Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-04-20

tence there. Here again the honorable gen
tleman does not design TO inform his consti-
tuents by what provision or section of the
bill, slavery is thus to be expelled and pro-
hibited. And will ask the gentleman's
constituents (who may read the billy how
is it possible their Representative should
have so represented to them, when there is
in feet no such provision in the bill? l had
supposed, sir, that the great grievance com
planned of, was that by the compromise of
1920 slavery was prohibited from that Ter
ritory, and slave owners were not allowed
to move into it with their slave property.
Such has been my understanding Of the fact
and such, doubtless is the understanding of
every man who understood the question:
1t may be, and l think that it is very appa-
rent, there are some who do not understand
it, though honored with high places; such at
least should not seek to enlighten others,
though they may arrogate TO themselves the
leadership as "pillars of fire." The honor
able gentleman, speaking Of the bill intro
duced by me, says: "Hence, am unalter-
ably opposed to the bill. lam opposed to it
all over" 1t will be remembered, sir that
the printed bill which send you, is the
same bill reported to the House at the last
session Of Congress by the Committee on
Territories, and which passed the House
with two slight amendments relating to the
Indian reservation, and the Superintendent
| cy at St. Louis, bya vote of SO 10 49, And
let it be remembered, that after that bill had
been perfected in Committee of the Whole
and after it had been reported to the House,
and the previous question ordered, upon a
motion TO lay the bill upon the table, which
was test vote, the honorable gentleman
from the Sixth District of Missouri, uoting
against laying it upon the table, as did the
entire delegation from Missouri. Where
then was the gentleman's opposition to the
bill? Why did he not "oppose it all over''
then? Where was his eloquent denuncia-
ton of the attempt, by that bill, to exclude
slavery from Nebraska, and to prohibit its
existence there in future? Why did he not
then expose to his constituents such an at.
tempt? Where then was this luminous
"pillar of fre?' But sir, in justice TO the
honorable gentleman, should not omit tc
say, that it appears by the record that in q
short time after the vote to lay the bill upon
the table, and on the same day, vote was
taken upon the passage Of the bill, and thu.
an opportunity was afforded all 10 record thei
votes, and manifest their opposition 10 The
bill. How did the honorable gentleman vote
then? Here was an occasion to display by
his vote, his hostility to the bill, and doubt
less his constituents would look TO the re
cord for the evidence that opposition whlcl
he now so rampantIy displays. But no sir
the honorable gentleman fought "shy," ape
did not vote at all. Where then was thi
"pillar of fire?" Was he then guiding III
bewildered? No, sir, this light was with
drawn, and the House left in darkness
That bill passed the House by more tha
two to one, and was supported by Wing
and Democrats, by members from free an
,. slave States, from Virginia, North Carnlin
Kentucky, Tennessee, Loui lana, Maryan
and Missouri. The bill was discussed i
the House,my colleague, Hon Willard P Ha
e toEipor n nrornipept p,r, in ;ts s,,rpor+ op
It upon that occasion no Southern man assai
: ed the bill, upon the ground that it expelle
d slavery from the Territory. The honorabI
u gentleman from the Sixth District was s.
l. lent upon that subject, and if Inv bill "e1
e pels slavery from Nebraska" then shou
% the constituents of the Hon. gentleman hol
Il him 10 a strict account for dereliction
d duty in setting quietly by, and failing
Is sound the alarm while the bill was undergo
to ing discussion. The bill having passed II
1t House, went to the Senate for concurrenc
lie and upon a motion TO take up the bill, Sci
ator Atchson said "Mr President, W
k now state the views which induccd me
IN oppose this proposition in the early part
lie the session." He then proceeded 10 sta
e. two objections; one was, that the Indian tit
had not been extinguished, or at least v
e. ry small portion of it had been. Anoih
to was the Missouri Compromise or as
tn is commonly called, the Slavery restric'ic
IT. Again, he says: 81 have always been
s. opinion that the first great error commit
in the political history of this country W
n the ordinance of 1887, rendering the Mort
d, west Territory free territory. The ne
lis great error was the Missouri Compromi'
's' But they are both irremediable. THERE'S
he remedy for them. Wemust submit to the
m l am prepared to do it, 1t is evident Il
IS the Missouri Compromise cannot be repe
les ed. So far as that question is concern,