Washington sentinel., 1854-03-04
COngrfssi0nal. d
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
FIRST SESSION.
In senate--Friday, March 3, 1854.

. FiKST SESSlON.
In Senate--Friday, March 3, 1854.
The CHAIR presented communication from the
Of the amounts paid to Luther Blake for removing
Indians from Florida which was referred and
ordered 10 be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
Private bills Of the following titles were con-
sidered and passed:
A bill authorizing patent 10 be issued TO Peter
Pinceau for certain lands in Minnesota.
A bill for the relief of Conrad Wheat, Jr.
bill for the relief of the legal representatives.
Of Samuel Proieau, deceased.
On motion of Mr.. BADGER the rule setting
apart Friday for the consideration of private bills,
was suspended for this day.
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
Remonstrances against the repeal OF the Mis-
souri, compromise, were presented by Messrs.
SEwARpy sEsEssENDEN, and Foor.
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
The Senate resumed the consideration ofthe bill
to establish Territorial governments Tor Nebraska
and Kansas.
The bill having yesterday been ordered 10 a
third reading, read third time.
Mr.. CASS said that he was not in the Senate,
Yesterday, when the vote was taken on the en-
rrossment of the bill, and, as he desired 10 have
his name recorded in favor Of the bill, he wished
that il might be taken by yeas and nays on the
final passage. While up he desired to return his
thanks and congratulations 10 the southern sena-
tors for the adoption of the concilatory measure,
contained in the amendment moved to the bill by
the senator from North Carolina, (Mr. BADGER9
That amendment would remove all reasonable
objections 10 the bill at the north. The passage
of this bill in its present shape would forever
close this fountain Of bitter waters.
Mr.. BELL said that he had opposed the Me-
braska bill of last session. which contained no
provision on the subject Of slavery. He had heard
nothing Of any intention to repeal the Missouri
compromise until il had been distinctly proposed
by the senator from Kentucky
He stated his objections to the bill of last year.
which applied equally to this bill There was no
necessity for this measure II was an anomaly
10 establish governments over this immense ter
rtory, where there was no white population
The bill also made no provisions for the military
posts, &c
He thought the senator from Illinois had been
for some time laboring under sort of mania for
territorial governments. The senator had pre-
pared the New Mexico, Utah, and Washington
bills, and now proposed two more.
His next obje:tion was TO the provisions OF the
bill regarding the Indian tribes He examined the
history of the policy Of, the government towards
the Indians, and declared the bill as il now stood
was clear and explicit violation OF Indian trea-
tics.
He called upon those who had spoken SO much
upon pghted faith contained in the Missouri act,
10 answer where was their sympathy, their sense
of honor with respect to the fagrant violation OF
the Indians who were as much men, and brothers
as those Of the African race.
He then considered at great length The argu-
ments in favor and against the passage of the BILL
stating that II there were an overpowering, neces-
sty for the BILL he would support il He then
considered the question of the supposed objects
10 be accomplished by this bill, with view Of as
certaining the existence of this overpowering me-
cessy In the course of these remarks he intro
duced and referred to various collateral TOPICS
pon her
guiry to be decided in the passage or rejection of
this bill.
Mr.. DAWSON followed in support Of the bill.
Mr.. NORRIS followed in support of the bill.
He showed that the acts of 1850 did establish the
principle Of non-intervention by Congress with the
domestic regulations ofthe south that this prn-
cipe was then forced upon the south by the
nearly unanimous vote of the north. He also ar
gued that this bill was nothing more than an as
sertion of the same principle.
He denied that the Missouri act was q COM
pact. He showed that the north had repudiated
the Missouri line in 1850. He maintained the
the propriety Of setting aside that geographical
line between free and slave-holding States. He
repelled in strong terms the accusation that north
ern men who dared to do what the Constitution
required of them were white slaves:
Mr.. WADE followed, discussing the constitu
tionaliiy Of the Missouri compromise, the injustice
of slavery, and the consistency OF several friends
of the bill.
Mr., TOUCY followed in support of the bill, and
in argument upon constitutional powers of Con
gress over the Territories.
Mr.. TOUCEY continued his remarks until
nearly ten o'clock
Mr.. FESSENDEN addressed the Senate
against the bill, and upon the institution of sla
very.
Mr.. WELLER followed in reply and at nearly
twelve o'clock he yielded the floor 10
Mr.. DOUGLAS, who then replied TO the various
speeches made in opposition 10 the bill. He con-
tinued his remarks till aquarer past three o'clock.
Mr.. HOUSTON followed in opposition to the
bill. till quarter before five o'clock.
The question was then taken on the passage
of the bill, which resulted yeas 81, nays IA, as
follows:
YEAs-Messrs Adams, Atchison, Badger Bayard, Benja
min Brodhead, Rrown Bntler Cnss, Clay Dawson, Dixon
Dodge Of Iowa. Douglas Evans, Fitzpatrick Geyer Gwin
Hunter johnson, jones' Of Iowa, jones' of Tenn Mason
Morton, Norris, Petit Pratt Ruk Sebastian, Shields
Sdel Stuart Thompson, Of Kentucky Thomson, of New
Jersey, Toucey, Weller, Williams-37
NAYs-Bell, Chase, Dodge, Of Wisconsin, Fressenden,
Fish, Foot Hamlin Houston, James, Seward Smith, Sum-
ner, Wade, Walker-l4.
The Senate then adjourned till Tuesday next.