Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-14
SPEECH OF HON. 4. DIXON,
ON THE NEBRASKA TERRITORIAL BILL,
In the Senate Of the United States,
or EENTUcKl
FEBRUARY 4, 1854.

In the Senate Of the United stntes,
FEBRCART 4, 1854.
The Senate having under consideration the bill
10 Organize the Territory of Nebraska, &c
Mr.. DIXON said:
Mr.. PREsIDENr: Bnt for the peculiar position
! occupy in relation to that section of the bill
which refers to the act of Congress passed in
the year 1920, commonly known by the name
of the Missouri compromise act, should be
content to give silent vote upon the PROPOSE.
ton, rather than trouble the Senate with any
remarks which may have to make upon the
merits Of the bill. Sc m
The Committee on Territories, to whom the
bill originally introduced by the senator from
Iowa Mr.. DoDGE was referred, reported a sub
stitute for it. That substitute proposed to re.
peal, to limited extent the act prohibiting
slavery north of SO degrees 80 minutes north
latitude, in the Territory now proposed by this
bill TO be organized into q territorial govern
ment. The substitute declared that it should
be within the power Of the States hereafter to
be organized out of the Territories to declare,
through their appropriate representatives, whe
Their they would or would not have slavery.
It also extended to the people of the Territories
the right, through their representatives, to de-
termine the same subject. 1t will at once be
perceived that, although this did not repeal the
entire provisions of the Missouri compromise
act. it did repeal that act to the extent of Civ
ing to the State the right to have slavery or not
as she might think proper and of giving to the
people of the Territories living within the limits
prescribed by the bill the power to determine
that question also for themselves.
did not like the bill as it was then pre-
scented, because ! thought it would be wholly
imperative, so far as respected the placing of
the people Of the different States of this Union
upon an equal footing in relation to their right
to carry into the proposed Territory and State
the property which they might possess, whether
that property consisted in slaves or in anything
else. / saw that the effect of that bill, as thus
presented, would necessarily exclude every
Shareholder until particular time, and that
time was the meeting Of the representatives of
the Territory to declare that slavery should or
should not exist within its limits. The bill,
therefore, gave the right to determine this ques
ton, exclusively, as understood, to people who
did not possess slaves. 1t gave that right to
people who live within States where no slavery
existed. 1t gave it to foreigners who might
emigrate to the Territory, and exercise the
right and privilege of voting upon question
like this. Il excluded the STAKEHOLDER from the
Territory; and as necessary consequence,
that decision could only be made by those who
had no interest at all in the subject of slavery
but to exclude it,
Taking that view Of the question, then, Mr..
President, gave notice to the Senate that i
would at the proper time offer an amendment,
which was read to the Senate, and which pro.
posed to repeal in direct language the act lay.
ing the restriction upon the people Of the slave
holding States in the carrying Of their pro-
perry within the Territory. That amendment.
which proposed to offer to the bill, was sub
sequently, at least IN substance, accepted BY
the Committee on Territories and Incorporated
into the bill ITSELF The amendment, as incor
porated into the bill, so far as it repeats the
Missouri compromise, meets my appreciation.
Sir, give it hearty support. 1t meets my
appreciation because it repeats that act and
because it places the people of all the STATES
within this Union upon ali equal footing, so
far as respects the right to settle the Territory
IN question, and to carry their property along
with them, and when there to be protected US
well in their property as in their persons.
The senator from Ohio Mr.. CHAsEl seems,
however, to think that that amendment of the
bill, which was reported by the able Senator
from Illinois, as the chairman Of the Commit
tee on Territories, was incorporated into it for
some sinister purpose that it was not placed
there with view that the question might be
taken fairly by the Senate upon the merits Of
the bill, but that it was intended rather to de-.
ceive the Senate as it was intended also to i'm
pose upon the public. Well, sir, did honestly
think that the construction which was given to
the conduct and the motives Of the Committee
on Territories was not warranted at all by the
usual parliamentary course which is pursued in
matters Of this kind 1t is in the province of
committee to amend its bill 1t is in the pro-
vince OF committee to perfect its bill. 1t is
the duty of a committee to do that which it set
out with the purpose of doing, and, when it has
fuied in the original draft OF bill, so to change
it and so to amend il as to accomplish the OBJ
iect which was intended.
What do understand to have been the pur-
pose and intention of the Committee on Terri
tories? | presume that no improper motives
can be attributed to them for it will be well
understood by the Senate that those who are in
favor of this repeal of the Missouri compromise
act, and who constitute the members of that
committee, are principally from the States in
which slavery does not exist. What could have
been the motives which influenced them to ac,
upon this question 1t was consciousness on
their part that the act which had been passed
laying thisrestriction the people living within
the limits OF the slave-hoiding States, was an
unjust act: that it struck down the rights o.
the people Of particular section of the Union
and, therefore, that it ought to be repealed
The proposition to repeal this act comes no,
from the slave-holdng States, but from the
States where there is no slavery. II comes from
men who are acting upon great principles Of
public justice and magnanimity. 1t comes
from those who look far and wide over this vast
extent of territory of ours--from those, in fact,
who look to the equality of the States and OF
the people. II comes from them, with view
that all may stand upon an equal footing SO
far as respects the great rights which were in
tended to be secured by the federal Union.
Yes, sir, it comes not from the shareholders but
from those having no slaves. 1t is true the
slave-holding States have looked upon this re-
striction as wrong TO them, yet they have
waited patiently that the move might be made
by those, in fact, whose motives and conduct
could not be misinterpreted; that it should be
made by those who have no slaves, that il
might carry win it the sanction of that high
authority which those who are interested never
give to measure which they propose.