust discrm-
| ination against the people of the slave-holding
States. II allowed the people of the free States
| to go there with their property and prohibited
those of the southern States from the exercise of
| the same privilege.
This proposition 10 remove that unjust prohibi-
tion did not come from the south. Il did no, come
| from shareholders. Hcame from men who acting
/ on the high principles Of equal rights and Justice
| TO all, proposed 10 remove forever unjust dis
elimination in favor Of one section and against an
other.
The committee as well as the whole people of
the United States, were now satisfied that the
| Missouri prohibition was not only unjust in prin-
cipe. but altogether inconsistent with the princi-
pies OF the great compromise acts of 1850
He referred 10 the prohibition Of slavery in that
part of Texas north Of SO degrees 80 minutes, con-
tanned in resolutions of annexation, and argued
q
gress had no power 10 prohibit slavery in State,
or TO dictate TO the people of State whether they
| should or should not have slavery. That was a
power exclusively in the States themselves. IL
| Congress had the power 10 prohibit il in Texas il
had the power TO do SO in Kentucky or to estab-
lish il in New York. Slavery had been abolished
in New Hampshire and other northern Stales not
by any power of Congress, but by the power of
those States themselves.
| He contended that the Constitution did recog-
4 Mise property, and provide for its securty. The
/ Supreme Court had decided that the title OF
| STAKEHOLDER in his slaves as legal and as COM
| plete as II would be in any other description of
property. Where had Congress the power given
to il 10 restrain prohibit man carving his pro-
/ perty into the territories of the United States
He commented at length upon the statement
| in the address Of the independent democrats, in
which il was said that if slavery were allowed in
the territories II would prevent their sediment by
| the people ef the north and European emigrants
and held that this statement in substance declared
that it was moral pollution for the people of the
north and foreigners TO be obliged to settle down
| at the side Of Shareholders. II the admission of
| shareholders would exclude foreigners, he would
say LET il exclude them
4 lie then examined the subject of slavery, deny
ing Il was evil or injurious 10 the nation. IL
was the very life of the manufacturing interests.
he contrased the condition Of the slaves with that
OF the Tree negroes, and held that the former
infinitely preferable. The social and political free
aoln possessed by the free negroes was but
mockerv Of freedom.
Mr. WADE moved that the bill be postponed
yeas 70, nays III
me senate then proceeded 10 the consideration
OF executive business, and shortly after