acquired from Mexico only; and that they did not touch the existing exclusion of slavery from what was now called Nebraska. Mr. Chase referred to the report of the committee of thirteen in 1830, which distinctly stated that the compromise measures applied to tba newly acquired te: ritory; and he appealed to Gen Case, whu sat near him, whe iher any thing had been said in the committee of thirteen, or elsewhere, which indicated a purpose to apply them to any other territory. (Mr. Cass remained silent.) Mr. C. therefore assumed that he was correct; and he proceeded at length in attempting to disprove the assertion of Mr. Douglas, that the Missouri compromise had been superseded. He said :

“But the senator from Illinois says that the territorial compromise acts did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. How does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory was acquired from Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired from Texas, was acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to the United States, Texas claimed that that cession inured to her benefit. That claim, only, was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, stands thus : we acquired the territory from Mexico; Texas claimed it, but gave up her claim. This certainly does not disprove the assertion that the territory was acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it does not sustain the senator's assertion, that it was acquired from Texas.

“ The senator next tells the senate and the country, that by the Utah act, there was included in the territory of Utah a portion of the old Louisiana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibition, which prohibition was annulled as to that portion by the provisions of that act. Every one at all acquainted with our public history knows that the dividing line between Spain and the United States extended due north from the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north latitude. That arbitrary line left within the Louisiana acquisition a little valley in the midst of rocky mountains, where several branches of the Grand river, one of the affluents of the Colorado, take their rise. Here is the map. Here spreads out the vast territory of Utah, more than one hundred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. Here is the little spot, hardly a pin's point upon the map, which I cover with the tip of my little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by the territorial bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisition and included in Utah. The account given of it in the senator's speech would lead one to suppose that it was an important part of the Louisiana acquisition. It is, in fact, not of the smallest consequence. There are no inhabitants there. It was known that the Rocky Mountain range was very near the arbitrary line fixed by the treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adoption of that range as the eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the Missouri prohibition. The senator reported that boundary line. Did he tell the senate or the country that its establishment would have that effect ? No, sir : never. The assertion of the senator that a 'close esamination of the Utah act clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the compromise measures of 1850 to supersede the Missouri compromise, and all geographical and territorial lines,' is little short of preposterous. There was no intent at all, except to make a convenient eastern boundary to Utah, and no legal effect at all upon the Louisiana acquisition, except to cut off from it the little valley of the Middle Park."

Mr. Douglas bad charged the signers of the appeal with misrepresentation in assuming that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to prohibit slavery in all the territories ceded by the old states to the union. Mr. Chase commenced with a reference to the sentiments of Jefferson, and traced the history of the action of the government on the subject, through a long period of years, in vindication of the statement controverted by Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Chase's amendment was negatived, 13 to 30.

Mr. Houston advocated the rights of the Indians included within the territories, who were to be disturbed by this bill. He adverted to the pledges made to them from time to time, and especially the assurance given them in the treaty of 1835, that their lands beyond the Mississippi should never, without their consent, be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory. He objected to the bill on other grounds. There was no necessity for joining three such important subjects. The organization of Nebraska without a sufficient population to warrant it, nearly all being Indian territory; the organization of Kansas, entirely held and occupied by Indians; and the repeal of the Missouri compromise, an important consideration for the American people, were all placed in this omnibus shape, and pre sented for action. He had on former occasions supported the Missouri compromise, assisted by the south, because they regarded it as a solemı compact. Texas, he said, had been admitted upon that principle. It was an express condition of her admission, that in all new states formed out of her territory north of 36° 30', slavery should be prohibited.

Mr. H. said he had voted for the compromise of 1850; but he lid not suppose that he was voting to repeal the Missouri compromise. He regarded it as a final settlement of this mooted question, this source of agitation. Great trials and emergencies, he feared, would arise between the north and the south. The south was in a minority; she could not be otherwise. If she should accede to the violation of a compact so sacred as this, she would set an example that would be followed when she did

+

not desire it. He averred that he would resist every attempt to infringe or repeal the Missouri compromise.

On the 15th of February, the question was taken on the substitute of the committee reported by Mr. Douglas, to strike out the words which declared the Missouri compromise to be superseded by that of 1850, and to insert the provision declaring the Missouri compromise inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention of congress with slavery in the states and territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, and inoperative and void ; and declaring the people free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States. The substitute was adopted, 35 to 10.

Mr. Chase then moved to insert a provision permitting the legislature to prohibit slavery.

Mr. Badger held that, although the Missouri compromise of 1820 was in its terms applied to the territory acquired from Louisiana, because we then had no other territory whose destiny was to be settled by an act of congress; yet as it was to be presumed that, if there had been other territory, it would have been brought under the operation of the same act, he regarded the provisions of that compromise as applicable to the territory since acquired. It was applied to Texas when that state came into the union. But he maintained that the principle of that compromise was repudiated by the legislation of 1850. Its application was insisted on by southern senators in many cases; they askod nothing, they sought nothing, but the simple recognition of the Missouri compromise line ; but that was refused them; and the territorial governments established in 1850, were constructed in utter disregard of that compromise, which he considered as no longer obligatory.

Mr. Cass expressed his regret that this question of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which opened all the disputed points connected with the subject of congressional action upon slavery in the territories, had again been brought before the senate. The advantages to result from the measure would not outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling accompanying the discussion would produce. Nor would the south derive

any benefit from it, as no human power could establish slavery in he regions defined by these bills. He was, however, in favor of the mendment of the committee which declared that the people, whether

the territories, or in the states to be formed from them, were free to bulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Cstitution of the United States.

'r. C., in the course of his speech, replied to the complaints that thouth was excluded from, and robbed of the territories, and that they we appropriated to the north. While he repeated the opinion that

congress was not authorized to restrain a person, by legal enactment, from taking slaves into any territory of the United States, he maintained that the prohibition of slavery by local legislation was not an exclusion of the south more than the north, as a slaveholder and a non-sliveholder could go into such territory on equal terms; and he denied the charge of the south, that congress, by admitting a state whose constitution interdicts slavery, is responsible for that act.

In relation to the power of congress over the territories, he contended that the power granted by the constitution to regulate and dispose of the territory and other property of the United States," meant simply the power to dispose of the public lands, as property, and did not include the power of life and death over the inhabitants.

The debate, in which many other senators participated, was continued until the 2d of March, when Mr. Clayton moved to amend so as to disallow the right of suffrage and of holding office to foreigners who had declared on oath their intention to become citizens, and had sworn to support the constitution of the United States; and to confer this right only on citizens of the United States. This amendment was adopted, 23 to 21. The bill was passed the next day, by a vote of 37 to 14.

In the house, a bill had been reported on the 31st of January, by Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, for which, on the 8th of May, he offered a substitute, which was substantially the senate bill, leaving out the amendment of Mr. Clayton. On the 22d, this substitute was adopted, 113 to 100, and sent to the senate, where, on the 25th, it was concurred in, 35 to 13.

Thus terminated another contest on a question which, after a brief slumber, had been unexpectedly, and, as is generally believed, unnecer sarily revived, and which, from its nature, must continue to be a source of sectional controversy, so long as the territory of this republic shall be divided between slavery and freedom.

APPENDIX.

DECLARATION OF

OF INDEPENDENCE.

JULY 4th, 1776.

A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, IN (general] CONGRESS ASSEMBLED. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with [inherent and] unalienable rights; that among certain these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accus