The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-10-05
THE WASHINGTON UNION.

be to prohibit the Territory from passing laws 10 protect
slave property] Yeas and nays ordeIud ON Mr. Hales
motion Yeas-CAes, corwin, Dolglas, Hale, Hamlin
Seward, &r.5l Nays Atchison, Badger, Cass Clay,
Davis Of Mississippi, &o.33 50 the amendment was
lost
The question on Mr.. Douglass amendment to
strike out the words 'nor establishing nor prohibiting
African slavery" leasBradbury, Chass Douglas Sew
ard, &c.--2l. Ndys-Atchison, Badger, Hunter, &C.
80, r,vF4 $50,
JUS 8, D. mas Mr. Walker moved TO ada in the
tenth paragraph after the word slavery these words and
that peon slavery forever abolished and prohibited
Yaas Baldwin, Douglas, Chase, Hale, &c-2o. Nays
50.
So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on
the compromises Of 1859. The record shows, be-
yond the possibility Of cavil Or dispute, that he ex-
pressly intended in those bills to give the terrific
rial legislatures power to exclude slavery How
stands his record in the memorable session of 1854
with reference to the Kansas Nebraska bill itsel2
We shall not overhaul the votes that were given
on that notable measure Our space win not afford
it. We have his own words, however, delivered in
his speech closing the great debate on that bill on
the night of March 8, 1854 to show that he meant to
do in 1854 precisely what he had mean, to do in 1850
The Kansas ebraska bill being upon its passage,
he said:
''The principle which propose to carry into effect
by this bill is this That Congress shall neither egsate
slavery into any Territory State out of the same
but the people shall be left free to regulate their domes
tic in their way subject only to the const
tuition Of the United States In order to carry this pn
cipe into practical operation it becomes necessary 10 re-
moue caepr legal obstacles might be found in the way Of
its rcse II Is only for the purpose OF carrying out
this great fundamental principle Of selgoyernment that
the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri act in
operative and void a
.Now, let me ask will those senator's who have
ragned me- or any of them, have the assurance to
rise in his place and declare that this great principle
thought Of advocated applicable TO terrific
rial bills in 1850 that from that session until the
present nobody ever thought Of incorporating this prn
cipe in all territorial organizations, &C., &cs will
begin with the compromises OF 1850 ANY senator who
will take the trouble to examine our journals will find
that the 25th of March OF that year reported from
the Committee Territories two bills, including the
following the admission of California, terri
toal government fer Utah, territorial government for
New Mexico, aud the adj stment of the Texas boundary
These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New
Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves
in the precise language Of The Nebraska bill under discus
sion. few weeks afterwards the committee of thirteen
took those two bills and put wafer between them and
reported them back to the Senate one BILL with some
slight amendments One Of those amendments ,cds, that he
territorial Legislatures should not gsae upon The subject Of 4tri
slavery objected to this propison, upon the ground that
SuDYerteQ the great
,olic The bM had been originally framed By The Territorial CON-
mee On the first trial the Senate refused to strike it
out but subsequently did So upon full debate in order
establish that principle the rule of action in ter
ritorial organizations.
Thus it is seen that in framing the Nebraska Kan
sas BILL Judge Douglas framed it in the terms and
upon the model of those of Utah and New Mexico,
and that in the debate he took pains expressly to
vve the recollection Of the voting which had taken
place upon amendments affecting the powers of the
territorial Legislatures the subject of slavery IL
the bills of 1850 in order TO give the meaning,
force and effect to the Observation-Disclosures bill on this
subject as had been given to those of Utah aud New
Mexico.
The record we have presented shows precisely
and in terms that he meant in the Utah and New
Mexican bills to give the power of excluding slave
ry to their territorial legislatures In the language
we have quoted from his speech Of March 3, 1854,
he rcasserted that this power had been granted
in those bills, and that precisely the same powers
were copied from them into the Nebraska-Kansas
BILL Referring, in the same speech, to the report of
the Territorial Committee, of which he was chair
man. he said that the doctrine of the report was i'm
bodied in three propositions
First That the whoe queStlOn OF slavery De
gdracn from the houses of Congress- and the political
arena and committed to the arbitramen of those who
are Immediately interested in and alone responsible for,
its existence. l..... ..gHta. "r.
'Second The applying Of this principle to tbs Terrific
RES and the States to be formed thererom, all qeon
pertaining slavery to be referred to the people resd
ing therein .t 49,, .....e...... ...' a.. .,.m
Third That the committee proposed to carry these
propositions and principles into effect in The precise language
Of the compromise measures Of 1850
A,J bo t,rn NOT
identical with the principles and provisions of the
bill on your tablet" viz: the Nebraska Kansas BILL
Thus we have shown that precisely the position
assumed by Judge Douglas at Freeport, had been
maintained by him in 1885, in the debates and votes
on the Utah and New Mexican bills, and in 1854
on the ACKNOWLEDGMENT bill and have shown that
it owing TO his opposition that clauses deprivug
territorial legislatures of the power of excluding
slavery from their Jurisdictions not expressly
inserted in those measures.
While, however, Judge Douglas thus succeeded
in preventing southern senators from inserting
clause in those measures denying this power to tho
territorial legislatures, the southern senators sue
ccedcd on their part in preventing him from incor-
porating clauses asserting this power for those
bodies; and, while the southern and large portion
of the northern democracy advocated the Kansas
Nebraska bill on the ground that the people Of the
IT, antera mt tn have In cp1a