Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-08

Senate, February Z, 1854.
The Chair laid before the Senate report
from the War Department. transmitting an
abstract Of the returns Of the militia Of the
United States
Mr. Brodhead presented the memorial of the
Religious Society of Friends, Of Pennsylvania,
New Jersey and Delaware, complaining of the
institution Of domestic Slavery, demonstrating
against the repeal Of the Missouri Compro-
mise
Mr.. B. said that these memorialists we're not
political Aboitionists; that while hs differed
from them as to the power Of Congress- over
this subject he still had the highest respect for
their motives.
He also presented six other memorials from
the State of Pennsylvania, demonstrating
against the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise.
Mr. Pratt presented circumstances of citi-
zens Of Washington and Georgetown against
the proposed railroad on Pennsylvania avenue
Mr.. Bright, from the Committee on the Dis
trict Of Columbia, reported adversely on the
proposition to construct new custom house in
Geor eetown, D. C..
MI. Pratt, from the same committee, re-
ported bill to incorporate the National Ho-
tel Company at Washington, d. C.
Mr.. Houston moved to suspend the rules, 30
as to admit ladies to the privilege of seats in
the Hobbies of the Senate.
After some debate, Mr.. Petit objected, and
the motion failed
The bill granting land to Michigan, to aid
in the construction of railroads therein, was
taken up and passed.
Also the bill granting land to Louisiana to
aid in the construction Of a railroad from New
Orleans to the Sabine river; and the same
was considered and passed.
Mr.. Hamlin moved to take up the French
spoliation bill, which motion was agreed to-
ayes 10, noes IL.
The bill was then read, amended and then
postponed.
The Senate proceeded to the amendments Of
the Nebraska bill.
Mr.. Everett said that he regretted that the
short time which had elapsed since this bill
was reported had not afforded him time to ex-
anime the great constitutional questions in
volved in this Territorial subject, nor even to
examine the historical questions necessarily at.
tached TO this matter. As he could not enter
into these subjects, he would content himself
with giving expression to the reasons why he
could not vote for the bill az reported He was
an ardent supporter Of the Compromise Of 1850
the laying Of the foundation Of two States here
after to become part Of this Union, in what was
now Wilderness.
He had serious scruples az to the expedien-
cy of forming any Territorial Government Of
the highest order for these Territories at this
time. The latest accounts of the population
did not give white population there Of over
six hundred and at the election for delegates
there were not over two hundred voters He
entered into this difficulty with some detail
but admitted that the objection was one of
time only. These Territories would eventually
become as familiar names as States, as Vir-
ginia or Ohio.
His next objection to any Territorial bill
was the condition Of the Indians. They had
been placed in these territories, carried there
from their original homes, under the policy
Of General Jackson which had for it's cardinal
point that there they were to have perma-
nent resting place. He could not do anything
to disturb the guarantee TO tho Indians.
It was true that the establishment Of State
on the Pacific would, under the necessity of
some communication over the continent, render
it impossible TO preserve that Indian barrier
intact. But il the Indians were to be dispos-
sessed, he desired that more than justice and
equity should be done them But before acting
on this subject, he desired full information. II
the Indian rights were secured, he had no
passed at the last session by the House.
He regarded the language Of the amend
ment and that part Of the bill relating to the
Missouri Compromise, rs indistinct and objec-
tionable. IL it was right in saying the Mis-
souri, act was imperative and void, it would be
moro direct and parliamentary to say il is
hereby repealed. If it was to be repealed,
why not say 80 directly? The substance Of
the paragraph was moro Objectionable than
its phraseology.
He understood tho New Mexico and Utah
acts as confined entirely to those specific meas
ures, and as not carrying with them any prin-
ciple by which all former Territorial Govern
ments and regulations were TO be governed and
controlled. He saw no principle in those meas
ures which by implication or otherwise was to
act prospectively or retrospectiyely upon all
Other Territories then or to be acquired
He then entered into review oil the position
assumed that the principles Of the acts Of 1850
extended to all other territories, and contro-
verted IL in this particular