The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-03-07

ne Debate m ths Senate On the Kansas-Ne-
braska Balh.
Now Z nat Satur ay's vote has closei the
areer OF the KansasN braska bill in the Senate,
Is cur hous to trace the progress of the debate
which has occupied the time of that body for
ne lie st thirty -four days In the first place, we
loti ,e that the introduction of this measure, at
J II me when the only disturbing elementsin our
~ Itional politics were the growing distrust of
he administration and the spreading conviction
that the country had been duped at the last
Presidential election, succeeded, in marvel
lousy brief period, in overthrowing all the old
party associations, and effacing the remaining
landmarks of our political parties. 1t is
entirely impossible to conciliate the vote on the
final passage with the notion that political men
in this country are divided into, or distin-
guished as wings and democrats; and as the inn
portance that has been attached to the measure
entities it to take rank as one of those legisla-
tive acts which give birth to parties, the sooner
the old names are forgotten, the clearer shall
we see through the political fog. OF the twen-
ty-nine ayes registered in favor of ordering the
bill to third reading, ten were from Northern
men; and all the noes were from the North.
The South voted in bo]y for the bill. On the
final vote, two Southern Senators were induced
to vote with the twelve Northern oppo-
nents of the bill; but both Houston and
Bell based their opposition on the ground
of it's being un.. ust to the Indians, and
apparently concurred in the constitutional
arguments of Douglas and his supporters OF
the remaining twelve opponents Of the bill, at
least five were thorough abolitionists who, would
assail slavery in Virginia, if the rules of the
Senate permitted it. Of the seven others
three were wings, and four democrats. The
Northern vote in favor of the final passage of
the bill was IA, all democrats; the Southern
vote %, of whom IA were democrats, and 3
wings. These figures show pretty clearly that
with respect to this measure the old party ties
were forgotten, and the Senate naturally divid-
ed itself into the constitutional party, for the
bill; the opposition party on various grounds,
against the bill; and the dodgers, who lacked
courage to vote for or against The strength
of these three parties, as shown by the final
vote, stands as follows:
Opposition comprising free soilers aboisonsts Sc IA
Sick and absent (of whom four would have joined the
constitutional party and one the opposition ......
Total.
These figures may serve as an index to the
future course of abe Senate.
During the discussion, as much efoquence,
intellectual power, moral courage and moral
So bou hon in fha To
as il ever displayed. Many of the speeches that
have been made in the month of February will
compare with any that have been heard in
Congress during this century. But, strange
to say, several of those which displayed the
greatest intellectual power and oratorical
ability, were delivered by men who did not
possess the moral courage 10 vote on either
side. Mr.. Clayton for instance reviewed the
constitutional question in a faasterly manner,
and gave a very appreciable accession Of
strength to the side of the bill but when the
matter came to the test, he had not the courage
to give it his personal support by his VOTE So
Mr.. Everett delivered an eloquent and fervid
burst of defamation against dispossessing the
Indians of their birthright; but his courage
failed him when he attempted to grasp the con-
stitutional question: and he eluded it altogether,
following the example of Mr.. Clayton, and re-
fusing to vote on either SIDE Others endeavor-
ed to concliate both parties by pursuing
middle course and speaking on both sides
while they voted on one Whatever may be
thought Of the plea for the Indians put in by
Senators Bell and Houston, their position on
the constitutional question is with the sup
porters and not with the opponents of the bill I:
and should other questions arise involving the
same principle and unclogged by collateral
points respecting the Indian rights, these Sena-
tors would probably be found among the con-
sti tutional party.
Another anomaly presented in the course Of
the debate has been the singular unwillingness
or incapacity displayed by men of very re-
spectacle intellectual powers, to discuss the
constitutional principle involved in the bill.
Most Of the Southern speakers took that ground,
and dismissed collateral points but as gene
raj rule, the Northern wings either shirked the
constitutional question entirely, or discussed
it in q superficial understandable manner.
The bulk of the speakers against the bill quib-
bed on the constitutional point, and seemed
anxious to get it out of the way as soon as posi-
BILE in order to revert to more popular themes.
Messrs Seward Sumner, Chase and their follow
ers based their opposition to the bill on the i'm
morality of slavery. They refused to sanction the
organization of Kansas according to the consti-
tutional rule, because they said that involunta-
ry servitude was moral wrong, human wrong.
But whether slavery be a human wrong in any
degree, or not, the constitution recognizes it,
and expressly authorises it as one Of the ele-
mcnts Of political power. So long as that con-
stitution remains intact, the recognition pos
sesses binding power, and we cannot refuse to
be bound by it without assailing the constitu-
ton itself. It would be more frank and honest
for Seward and Sumner to follow out their doc