Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-07
WASHINGTON, D. c..
NEBRASKA THE QUESTION.


The report of the Committee On Territories
on the subject Of Nebraska appears to-day in
the Era. We ask for it the serious attention
of every reader. We are to understand that
it presents the views Of the Administration,
and that the bill it recommends is to be urged
as an Administration measure.
The report attempts to run parallel be-
tween the condition Of the Territories acquired
from Mexico in l848, and that Of the Terri
tory of Nebraska now, assimilating them with
q view Of enforcing the propriety Of similar
Legislation in regard to them. II assumes, too,
that the Compromise Measures Of 1850 were
intended to embrace in their provisions all the
territory Of the United States.
The whole Of this part Of the report is mis-
chevonsly deceptive. The Compromise Of 1850
embraced the admission Of California as a
State, the settlement of the Texas Boundary
Question, the organization of the Territorial
Governments Of Utah and New Mexico, the
abolition of Slave Importation into the District
Of Columbia, the Fugitive Slave Act, and a
declaration, that thenecforth State applying
for admission into the Union should be admit
ted with or without Slavery, as its Constitution
might prescribe The only Territorial provi.
sions Of the Compromise related to Now Mex
leo and Utah. No measures were proposed,
no principles affirmed, in relation to any other
Territories. Oregon had received Govern
ment in 184S; the condition Of the territory
North Of 36 deg 80 min, east of the Rocky
Mountains, had been settled by the act ad-
hitting Missouri into the Union in 1920. No
body dreamed that the Compromise had any
thing to do with either: it is notorious that
it had nothing to do with either. The report
drags them within its scope, simply to secure
a pretext for re affirming in the Nebraska bill,
the Pro- Slavery declaration Of the Compro-
mise.
Nor is it less deceptious when it undertakes
to assimilate the condition Of newly-acquired
Mexican Territories in 1850, with that Of Ne
braska in 1853 American Law had not been
extended over those Territories. The law ex-
Guiding Slavery had been enacted while they
were portion Of Mexico. The questions
arose-Did this law continue in force after
their annexation Was it abrogated by their
separation from the Sovereign Power that had
enacted it Was it abrogated by the Consti-
tuition Of the United States! These questions
were debated with great yehemence; and 30
nearly equal was the division Of opinion, that
the Anti-Slavery party, which for time was
= IL oka1 kok -.
vent all danger, and settle the condition Of the
Territories once for all, it was the duty Of
Congress to provide by positive enactment
against the existence of Slavery therein.
But, no such questions have arisen, or could
arise, in relation to Nebraska. It is part
Of the Territory acquired from France, and its
condition as it respects Slavery has been set
tied, by American Law, for an entire genera
ton. There were dreamers, at times, who ques-
toned theoretically the validity of that Law !:
nobody ever made practical question on this
point It has been the universal understanding
that the condition Of this Territory is fixed. In
no respect, then can the circumstances Of Me-
braska now be compared with those Of New
Mexico and Utah in 1850, so that the inference
that the bill to organize the former should be
framed like those under which the latter wera
organized is clearly illogical and impairment
For the fret time in the legislation Of this
country for thirty three years, the validity Of
this act of 1920 is brought into question. The
report mischievously and groundlessly assumes
that there are similar radical and widespread
differences of opinion in relation to its consti
tdtionality, that prevailed in relation TO the
validity of the Meriean Law excluding Slavery
from New Mexico and that therefore the same
Compromise is necessary'in relation TO Nebras-
ka that was adopted in 1850 Hence, the bill
is framed after the model Of the Utah Terrific.
rial bill, with it's provisions for determining be-
fore the courts the question Of Personal Lib
erty!
Is the reader now prepared, to understand
why we are indignant at this incorporation
into the bill Of the declaration OF the Compro-
misc Of 1850, in regard to the future admission
Of States, although it does not formally and in
terms touch the relations Of the Territory to
Slavery so long as il is Territory? 1t is be.
cause the doctrines and assumptions Of the Re-
port, accompanying the Bill and the fact that
the Bill itself is framed after the model Of the
Utah Bill, which leaves that Territory without
any safeguard against Slavery, constrain us
to believe that, whatever may have been the
intentions Of Mr.. Douglas the Shareholders
propose through this legislative demonstration,
should it secure the assent Of Congress- to re-
gard the Missouri Compromise Proviso as yir-
tualy repealed, and the whole Of the Territory
north Of s6 deg 80 min. thrown open to Slave'
ryl We would not admit that the deceptive
bill, even if il pass--which God in his infinite
mercy forbid had repealed that Compromise
or subvertcd Freedom in the Tcrritory--but
the minions Of the Slave Power would take a
different view--and, for one not to the Supreme
Court would we trust the adjudication Of the
onaefion az Par annal Tihertv arisio ,,ndor spch