Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-17
C0ngrfssi0nal.
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
senate rhursday, Februar,
FIRST SESSION.


\ The Chair laid before the Senate communica
ton from Messrs. Tucker and Overton, proprietors
OF the Sentinel offering TO take the contract
for publishing the Senate debates and proceedings
which had bsen surrendered by the proprietors Of
the Uaion.n The letter was read and referred
TO the Committee on Printing.
INTERNATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr.. HAMLIN presented a copy Of report
| made by Alexander Vattemare upon the subject
| of an International standard OF weights and mea
sures. Referredto the Committee on the Library
n MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
Mr.. CHASE presented four petitions from Ohio
| against the repeal Of the Missouri compromise.
| Mr.. SUMNER presented petitions of a like char
acter for Massachusetts and Illinois.
/ BILLS PASSED.
! The following named bills were considered and
| passed: af ~ .8
Bill TO lay off the town of Council Bluffs Iowa
Bill to make Brunswick, Georgia, port Of
entry. st.s
Bill! for the relief Of George P. Welsh and Clark
| II. Wells. etf
/ Bill 10 relnquish the reversionary interest OF
! the United States 10 certain reservation in Ala
bama, and to confirm the title of Charles G. Gun
| ter thereto.
| The Senate then proceeded TO the consideration
| OF the bill 10 provide for the execution. by the
| courts OF the United States, of commissions TO
take testimony issuing from the courts of justice
OF friendly powers; and the same was supported
by Mr.. BAyARD and opposed by Messrs STUART
and BENJAMIN. ts
NEBRAsKA-sLAvERY.
| On motion Of Mr.. DOUGLAS, the Senate pro-
ceeded 10 the consideration of the bill TO establish
territorial government for Nebraska.
| The last clause in the 14ih section now is in
| these words:
which are not locally inapplcable, shall have the
force and effect within the said Territory Of Nebraska
the preparatory the admission Of Missouri
Union approved March g. 1920 which being inconsistent
with the principle of nonnerveptiop by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories recognised by the
legislation OF $780, commonly called the compromise
the intent and meaning Of this act not to egslae
slavery into any Territory State, to exclude It
therefom but leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their
way subject only to the Constitution of the United States
The question pending was on the motion of Mr..
CHASE 10 amend the same by adding thereto the
following:
"Under which the people of the Territories, through
their appropriate representatives may, If they t
hibit slavery therein"
Mr.. BADGER said that like the senator from
Massachusetts, he entertained strong and insu
perable objections to that part of the substitute
offered by the senator from Illinois which related
10 the Indians He was opposed to il because he
thought it did not efectually provide for the pres
ervation of pghted faith with those Indians who
had consented 10 be removed to that country I'M
der the guaranty that they should be allowed TO
retain an undisturbed possession of their homes.
Had the bill been allowed TO remain in that shape,
no earthly power would have induced him to vote
for it, But the amendments of the Committee on
Indian affairs had changed this feature ofthe bill,
and its provisions now sscuredto the Indians free
dom of choice either TO retain or abandon their
present homes.
The objection as 10 the small number Of inhabit
ants in these Territories had also occurred TO him.
but he agreed with the senator from Massachp-
sets that that was question Of time only
il had been said that the repeal of the Missouri
compromise was violation of solemn compact.
He thought he could show that the language which
had already been voted into the bill respecting that
matter was true and proper, and that the Missouri
act being inconsistent with the pr ncipes of the
Legislation of 1850 was properly declaredto be void
and imperative. The senator 4 ON Connecticut
had argued this question on the ground that the
prohibition of the Missouri act applied to the coun
try north Of $50 30 as long as il was territorial
organization, and ceased TO operate when that ter
ritory came under State government He did
not think II was so Intended by its authors. Il
prohibited slavery north of the line and implicitly
permitted it south of the line. It was adopted as
permanent prohibition 10 follow the territory for
ever whether under territorial or State organiza-
ton, and was intended to apply 10 all the terrific
ries of the United States then and forever That
this was so was manifest from the Texan resou-
tons. When Texas was admitted, the Missouri
line was taken up as matter of course, and APP
piled TO her territory in the name of the Missouri
compromise line Of 800 30,. Alnow admitted that
any act of Congress to exclude or admit slavery
in State would be an idle, vain and imperative
measure but the men of 1920 thought otherwise
BY the adoption of the principle of non-nterven-
ton by Congress with slavery in the Territories
Congress laid down new rule. The principle
on which the legislation of 1850 was predicated
was abandoned and repudiated by the legislation
of 1850. During the agitation Of 1850, the south
had asked and sought for nothing but the recogni-
ton Of the Missouri line, and il was refused II
was absurd therefore to call upon the south
now to stand by the compromise which was utter
y repudiated in 1850. He referred TO the fact
that upon the presentation Of the Missouri con-
stituton in 1921, framed under the Missouri com
promise act the House of Representatives re-
jected bill providing for her admission, thus dis
regarding the compromise itself in one year after
its adoption. Under this compact and bargain
Missouri should have been admitted at once upon
her application but the north then rejected her.
During the debate on the Oregon bill in 1S4S, the
south unanimously voted for the Missouri line, but
it was rejected in the House. During the debate
on the measures of 1850, the Missouri line was
offered in variety Of shapes, and at various
times by the SOUTH but it was uniformly voted
down. II was little remarkable that the senator
from Ohio, who now was so anxious TO preserve
the Missouri act. voted against il every time it was
proposed during the action Of the Senate on the
legislation of 1850.
He suggested to gentlemen that there was but
little use in their troubling themselves about the
condition Of the slaves ofthe south. Slaves they
were, and slaves they would continue to be- He
could see harm in allowing the present
number of slaves to be dispersed over a larger
extent of territory Slavery would never go
anywhere but where the soil and the climate
was adapted to the growth Of cotton sugar, tobac-
co, and rice for expectation. White men would
never cultivate these. There could be no conflict
then, between white and slave labor To CON-
press slavery in their narrow limits 10 do in.
jury TO the master, and render the condition of
the slaves infinitely worse than if allowed room
and comfort. He bad no idea that slavery would
would go 10 Kansas. Some few southern
families would go there, and carry nurse or ono
or two servants raised with the family. And why
should they not carry them with them Why
should they be compelled, when about 10 move
for the better welfare of master and slave 10 put
up at the public slave mart their few long-tried
and attached servants2 II would be cruel to re.
quire it of them.
The efforts Of abolitionists had never benefited
the slaves. To compel them TO be kept within
certain limits was to give them over TO hardshps
and seventies. All the south asked was 10 be