Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-10
WHOLE no. 1853.

I
repeal the act of 1920, as originally adopted. or
as extended by the resolutions annexinr Texas
in ls45, any more than the report Of the com
mittee on Territories proposes to repeal the same
acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did au-
thorize the people Of those Territories to exer-
else call rightful powers of legislation consistent
with the Constitution not excepting the ques-
ton ofslaRery; and did provide that, when those
Territories should be admitted into the Union,
they should be received with or without slavery
as the people thereof might determine at the date
of their admission. These provisions were In
direct conflict with q clause in former enact
ment, declaring that slavery should be forever
prohibited in any portion of said Territories and
hence rendered such clause imperative and void
to the extent Of such conflict. This was an in
evitable consequence, resulting from the proyi--
sions in those acts which gave the people the
right to decide the slavery question for themselves
in conformity with the Constitution. II was not
necessary To go further and declare that certain
previous enactments, which were incompatible
with the exercise of the powers conferred in the
bills, "are hereby repealed" The very act of
granting those powers ard rights have the legal
effect oi removing all distractions to the exercise
of them by the people, as prescribed in those ter
ritoral bills. Following that example, the COM
mittee on Territories did not consider it necessa-
Iy W ueCIdIG Tie eISutu ScCIlOu OI Tue missouri
act repealed. Wew content to organize Ne
braska in the precise language ofthe Utah and
New Mexican bills Our object was to leave the
people entirely free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions and internal concerns in
their own way, under the Constitution; and we
deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the
exact terms in which the same had been done in
Utah and New Mexico by the acts of 1850, This
was the principle upon which the committee re-
ported; and our bill was supposed, and is now be-
lieved, to have been in accordance with it. When
doubts raised whether the bill did fully car
,ry out the principle laid down in the report,
amendments were made, from time to time, in
order to avoid all misconstruction, make the
true intent of the act more explicit The last of
these amendments was adopted yesterday, on the
motion of the distinguished senator from North
Carolina, (Mr. BADGER,) in regard to the revival
of any laws or regulations which may have exist
ed prior to 1920. That amendment was not in-
tended to change the legal effect of the bill. Its
object was to repel the slander which had been
propagated by the enemies of the measure in the
north, that the supporters of the bill desired to
legsIute slavery into these Territories. The
south denies the right of Congress either to Iegis-
late slavery into any Territory or State or out of
any Territory or State. Non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States OF Terrific,
ries is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amend
ments which have been agreedto have been made
with the view of removing all doubts and cayil
as to the true meaning and object eff the meas
ure. .- ....r. ar-.aa y.tys.
Mr.. President, think have succeeded in vim
dcating myself aud the action of the committe
from the assault which have been made upon US
in consequence OF these amendments. 1T seems
to be the tactics of our opponents to direct their
tho onp1 rfon M; "a nd In.
cidental questions which are to bc affected by
carrying out the principle, with the hope re-
lieving themselves from the necessity of contro-
verting the principle itself. The senator from
Ohio Mr. CHAsE] led off gallantly in the charge
that the committee, in the report and bill first
submitted, did not contemplate the repeal of the
Missouri compromise, and could not be brought
to that point until after the senator from Ken
tucky offered his amendment. The senator from
Connecticut Mr.. SMITH followed his lead, and
repeated the same statement. Then came the
other senator from Ohio, Mr.. WADE and the
senator from New York, Mr.. SEWARD and the
senator from Massachusetts, Mr.. SUMNER,] all
singing the same song, only varying the tune.
Let me ask the senators what they mean by
this statement! Do they wish to be understood
as saving that the report and first form of the bill
did not provide for leaving the slavery question to
Utah bill! Surely they will not dare to say that,
for have already shown that the two measures
were identical in principle and enactment. Do
they mean to say that the adoption of our first
bill would not have had the legal effect 70 have
rendered the eighth section of the Missouri act
"inoperatve and vod," to use the language of the
present bill! If this be not their meaning, will
they rise in their place and inform the Senate
what their meaning, was! They must have had
some object in giving so much prominence to this
statement, and in repeating it SO often. adj
dress the question to the senators from Ohio, and
Massachusetts, Mr.. CHASE and Mr.. SUMEER,]
despair in extorting response from them; for,
no matter in what way they may answer upon
this point have in my hand the evidence over
their own signatures, to dsprove the truth oftheir
answer. | allude to their appeal or manifesto to
the people oflhe United States, in which they ar
raign the bill and report, in coarse and savage
terms, as u proposition to repeal the Missouri
compromise, to violate plighted faith to abrogate
solemn compact, &C., &C. This document
was signed by these two senators in their official
capacity, and published to the world before any
amendments had been offered to the bill. It was
directed against the committees first bill and re-
port and against them alone. II the statements
In this document be true. that the first bill did re-
port and against them alone. If the statements
in this document be true that the first bill did re-
peal the eighth section of the Missouri act, what
are we to think of the statements in their speech
es since, that such was not the intention of the
committee,was not the Recommendation of there
port, and was not the legal effect ofthe billl On
the contrary, fthe statements in their subsequent
speeches are true, what apology do those senators
propose to make to the Senate and country for
having falsiied the action Of the committee in .
document over their own signatures, and thus
led the public mind in respect to our proceedings
These senators cannot avoid the one or the other
of these alternatives Let them seize upon eth
er, and they stand condemned and self-conyicted;
in the one case by their manifesto, and in the
other by their speeches,
In fact, it is clear that they have understood the
bill to mean the same thing, and to have the same
legal effect in whatever phase il has been present