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

and Mr.. SUMsER,l profess to belong to the one or
the other of these parties, and hence was sup
posed to be under high moral obligation to carry
out the principle and substance" Of those mea-
sures in all new territorial organizations. The
report OF the committee was in accordance with
this obligation | am arraigned, therefore, for
having endeav ored to represent the opinions and
principles of the Senate truly; for having per-
formed my duty in conformity with the parlia-
mentary law; for having been faithful to the
trust reposed in me by the Senate. Let the vote
tins night determine whether have thus faith
fully represented your opinions. When a majo-
rity OF the Senate shall have passed the bill when
majority of the States shall have endorsed it
through their representatives upon this floor;
when majority of the south and majority of
the north shall have sanctioned it, when majo-
rity of the wing party and majority of the dem
ocratic party shall have voted for it, when each
of these propositions shall be demonstrated by the
vote this night ON the final passage of the bill,
shall be willing to submit Che question to the
country, whether, as the organ of the committee,
performed my duty in the report and bill which
have called down upon my head so much denun-
citation and abuse.
Mr.. President, the opponents of this measure
have had much to say about the mutations and
notifications which this bill has undergone since
il was first introduced by myself, and about the
alleged departure of the bill, in its present form,
from the principle laid down in the original report
OF the committee as rule of action in oil future
territorial organizations. Fortunately there Is no
necessity, even if your patience would tolerate
such course of argument ut this late hour of the
night, for me to examine these speeches IN detail,
and TO reply to each charge separately. Each
speaker seems to have followed faithfully in the
footsteps of his leader-in the path marked out by
the abolition confederates in their manifesto,
which took occasion to expose on a former occa-
sion. You have seen them on their winding way,
meandering the narrow and crooked path in In
dian file, each treading close upon the heels of
the other, and neither venturing to take step
to the right or left. or to occupy one inch of
ground which did not bear the footprint of the
abolition champion. To answer one, therefore,
is to answer the whole. The statement to which
they seem to attach the most Importance, and
which they have repeated oftener perhaps than
any other, is, that, pending the compromise
measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress
ever dreamed of abrogating the Missouri compro-
mise; that from that period down to the present
session nobody supposed that its validity had been
impaired, or anything done which rendered it OBJ
igatory upon us to make it imperative hereafter;
that at the time of submitting the report and bill
to the Senate, on the 4th Of January last, neither
| nor any member of the committee ever thought
of such thing; and that we could never be
brought up to the point of abrogatng the eighth
from Kentucky introduced his amendment to my
bill.
Mr.. President, before | proceed to expose the
many Misrepresentation contained in this COM
plicated charge, must call the attention of the
Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen
are endeavoring to impose upon the country, for
the purpose of diverting public attention from the
real issue contained in the bill. They wish to
have the people believe that the abrogation of
what they call the Missouri compromise was the
main object and aim of the bill, and that the only
question involved is, whether the prohibition of
slavery north of $50 go shall be repealed or not :
That which is a mere incident they choose to con-
slider the principal. They make war on the means
by which we propose to accomplish an object, in
stead of openly resisting the object itself. The
principle which we propose to carry into effect by
the bill is this That Congress shall neither legis
late sarery into any Territories State, out Of
The same; but the people shall be i free 10 regulate
their domestic their o,cn ray subject only
to the Constitution Of the United States.
In order to carry this principle into practical
operation, it becomes necessary to remove what
ever legal obstacles might be found in the way Of
It's tree exercise. 1t is only for the purpose OF
rying out this great fundamental principle of self
government that the bill renders the eighth sec
ton of the Missouri act imperative and void
Now, let me ask, will these senators who have
ME, or any one of them, have the assu-
rance to rise in his place and declare that this
great principle was never thought of advocated
as applicable to territorial bills, in 1850; that,
from that session until the present, nobody ever
thought of incorporating this principle in all new
territorial organizations; that the Committee on
Territories did not recommend it in their report;
and that it required the amendment of the sena-
tor from Kentucky to bring us up to that point 7
Will any one of my accusers dare to make this
issue, and let it be tried by the record 7 will be-
,,,rif, - A
who will take the trouble to examine our journals
will find that on the 25th of March of that year
reported from the Committee on Territories two
bills including the following measures: the adms-
sion of California, territorial government for
Utah, territorial government for New Mexico,
and the adjustment Of the Texas boundary.
These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah
and New Mexico free TO decide the slavery ques-
ton for themselves, in the precise language Of the
.Nebraska bill no,o under discussion. A few weeks
afterwards, the Committee of Thirteen took those
two bills and put wafer between them, and re-
ported them back to the Senate as one bill, with
some slight amendments. One of those amend
ments was, that the territorial legislatures should
not leglslate upon the subject of African slavery.
objected to that provision upon the ground that
it subverted the great principle of selfgovernment
upon which the bill had been originally framed
by the Territorial Committee. On the first trial,
the Senate refused to strike it out but subse-
quently did So after full debate, in order to estab
lish that principle the rule of action in terrific
rial organizations.
Mr.. DODGE, of Iowa. 1t was done on your
own motion.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Upon this point trust |
will be excused for reading one or two sentences
from some remarks made in the Senate on the
Sd of June, 1850: :.
The position that have ever taken has been
that this the slavery question, and all other ques
tons relating 10 the domestic affairs and domestic
policy OF the Territories, ought 10 be left 10 the
decision of the people themselves and that we
ought TO be content with whatever way they would
decide the question, because they have much
deeper interest in these matters than we have,
and know much better what institutions will suit
them, than we, who have never been there, can
decide for them
Again, in the same debate, said
: do not see how those of US who have taken
the position which we have taken, uhat of non-in.
ierierence) and have argued in favor OF the right
OF the people TO legislate for themselves on this
question, can support such provision without
abandoning aliihe arguments which we urged in
the presidential campaign in the year 1913, and
4 nIa.