The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-28

The author OF this bin Is traduced slandered, and
abusedyes sir, like Washington, Jsaerson, and other
pure patriots burnt in egybecause he has patriotism
enough to advocate the restoration Of constitutional rights
and natural equality to all sections Of tho Union When
read the snderous abuse heaped upon this true patriot
constrained to ask what is sander and 10 answer,
In the language Of another.
'sIt is assassin, who, at the midnight hour,
With the dark-drawn dagger OF the mind,
Drinks deep the crimson current OF the heart
II is worm that crawls on Beauty's cheek,
And, like the vile viper In vale Of lowers,
Riots In ambrosial blossoms there" trsu
Sir Mr. DouGLAs has been TO the North true to the
South, true to the East and to the Wesy
10 country One Of the for believing
that the author Of this bill has been the South Is
that he has been the uniform advocate Of the extension OF
the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific whenever
opportunity for advocating that extension has occurred
That Is one Of the great reasons for placing him with the
But my colleague Mr. CuLbox1 asks what do you want
the passage Of this for For says he the
bleak hills Of Nebraska and the barren plains of Kansas
slavery exist That the argument Of most OF
the gentlemen from the South who oppose the passage Of
this bill But what say the gentlemen from the North
who act with them-those known al their homes the
constant foes OF domestic nstutionsY The gentle
from Massachusetts, Mr. BAExs in his speech ycser
slavery will certainly be carried 10 the Territory OF
Kansas This is The argument of tho northern opponents
of the bill These are tho opposite arguments made by
gentlemen from the different sections of the Union for
home consumption.
Now, put the issue to my colleague--and will con-
strain him either 70 place those with whom he acts in
~A~~~
dicion Of their arguments If Mr. BANKS correct in say
ing that slavery win to the Territory OF Kansas then
my colleague wrong in saying that will not go there
and my colleague is right in saying that it will 80
there then those with whom he acts in error; at least
they differ very greatly in opinion and take quite another
view of the practical importance Of the Either
the the other must be wrong. If my colleague
thinks that his friend Mr. BANKS who eoquenty opposes
the bill is right then no win find an answer to his oyn
question: when he asks what his section is to gain by the
passage of this bill for according TO Mr. BANKS slavery Is
certain go there the latitude being about the with
whole gaed % Know has the slavery
question disturb the quiet and peaceful legs-
Mr.. CULL0M ! believe that every senator from the
North and the South is Of the opinion that slavery never
can go there. That is my opinion
& Mr.. C1URCHWELL do not know any senator's who
acknowledge this but do know representatives who are
with you hequcston and who expressly affirm and at
tempt TO demonstrate the fact that will Ny colleague
will certainly occupy awkward position before his con-
when they read the speech of the gentleman from
Massachusetts Mr. BAsKs and the other speeches deiv
cred on my colleagues side of the question That
gentleman said that slavery would go Kansas under this
BILL and be established there Then, would inquire,
in what category southern gentlemen will be found
who oppose this h and, in doing so, tell their con-
sttuen that nothing is TO be gained by its passage,
and the establishment there Of the institution which they
much admre2 There must be something wrong There
sides 10 the opposition argumen-one for the
North and another for the South and the gentlemen who
charge this party the very gentlemen who
trying TO organize pary-a party opposed TO
the people governing themselves in their own way IL
results in this il result in nothing else You OPP
posed to tho repeal of the Missouri Compromise opposed
10 removing the restriction Of 36 deg 80 min, and giving
the regulation of the peoples domestic affairs TO them
selves fes Sir are opposed to IT, This missouri Com
promise has given qads peace and quiet TO the country
acknowledge it, but under what crcumsances2 In 1920
1t was the best that could do We were Obliged To
yield 1t; but there is time when compelled no
longer TO yield
Now, when the South has an opportunity TO vindcae
her and place her institution the footing OF the
original Statcswben these rights acknowledged by
the North as well as the South-what do we fnd1 We
6nd pf men yot
solers and aboltonists OF the North taking firm and
decided sand against tie repeal Of the MissourCompro
mise line They oppose the repeal forsooh because II viii
excite agitation in the country and because II has been
long established II Is thirtyfonr years old my col
leagues tell them that during these thirtfour years un
der this geographical cxpeden we have had nothing but
trouble and turmoil arising out Of attempt 10 establish
line Of latitude instead Of great principle 10 govern the
people OF the Territory The has arrived when this geo
graphical line be and must be abrogated The motion
for abrogaton from liberal and undetermined man
OF the North And thank God that have President
who though from the North will sign the bin and stand
by this proposition Of repea lie win give the people Of
the Territory The right to govern themselves in their own
wsy--to have slavery or not y they may choose
Mr. CUBLOM Let me ask my colleague why he did not
propose repeal the Missouri Compromise at the last %
sion when this bin up2
Mr. CHURCHwELL. / will tell my colleagues fMexrs-
Curuox and EruKRpen why did not offer amendment
the bill OF the last session TO repeal the Missouri Com
promise IL because thought the proposition TO be
sn cccssfui ought be made by northern You do
not find me recorded voting for the Nebraska bin Of the
last session voted for the organization OF Washing
ton Territory Washington only portion OF Oregon
Territory which had already organized The bill for
i organization had been signed by Mr. Polk under the
Missouri Compromisc. t..@#.#
Mr. CULBoM, tin,enup,ingl If the Compromise o.
1920 was unconstitutional the Oregon bill unoonsu
tutionsl
Mr. CHtRCHwEIL ! cannot yield to my colleague.
As 10 the question OF consstuonality win read for my
colleagues benefit the following extract @ he seems ssi
70 doubt;
fThe power Of Congress IN impose perpetual rescuon
upon of the territory of the unie
strongly questioned al the time OF the adoption ot
the and looking at the question s one o. consa,u
.ach power can BE- .ry d.uced from any in the
stitohon.
Do Won know who was the author OF thst7
Mr. CULLOM presume Colonel Bell
Mr.. CHURCHWELL Yes sir, IL 10 Colonel Bell and
he comes direct conflict with the opinions Of most Of his
party colleagues this end of the Capitol and think the
people OF Tennessee ought 10 know and understand facts
connected with the position Of their representatives 10 both
branches Of Congress.
There are some points that I feel compelled TO touch
upon delicate they may and do 80 with great re
worthy colleague [Mr. ErHERDes] and shall shrink
from no responsibility that truth may require me TO
shoulder, or honor allow me 70 reveal,
II Ia rema rkable fact that, notwithstanding the turmoil
and agitation have had growing out OF this trouble
some question since 1919 and 1920 now, when oppor-
tnty presented for settlement of the whole dispute
not upon geographical line but upon great principle
applicable the entire country southern at the other
end Of the Capitol united with aunanity uneqused in
the history Of our government Previous 70 night
which Mr. Badger made his famous speech in advocacy Of
this bill the southern whg senators held caueu for he
consideration Of the that they would take upon this
ellude this in order that the people OF Ten