The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-09-03


tued 10 copy Eyaiis.
that the Missouri Compromise was repealed by false pre-
tenoe that II passed for the purpose Of carrying ss
very into these Territories and that the democratic party
has changed front since It's passage To each one Of these
charges respond, and meet with fiat denial
1t ID not true in fact that the Nebraska bill passed
by false preences My colleague has made the assertion
but he has adduced fact 10 sustain IT, There
preences made there occasion for any Ii bcame
necessary organize the territory embraced by Kansas
AAd Nebraska and bin introduced into the Senate
on the 4th Of January, 1850 from the Committee on Terri
tories for that purpose following the precise language of
The territorial bills Of 1850 On the l6th Of January Mr.
Dxos senator from Kentucky gave notice Of his inien
restriction of 1890 should not apply to The territory de-
scribed in the bill Co the l7th Mr.. SIMMER gave notice
that he would offer amendment 10 continue the resrc
thing being Incorporated in the bill relating to slavery
except the language contained in the Utah and New Mex
bills the abolition conederaes Of Congress headed by
Chase Sumner Giddings, Wade Gerrett Smith, and De
Writ issued their manifesto decaring that the bill pro-
posed to cancel the Missouri compacto violate sacred
pedge-to betray precious rghtsthat II was part and
parcel of arocous plot TO convert vast territory into
dreary region of despoism inhabited by masters and
slaves THIS circular declared my colleague does,
that to be passsd under false preences These dec
larations made at time when not word was In the
till about the Missouri Compromise, were many shame
ess asehoods known to be such by their authors when
made Ii was not then proposed to aude 70 the Missouri
Compromise and yet these alse pretences according to
this circular then set up by the friends OF the
bill Did BILL following exactly the precedens of the
Compromise of 1885, become bill If afalse pretences? ?"
not how my colleague say thnt the Missouri Com
promise repealed under ufase pretencesY
Mr.. NORTON. Does my colleague wish an answer
Mr.. HARRIS. II my colleague desires to answer,
Mr. NORTON / never interrupt any gentleman unless
specially appealed to. Now, sir say that never have
any circulars such those which my colleague
refers had nothing to do in getting them up had
connexion with them whatever. But viii tell the gentle
what the history of the facts connected with the
Er, tka+
introduced into the Senate for the organization of Ne
braska did repeal the compromise II left the Terrific
ry during its territorial existence under the operation Of
the restriction of 1890 accompanied by an elabo-
report by Judge DOUGLAS in which he states that he
has expressly avoided any attempt to change that reste
ton for the purpose of preventing an excitement like that
of 1850. Afterwards the bill thrown aside and the
bill introduced by the senator from Kentucky Mr. DMoN
substituted for it, which did repeal that But sir
far that circular concerned repeat that had
nothing do with it did not belong TO the party that
issued it. l q whig
Mr.. HARRIS. My time win permit me TO yield to my
colleague further Instead of replying to the question
put him he zzes off into the most excited rant and dec
amaon. He he had connexion with the men who
issued that circular He wishes repudare the action Of
that party to ignore the declaration which they made
Knowing the position into which it would bring him he
endeavors impress with the belief that he stood afar
of and aoorom the leaders Of bis party he announces
declaration that Mr. DOUGLAS did not wish to repeal the
Missouri Compromise of 1920. viii he give the
why it is SO? He did wish to repeal it because the
BILL by the in which it introduced effected the
pecedents of the Utah and New Mexico bills which allowed
the people of those Territories TO legsate all rghtu
subjects of legislation consistent with the constitution OF
the United States The Kansas and Nebraska BILL as hrs
introduced did and esst did in the shape in
which 1t passed, and no less. The amendment
subsequently introduced did not change its character and
such the understanding Of every who voted tor It
II perhaps 10 avoid ambiguity and leave nothing to
construction that it thought proper TO express IN
terms what without them would have been the legal ens
The question which put TO my colleague was how the
bill passed under false pretences and that question
he has not found 1t convenient To Hnswer.
The gentleman the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise was the cause of the present difficulty Hsw he
show Has not the party which he Is attached been
agating the public mind the question Of slavery
for the last twenty year Has not the country by their
Vaccinations again and again driven the
treity in which il isf Was not this 30 before there
a repeal Of the Missouri Compromised No SIR that
repeal he calls IT, not the Of the difficulty
The that there Is party seeking for political pow
and determined to have IL at hazard Mr. jefferson
said that those who seized the Missouri question did il
pretext for political power. So IL Is with those
who seize the question Of its repeal 1t is oil fase pre-
part of those with whom my colleague acts
Not so with the democratic party and the friends OF the
kansas bill Their upon the record
They clear and easily understood There no alse
pretences' about them
Nv colleague said the bin was passed to establish sla-
very be find nothing support that declaration. IL
passed neither establish exclude slavery but TO
carry ont just principle and when the gentleman says
that the democratic party aud the party OF the Kansas
Nebraska bill North South-for think speak for
the party in the South well that of the Eorthpassed
the bill FOR the OF slavery he speaks what 10 not
true BE fnd no man from the North or South who
viii sustain him in the assertion one" not one"
from voices all around the hall Therefore when be says
that or anybody else any party, advocated the bill
on the ground that IL would @eend slavery the deca-
ration ought stick in his throat But 20 90 back for
moment MY colleague says Judge DOUGLAS In his report
expressed his objections repeating in terms the Missouri
restriction, because il might produce excitement my
colleague has read that report be viii find that u con
taius express declaration that the Nebraska bill IN
literal adoption Of the enactmens OF 1850, and that the
Of 1850 rest upon the following propositions
First That questions pertaining slavery in the Terri
tores States be formed thererom ere 10
be left the decon Of the people residing therein through
their appropriate representative TO be by them Tor
that purpose" u
Now here s all there il in the KansasNebraska bill
when ID became Law; and this not only contempa
ted in the original b but nvowed in the report What
could be open plain and erpicit7 And yet my col
league talks about "false pretsnces'
Bu the gentleman remarked that the democratic party
had schanued front since the passage Of this bill II has
not cbnuged front Il etands where II stood in lS4s,
when u supported General Cass for the presidency IL
occuni.s the ground Il has always occupied IL stands
now where the dsmoaie pery Of Illinois stood in 1851,
when ts legislature passed the following resolution;
Rssolsed That liberty and independence based
upon the right Of the people form for themselves such gov
ernents they may choose and hst this great privilege,
the brthr BIT Of eemen the gift Of Heaven, secured 10 us
b the blood NJ ancestors ought 10 be extended 10 future
petions and no limitation ought be applied this
power the organization Of cry territory OF the United
States either territorial government State oonstitu
ton provided the established shall be rspub
can and in conformity with the contribution Of the United
States"
Every in the house of Representatives Of the State