Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-05-13

which several Senators participated involving points OF
doubtful issue, when the question taken and decided
| in the affirmative
The Senate then held an Executive session, and ad-
journed few minutes after o'clock P. NJ.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
Mr.. RICHARDSON notified the House that it was. his
intention, tomorrow morning. to Introduce resolution
terminating the debate upon the bill to organize the Ter
ritories of Nebraska and Kansas.
SEVERAL MEMBERS. At what time =
Mr.. RICHARDSON. In reply to the interrogatories
made by gentlemen have to state that the time at which
propose to terminate the debate will depend upon the
opponents of the BILL If they show disposition to go
and debate it, disposed to give the utmost time
that will be possible in order to have final vote the
bill before the special order takes precedence of it,
they do not show such disposition, shall take it for
granted that they do not desire further debate and shall
move to terminate it at the earliest hour.
| Mr.. CAMPBELL. hope the gentleman from Illinois
will allow me to ask him q question He says elf the
opponents Of the bill show disposition to debate the
bill" What is meant by that Does he expect to con-
tinue in session here for ten eleven hours each day.
Mr.. RICHARDSON. cannot yield for inquire. l
that the House 60 into Committee of tbf "Aoe o
! the state of the Union.
1 Mr.. CAMPBELL. / hope will be tearu. leFies VI
Mr.. HAMILTON. object and call for the vote upon
the motion of the gentleman from I,,s.ols
Mr.. CAMpbELL H.. After Been allowed to make his
statement? Surely 49,, = - aAs III ~
4u1ry .4>ER. Is it the pleasure of tho Hease that
49, me !Ssteman be allowed to proceed?
'n Hsir. HAMILTON. object.
The question then taken the motion Of Mr..
RICHARDSON and it was agreed to.
The House accordingly went into Committee of the
Whole the state of the Unon (Mr. OLps, OF Ohio, in
the char and resumed the consideration Of the bill Of
the House to organize the Territories of Nebraska and
Kansas the question being the substitute offered there
for by Mr.. RICHARDSON. r
Mr.. BAYLY, Of Virginia. after elaborate review of
the relations which the Government has borne to the ques
ton of slavery since its organization proceeded to argue,
first that the principles Of the compromise of 1885, in
spect the Territories the principles Of American
liberty and repugnant the Missouri compromise Of
1920 secondly, that Congress- with view of dsembar
RAISING the courts ought declare and thirdly that
the principle of nonntervenon by Congress with respect
slavery the Territories, embodied in the compromise
ot1S50 is notvoaed by the he tookissue
with gentlemen who had said thaa the time of the passage
of The compromise Of 1850 no maintained that il ab
rogsted the Missouri act of 1920 Such gentlemen
grayely in Over and again. in presenting this
subject both here and elsewhere lie had declared that
would have that effect and that the South had gained by
the abrogaon Of the Missouri compromise better and
truer principle. e.
! AIR GROW said that the bill under consideration pro-
yded for the organization Of two Territorial Governments
to be called Nebraska and Kansas embracing together
about 665 900 square miles, area twice large
the original thirteen colonies, and extending from New
Mexico the British possessions, and from the
limits of Minnesota and the States to the Territories of
Washington and Oregon, and containing four hundred
and twenty-five millions Of acres Of land, more than
fourth of the entire public domain now owned by the
Government.
He then stated his objections to the Clayton amend
ment which he declared not only unjust, but incon
sisten with the great principles Of self government claim
cd be embodied in the bill! by its special advocates
But his great controlling objection to the bill was that it
proposed to repeal the Missouri compromise This he
earnestly opposed and trusted that no Northern man
would vote for its abrogaton For one he would
vote to extend slavery over territory where it did not
now exist He argued that slavery could only exist
through municipal regulation and quoted various Judi
cia decisions to sustain this position The passage of
this BILL in his opinion, would ensure, beyond doubt,
antiAdminstraton majority in the next Congress,
and therefore, earnest, devoted friend OF the
Democratic party, he desired to defeat its passage.
Mr.. PERKINS, of New York, opposed the bill. lie
briefly adverted to the Badger proviso, which he
satisfied would leave these Territories in respect to sa-
very what had been repeatedly called tadsa rasaa
Territory without law the subject. 1t was utterly
absurd declare that the bill contained the principle of
government and to advocate it that ground
pure humbug He opposed the repeal OF the Missouri
compromise and argued generally in opposition to slavery
Mr. ELIoT of Massachusetts,, said that he stood here
the advocate of the principles Of freedom against the
nggressons Of slavery Alter having expressed his op
position to the present fugitive slave law he referred to
the discrepancy between the arguments of tie report and
the provisions Of the bill of the Senate. The BILL he
sad staltfed the report in measure and he could only
account for this by surprising that the Committee on
Territories OF the Senate agreed to the report before they
report the bill should forthwith be rejected. He then
argued length against the repeal OF the compromise
OF 1920
Mr. SEWARD stated his objections to the details OF
the BILL the time announcing that he should yield
his objections and vote for the upon solitary
principle contained in it. lie was not of those who
believed that the Missouri act of 1920 affected by the
legislation of 1850 Such proposition absurd aud
how any gentleman possessing ordinary legal attachments
could assent to it truly astonishing to him. There
no compromise in this bill about which they could
hereafter dispute 1t simple act Of legislation,
based upon principle which he sure the South
hoped would forever quiet agitation the subject of
slavery. He then stated his objections to squater
sovereignty"
Mr.. ELLIOTT, Of Kentucky, argued in favor Of re-
peaing the Missouri restriction, contendng that the
North had heretofore refused to abide it. In concn
sion, he advocated the doctrine Of non Intervention.
Mr.. D0WDELL said that the restriction Of 1920 was
the naked act Of arbitrary power unwaaned by the
Constitution wholly indefenshle impolitic, and mex
pedient 1t forced upon the South as the least Of