Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1854-01-25
Nebraska Tsrritory BIN.

The bill introduced in the United States Sen
ate by Mr.. Douglas for the organization OF Ne
braska Territory, is good deal discussed in the
newspapers and will doubtless give rise to pro-
tracted debate in Congress. Northern Freesoilers
object to it, and threaten to revive the agitation
which disturbed the country prior to the recent
settlement. The alleged ground oftheir objection
is, that the bill contravenes the Missouri Compro-
mise.
It will be recollected that when the Territory
Of Missouri applied to be admitted into the Union
as State, in 1920, the abolitionsts of that day
sOugh. to impose the condition that an article
should be inserted ia its constitution abolishing
slavery except for crime. A warm contest arose,
and The difficulty was finally settled by the adop
tion of plan prescribing that territory North of
thirty and half degrees, and not included in
the State of Missouri, should be free. The Com
promise of 1850 did not expressly abrogate the
Compromise of 1920, and was confined in its terms
to the new territory all of which lay south of the
line marked down in the previous settlement; but
Mr.. Douglas bill proposes to extend over Nebras-
ks the principles ofthe recent adjustment. These
principles, SO far as they apply to the question un-
der consideration are as follows: The bill establish
ing governments In Utah & New Mexico is silent
on the subject of slavery in the Territories, leaving
all questions concerning the rights of shareholders
therein to be decided by the Courts; s. when those
Territories ask for admission into the Union, the in
habitants are to determine whether the States
shall be free or slave. The South having always
eontended that they had the right to hold theiI
slaves in any territory Of the United States tt
which they might emigrate, were contented with
this arrangement. Nebraska Territory however
lying north of latitude thirtysix and half degrees
slavery therein may be prscluded by virtue of the
Missouri Compromise, although it is insisted BY
some that the Compromise of 1850 annuls the for
mer. To remove all doubt, Mr.. Douglas propo
ses his bill, and Mr.. Dixon, of Kentucky has Civ,
en- notice in the Senate of an amendment formally
repeating :he conflicting portion of the act oflS20
The Freesoil newspapers have opened their bat
teries upon the bill resolutions have been intro
duced in the Senate of Ohio protesting against the
hibit slavery in the Territory and many promi
nent citizens of New York city have called ;
meeting to take similar action. Senator Sumner
of Massachusetts, also-to be even with Mr.. Dix
on-has given notice that he will offer an amend
ment to the bill providing that nothing in it shall
contrayene the prohibition of slavery by the Mis-
souri, Compromise. 1t is evident, therefore, tina
some excitement is brewing.
But the Free Sellers are not the only opponent
DIR. Douglass encounters. Some of the peculia
friends Of the Administration take exceptions tt
his course. The Washington correspondent o
the Richmond Enquirer is out against him, an(
says the Dill is considered big bid Of the 'Littl
Giant" for the Presidency. ga hit at the Admin
istratiOn," he says, ''or at its policy, at tn
prominent men who opposed the COmpromisC
measures, may be very adrOit and skilful, yet, ii
view of the pledge of all parties not to open thu
past or to go behind the Platform of Baltimore, i
is violation in spirit Of the agreement made BY
all. The fact is, that the bill of Mr.. Douglas ha
much that is good in it, but the spirit in which i
has been concocted, is Objectionable"
The meaning of this seems to be that the bll
will compel the Presidents Freesoil allies to
show their hands. In this sense, it is 'fa hit al
the Administration The Presidents 'spolicy'
has been TO phce Freesoilers in office, and il
would doubtless be very embarrassing to all par
ties to have the present harmonious relations dis
suYbed.