Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-02-15
BY SAMUEL ID. HARRIS, Jr.
SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLASS,

SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLASS,
On the Bill to organize The Territories Of Nebraska
and Kansas
Mr.. DOUGLAS said: Mr.. President, when pro-
posed on Tuesday last, that the Senate should pro-
ceed to the consideration of the bill to organize
the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it was my
purpose only to occupy ten or fifteen minutes in
explanation of its provisions. ] desired to refer
to two points, first to those provisions relating
to the Indians, and second to those which might
be supposed to bear upon the question of slavery.
The committe, in drafting this bill, had in view
the great anxiety which had been expressed by
some members Of the Senate to protect the rights
of the Indians, and prevent infringement upon
them. BY the provisions of the bill, think we
have clearly succeeded in that respect as to OBJ
viate all possible objection upon that score. The
bill itself provides that it shall not operate upon
any of the rights Of the lands of the Indians; nor
shall they be included within the limits of those
Territories, until they shall, by treaty with the
United States, expressly consent to come under
the operations of the act and be incorporated with
In the limits of the Territories. This provision
certainly is broad enough, clear enough, explicit
enough, to protect all the rights of the Indians as
to their persons and their property. ....
Upon the other point--that pertaining to the
question of slavery in the Terfitores--t was the
intention Of the committee to be equally explicit
We took the principles established by the COM
promise act of 1850 as our guide, and intended to
make each and every provision Of the bill accord
with those principles. Those measures establish
ed and rest upon the great principle of self-gov-
eTnment; that the people should be allowed to de-
eide the questions Of their domestic institutions
for themselves, subject only to such limitations
and restrictions as are imposed by the Constitu-
ton Of the United States, instead of having them
determined by an arbitrary or geographical line
The original bill reported by the committee, as
substitute for the bill introduced by the Senator
from Iowa, Mr. DoDGE, was believed to have ac-
complished this object. The amendment which
was subsequently reported by lis was only design
ed to render that clear and specific which seemed,
in the minds Of some, to admit OF doubt and mis-
construction. In some parts OF the country the
original substitute was deemed and construed to
be an annulment or repeal OF what has been known
as the Missouri compromise, while in other parts
it was otherwise construed AS the object OF the
committee was 10 conform to the principles estab
lished by the compromise measures of 1850, and
10 carry those principles into effect in the Terri
tories we thought it Was better to recite inSthe
bili precisely what we understood tD have been
accomplished by those measures, viz: That the
Missouri comprumise, having been superseded by
the legislation of 1920, hae become imperative,
and hence we propose to leave the question to the
people of the States and the Territories, subject
only TO the Limitations and provisions OF the Con-
stitution ,s ... .,.. IT
Sir this is all that intended to say, If the ques-
ton had been taken up for consideration on Tues
day last; but since that time occurrences have
transpred which compel me to go more fully into
the discussion. 1t will be borne in mind that the
Senator from Ohio Mr.. CnAsE] then objected to
the consideration OF the bill, and asked or tspost-
sponelnent until this day. on the ground that there
had not been time 10 understand and consider its
provisions; and the Senator from Massachusetts
Mr., SUMNER suggested that the postponement
should be for one week, for thet purpose. These
suggestions seeming to be reasonable to Senators
around me, / yielded to their requests, and con-
scented to the postponement Of the bill until this
day. I'D 81 sr.....s f..s .t...g. .,tstsir!- .a.t
Sir, little did Isuppose at the time thatI grant
cd that act of courtesy to those two Senator's that
they had drafted and published to the world doe
ument, over their own signatures, in which they
arragned me as having been guilty OF criminal
betrayal Of my trust, as having been guilty of an
act of bad faith, and been engaged in an atrocious
plot against the cause OF free government. Little
did suppose thut those two Senators had been
guilty of such conduct when they called upon me
to grant that courtesy, to give them an opportpn-
ty OF investigating the substitute reported from the
committee. have since discovered that on that
very morning the National Era, the Abolition or
certain abolition confederates, to the people, in
which the bill is grossly misrepresened, in which
the action of the members of the committee is
grossly falsifed, in which our motives are arraign-
ed, and our characters caumniateu. And, sir,
what is more, | find that there was postscript
added to the address, published that very morning
in which the principal amendment reported by the
committee was set out, and then coarse epithets
applied to me by name. Sir, had | known those
facts at the time granted that act Of indulgence
L should have responded to the request Of those
Senators in such terms as their conduct deserved
SO far as the rules Of the Senate, and respect oI
my own character, would have permitted me tc
do In order to show the character of this docr.
ment-of which I shall have much to say in the
course Of my argument---I will read certain pas
'sages: sI.,,-., f., ,el..,,.~,, An T., t;ss.f.,
aWe arraign this bin as gross violation of. |
sacred pledge; asa criminal betrayal Of precious
rights; as part and parcel Of an atrocous plot tt
exclude from vast unoccuped region emigrant'
from the Old World, and free laborers from iou
own States, and convert it into dreary region o
despotism, Inhabited by masters and slaves. 9 n
A SENATOR. BY whom is the address signed,
Mr.. DOUGLASS. It is signed IS, P, Chase, Sen
ator from Ohio; Charles Sulaner, Senator from
Massachusetts j. R. Giddings and Edward Wade
Representatives from Ohio; Gerritt Smith, Rep
resentative from New York; Alexander Dewitt
Representative from Massachusetts," !" including
as understand, all the Representatives from th'
Abolition party in Congress. r.. 4as,,4r. 81, 4,
Then speaking of the Committee on Terrific
ries, the confederates use this language: 4 isq5l
"The pretences, therefore, that the territory, Gov
cred by the positive prohibition of 1920, sustain
n similar relation to slavery with that acquire
from Mexico, covered by no prohibition exceP
that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, an
that the compromises Of 1850 require the iineprpe
ration of the pro.slayery clauses Of the Utah an
New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are mar
tnventions designed to coper up from pablic refrs
bersion meditated bad faith.', ,s,igt eys.t, 4!
aMere inventions to cover up bad faith Again
aServile demagogues may tell you that the "
ion can be maintained only by submitting to ,th
demands Of slayerys! bss s6e, ,a,esls, ~ aasI M