Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-11
NEBRASKA. ..--DEBATE IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.

mainly his remarks thoreon:-
/ Mr.. DOUGLAS said the Committee in preparing
the bill desired to protect the rights and titles ol
the Indians from any Infringement. lie thought
this had been done by this bill They had taken
the principles of the Compromise acts of 1850 as
their guide and bad made each and every provis-
ion Of this bill accord with those principles. Tho
recent bill reported by the Committee had for its
object to make that plain which, in the first one,
seemed to be in doubt or uncertainty. In some
places the first bill was understood as repeating the
Missouri Compromise, and in some others as
not doing so. As this bill was intended by the
Committee to carry ont fully the principles Of the
Compromise Of 1850, and as they considered that
Compromise had superseded the Missouri Compro-
misc that fact had better be plainly and distinctly
stated. This was all he had intended to say, had
the discussion gone on last Tuesday. On that day
when Inc proposed TO say this much, the Senator
from Ohio and the Senator from Massachusetts
asked that 1t be postponed till this day TO give them
time to examine it. lie had yielded TO this request
as matter Of courtesy 10 them. Little, however
did he then know that at that time he had prepared
an address to the American people, charging upon
this bill want Of faith in solemn compact-, and
charging him personally with conccrtiug an atroc-I
Gus plot and applying to him epi,hcts which could
not be used in intercourse between gentlemen, In
Ihc National Era, the abolition organ, published
IN this city, these two Senators published the adj
dress signed by themselves and their abolition
ccnlederates, in which they misrepresentcd the
motives ol the Committee, falsihed the bill itself,
aud IN postscript to il he was referred 10 by name,
and coarse cpthets applied to him. Had he known
anything OF this conduct on their part, when they
asked on Tuesday last to postpone the bill on the
ground Of courtesy to thom, he would have replied
! TO thelr request IN manner which their gross con-
duet deserved. lie then read portion of the nd
dress, in which the bill is styled a gross violation
Of plghtcd faith, criminal betrayal ntrocious plot
! &C., aud then read tho names Of Messrs. Sumner
and Chase, Of the Senate, Wade, Giddings, Of Ohio,
Smith Of New York, Dc Witt of Mass, of the
| House. and said these names included the whole
Abolition party in Congress. This address was
/ directed and appealed TO the Legislature, public
meetings and ministers Of the Gospel, TO ri mp
aud crush this measure, intended TO cover up u
medtacd wrong. Ii bore date Sunday, january
-. ltappcarod then that on the holy Sabbath-day
when all other Senators were in attendance ut d.
! vino worship these Abolition confe1cratcs Of Tie
j two Houses of Congress met together in secret
caucus to prepare this address TO be sent forth 10
the people Of the United States appealing to them
in the name Of religion to resist this measure, and
to draw down cxecraton and denunciatioH upon the
heads Of leowSenOtors who had prepared the bill.
Il Their efforts had not stopped here. The address
appeared in n Now York paper, wherein it was
serted that it signed by majority Of the Ohio
delegation, composed both Of Whigsaud Democrats
These contcderOtcs had heard that resolutions were
pending in the Legislature of that State on the
subject, and it was given forth that the delegation
from that State, in Congress- Of both parties, had
signed this address in order that members Of that
Legislature, who were little tender footed ON this
subject, would allow the lead suggested by their
Congressional friends, and act upon these resGlu
tions accordingly. The address had not itappeared
now, those signatures, and he had reason to believe
that the statement that it had ever been signed by
majority of that delegation, to lie willfuly false
Mr.. CHASE-Mr. President
Mr.. DUCGLAS--I do not yield the floor.
u Mr.. CllASE-I desire to say
4 Tho CllAlR-Does the Senator from Illinois
yield the floor?
Mr.. DOUGLASS-I do not The Senator who
has taken advantage Of n courtesy extended to him
: by me to violate all tho rules of proprety and
lairncss-who has come to me with smile on his
fIce, and with all apparent rankness Of friendship,
and who has, at the same time, sent forth TO the
country document of this kind, filed with mis-
representations and imputations upon my motives
has no right to expect any courtesy at my hands.
lie then repeated his declaration to the object
Of the address 20 influence the action of the Ohio
Legislature by creating the belief that it had been
signed by the delegation from that State.
D Mr., CHASE deny the fact.
, Mr.. DOuGLAS--I refuse to yield the floor. If
the Senator does intcrposc n denial Of the fact !
will undertake to stamp and prove that denial, as
we'll as the statement in the address itself, Ns
c false.
Mr.. CIIASE-I call the Senator to order.
The CHAIR-The Senator from Illinois is GER
tainly out of order
: Mr.. DOUGLAS-Well, if am out Of order,
i will conine myself to showing that the statements
contained in this address false. | deny that
the policy of the Government in its early history
was to exclude Slavery from the Territories. They
= had prohibited it in the Northwest Territory, but
had allowed il in the Southwest. IL was tolerated
and permitted, and, at least by implication, sane
=, toned in the Territory of Tennessee. The earl
statesmen had desired TO mark the line Of dennr-
cation by geographical line, determining that line
however, by considerations OF climate and soil
n From the time Of the cesson of louisiana slavery
allowed up to the thirty-thrd parallel while il
was not prohibited by any act of Congress north O
that line The people were allowed 70 act upon thC
7, subject as they thought proper. So iremained ~
to the time of the Missouri question in 1920 Sla
very was never established in Louisiana by positive
IA law 1t was introduced, tolerated, sanctioned anC
became in time as part of the common law. II
- the Act Of 1872 establishing the territory of Mis-
y souri,, the people were not prohibited from Slavery
they were allowed to do as they pleased with TIN
NJ subject. Nebraska was then an Indian Territory
In 1890 came the proposition to allow the people 0
. Missouri to form State Government hr jess
IS b. Thomas Of ILL.,, in the Senate, moved amend
r. ment to that bill, which is now known as the eight
No section. This was intended to go back to the Ol,
. policy of geographical line between FREQ State
D and slave States. That line was intended TO ex
y tend far west ms the territory of the United state
extends, and with that intention it was passed
The question stood thus until tho Texas Resolution
came before Congress. To those resolutions whel
:" before the House, he had moved an amendment
W extending the Missouri line through Texas and l.
Vs the West indefinitely. 1t could have no practicN
r. purpose in the case of Texas, but it was brough
forward with the view Of maintaining the principl
of extending that line through all the Torritorie
which we then had or should thereafter acquire
That provision extending the line of 80 dog. 30 min
s. through Texas required that any new State forme
I'd north of that line, out of Texas when admitted int
ly the Union should by its constitution, exclude Sla
l. very. No would pretend to say that that rt
= uuirement would be binding one day upon tina
VI State after being admittsd but yet as the compac
so was made with Texas sho could. before consentin
ed to have now State formed out Of the limits, bin
herself to require that the Constitution Of such neV
- State should be in particular form. But the &
ocraphica line was maintained by those resolution