The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1854-04-08

it, existence.
Second The applying this principle to
ihe Territories and now States 10 be formed
thcreltom,al questions pertaining TO slavery
were to be referred TO the people residing
therein.
Third. That the committee proposed to
carry these propositions and principles into
effect in The precise language Of the compro-
mise measures Of 1850.
Ar, not these propositions identical with
the principles and provisions OF the bill on
your table? IL there is hairs breadth Of
discrepancy between the two. ask any SEN
ator TO rise in his place and point it out.
Both rest upon the great principle, which
orms the basis Of all our institutions, that
ne reJplc are to decide the question for
.lemsolycs, subject only to the Constitution.
But my accuses attempt TO raise UP false
sue, and there by divert public attention
ON the real one, by the cry that theMissou
compromise is TO be repealed or violated
the passage of this bill Well, if the Sth
ction Of the Missouri act, which attempted
fix the destinics Of future generations in
hose Territories for all time 10 come, in ut
Ter disregard of the rights and wishes of the
paople when they should be received into
great principle of seli-goycrnt and the Con
etitution of the United States IT ought TO he
abrogated. The legislation of 1850 abrcga-
tod the Missouri compromise, so far as the
country embraced with the limits OF Utah
and New Mexico was covered by the slavery
restriction. IL Is true, that those acts did
not in terms and by name repeal the act OF
1920 as originally adopted, or as EXTENDED
by the resolutions anneXing Texas in iSl0,
any more than the report Of the committee
on the Territories proposes TO repeal the
same acts this session. But the acts of Is
30 did authorize the people Of those Terrific
res to exercise ''all rightiul powers Of lcgs-
latiou consistent with the Constitution, not
excepting the question Of slavery; and did
provide that, when those Territories should
be admitted into the Union, they should be
received with or without slavery as the Pco-
pie thereof might determine a. the date Of
their admission. There provisions were in
direct conflict with clause in former en-
actment, declaring that slavery should be
forever prohibited in any portion of SAID Ter
ritorios. and hence rendered such clause H.
operative and void TO the extent Of such con-
fict. This was an inevitable consequence,
resulting from the provisions IN those acts
which gave the people the right to decide TIE
slavery question for themselves, in conform
itv with the Constitution. Ii was not nee
cssarv to go further and declare that certain
previous onactmcnts, which were .ncompati-
BE with the exercise of the poworsconttrred
in the bill, care hereby repealed The very
act of granting those powers and rights have
the legal effect of removing all distractions
Al, 80 ,a .la
scribed in those territorial bills. Following
that example, the Committee on Territories
did not consider it necessary TO declare the
eighth section Of the Missouri act repealed
We were content to organize Nebraska in
precise language Of the Utah and new MeAl'
can bills. Our object was to leave the poo'
pie entirely free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions and internal concerns
in their own way, under the Constitution
and we deemed it wise to accomplish that OBJ
iect in the exact terms in which the same
thing had been done in Utah and New Mex
leo by the acts of 1850. This was the prin.
ciplc upon which the committee reported
and our bill was supposed, AMI i, now be
l;eved, to have been in accordance with it
When doubts were raised whether the bill
did fully cary out the principle laid down in
the report, amendments were made, from
time to time. in order to ayoiagll misconStruc-
..--..--.-I ont Of the act
ments was adopted Yesterday, on the motion
of tae distinguished senator from Worth Car.
DINA, Mr. BADGERl in regard to the rcyi.
val OF any laws or regulations which may
have existed prior to 1870. That ala,na,
mcnt was not intended to change the legal
effect Of the bill. Its object was to rcpol tn,
Islander which had been propogalod by the
cnemics Of the measure in tae north, that
tlc southern supporters Of the bill desired {,
logisGtc slavery into these Territories The
south denies the right Of Congress either t,
legislate slavery into any Territory or State
or out of any Territory orState. Non-intcr
vention by Congress with slavery in tn,
States or Territories is the doctrine of th,
bill, andall the amendments which have beer
agreed to have been made with the view 0
removing all doubt and cavil a. 10 the tru
meaning and object Of the measure.
Mr.. President, think have succeeded il
vindicating myself and the action of the com
mittee from the assaults which have beel
made upon us in consequence of thcs
amendments. 1t seems to be the tactics o
our opponents to direct their argument
questions which are to be affected by carry iu
outthe principle, with tue hope of relieving
themselves from the necessity OF controvgrt
ing the principle itself. The senator from
Ohio MIR. CuAsEl led of gallandy in
charge that the committee, in the rep" II
bill first submitted, did not conter III "a :,
repeal Of the Missouri compror -nP'I'' u
not be brought to that POI -''S'' "', M o' y,
senator from hcntuc' AT "i'ti "''e. u
ment. The senat ~ oI Gl ms amen ~,
Surrnl follow ;.r From Connecticut IN
same Itatl, ii his lead, and repeated Il
tnr fro. ..ncrt Then came the other sen
frr Ill Ohio, mr.. WADE,l and the senat
IN New York, Mr.. SEWARD, and the Sc
a.or from Massachusetts, [AIr. SuwER,l ,
singing the same song. only varying Il
tune.
Lot me ask those senators what they mei
ny this statementy Do they wish to be III
derstood as saying that the report and fir
form of the bill did not provide for leavr
the slavery question to the decision of Il
people in the terms of the Utah bill? Sur
ly they will not dare to say that, for hay
already shown that the two measures wei
identical in principle and enactment |
they mean to say that the adoption Of OF
first bill would not have had the legal cie,
to have rendered the eighth section of Ii
Missouri act 'noperatiye and void, to use ii
language of the present bill II this be NJ
thclrmeaning, will they rise in their plac,
and inform the Senate what their mcanin
was? They must have had some object
giyingso much prominence to this statemen
and IN repeating it 50 often. | address Il