The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-03

striction will ever be repealed" Then h
made some complaint, as other southern gel,
tlemen have frequently done, ofthe ordinance
OF 1887, and the Missouri prohibition bu
went on to say, "they are both irremediable
there 10 no remedy for them; we must submit
to them; am prepared to do it; it is eviden
that the Missouri compromise cannot be re
pealed."
Now, cir, when was this said! II was or
the morning Of the 4th March, just before tn,
close OF the last session, when that Nebrask,
bill, reported by the Senator from Illinois
which proposed no repeal, and suggested nc
| supersedure, was under discussion. I think
sir. that all this shows pretty clearly that ur
20 the very close Of the last session of Con.
gress nobody had ever thought of repeal by
suPersedure. Then what took place at the
commencement of the present. session! The
Senate: from Iowa, early in December, intro
duced bill for the organization of the Terri.
tory OF Nebraska. believe it was the same
bill which was under discussion here at the
last session, line for line, and word for word.
II am wrong, the Senator will correct me.
Did the Senators from Iowa, then, enter
tain the idea that the Missouri prohibition
had been supersededl No. sir; neither he
nor any other man here, SO far as could be jud-
ged, from and discussion, or ttatemeht; or re-
mark, had received this notion.
Well, on the 4th day Of January the Com
mlttee on Territories, through their chairman
the Senator from Illinois, made report on
the territorial organization Of Nebraska; and
that report was accompanied by bill. Now
sir, on that 4th day of January, just thirty
Days ago, bid the Committee on Territories
entertain the opinion that the compromise
acts OF 1850 superseded the Missouri prohibi.
ton! Ifthey did, they were very careful to
keep it to themselves. Welwill Judge the
committee by their own report. What do
they say in that! In the first place, they de-
scribe the character of the controversy in re.
spect to the Territories acquired from 'Mexi.
CO. They say that some believed that
Mexican law prohibiting slavery was in force
there, while others claimed that the Mexican
law became imperative at the moment of ac-
qulsltlon, and that Shareholders could take
their slaves into the territory, and hold them
there under the provisions of the Constitution.
The territorial acts, as the committee tell us.
steered clear OF these questions. They SIM
ply provided that the States organized out of
these Territories might come in with or with
out slavery, as they should elect, but did not
affect tile question whether slaves could or
could not be introduced before the organza-
tion of State governments. That question
was left entirely to judicial decision.
Well, sir, what did the committee propose
to do with the Nebraska Territory! In re-
spect to that, as in respect to the Mexican
Territory, differences of opinion exist in re-
lation to the introduction of slaves. There
are southern gentlemen who contend that
Notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition,
they can take their slaves into the Territory
covered by it, and hold them there by virtue
of the Constitution. On the other hand, the
great majority of the American people, North
and South, believe the Missouri prohibition
to be constitutional and effectual. Now what
did the committee propose! Did they pro-
pose to repeal the prohibition! Did they sug-
gest that it had been superseded! Did they
advance any idea of that kind. No, sir. This
is their language:
"Under this section, as in the case of the
Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is
a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited
in the Nebraska country by valid enactment
The decision of this question involves the |
power of Congress to pass laws
prescribing and regulating the domestic in
stitutions of the various Territories of the |
Union. In the opinion of those eminent |
statesman who hold that Congress is invest !
ed with no rightful authority tolegislate upon
the subject of slavery in the Territories, the
eighth section of the act preparatory to the |
admission of Missouri is null and void, while !
the prevailing sentiment in large portion of
the Union sustains the doctrine that the Con- |
of the United States secures to ev-
cry citizen an inalienable right to move into
any of the Territories with his property, of
whatever kind and description, and to hold
and enjoy the same under the sanction of law.
Your committee do not feel themselves call
ed upon to enter into the discussion of these |
controverted questions. They involve the
same grave issues which produced the agita-
ton, the sectional strife, and the fearful
struggle of 1850"
This language will bear repetition:
"Your committee do not feel themselves
called upon to enter into the discussion Of
these controverted questions. They involve |
the same grave issues which produced the |
agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful
struggle of 1850"
And they 60 on to say:
"Congress deemed it wise and prudent to
refrain from deciding the matters in contro-
gersy then, either by affirming or repeating |
The Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory
Of the true intent of the Constitution and the |
extent of the protection afforded by it to slave
property in the Territories; SO your commit |
lee are not prepared now to recommend de- |
parture from the course pursued ON that mem !
orable occasion, either BY affirming crrePeal-
ing the eighth section Of the Missouri act, or
by any act declafat,ry of the meaning of the
Constitution in respect to the legal points in
dispute"
Mr.. President, here are very remarkable
facts. The Committee on Territories deciar-
ed that it was not wise, that it was not pru-
dent, that it was not right to renew the old
and to rouse agitation. They
declared that they would abstain from any
of re peal of the prohibition,