of a representation of a majority of the Ohio That is their single exception. They acknowledge delegation. What was the reason for its effect? that the people of the territories are capable of deBecause the manner in which it was sent forth ciding for themselves concerning white men, but implied that all the whig members for that State not in relation to negroes. The real gist of the had joined in it; that part of the democrats had matter is this: Does it require any higher degree signed it; and then that the two abolitionists had of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and signed it, and that made a majority of the delega- sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white tion. By this means it frightened the whig party men? If it does, we ought to adopt the abolition and the democracy in the State of Ohio, because doctrine, and go with them against this bill. If they supposed their own representatives and it does not-if we are willing to trust the people friends had gone into this negro movement, when with the great, sacred, fundamental right of prethe fact turns out to be that it was not signed by scribing their own institutions, consistent with the a single whig or democratic member from Ohio. Constitution of the country-we must vote for Now, I ask the friends and the opponents of this bill. That is the only question involved in the this measure to look at it as it is. Is not the bill. I hope I have been able to strip it of all the question involved the simple one, whether the misrepresentation, to wipe away all of that mist people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as and obscurity with which it has been surrounded they please upon the question of slavery, subject by this abolition address. only to the limitations of the Constitution? That I have now said all I have to say upon the is all the bill provides; and it does so in clear, present occasion. For all, except the first ten explicit, and unequivocal terms. I know there minutes of these remarks, the abolition confedare some men, whigs and democrats, who, not erates are responsible. My object, in the first willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of place, was only to explain the provisions of the their own party, would be willing to vote for this bill, so that they might be distinctly understood. principle, provided they could do so in such equi- I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it vocal terms that they could deny that it means as much as they pleased, reserving to myself the what it was intended to mean in certain localities. right, when the time should approach for taking I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all the If the principle is right, let it be avowed and arguments which might be used against it. I maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudiated. still reserve--what I believe common courtesy Let all this quibbling about the Missouri com- and parliamentary usage awards to the chairman promise, about the territory acquired from France, of a committee and the author of a bill-the right about the act of 1820, be cast behind you; for of summing up after all shall have been said the simple question is, will you allow the people which has to be said against this measure. to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery? Why should you not?

I hope the compact which was made on last Tuesday, at the suggestion of these abolitionists when the bill was proposed to be taken up, will be observed. It was that the bill, when taken up to-day, should continue to be considered from day to day until finally disposed of. I hope they will not repudiate and violate that compact, as they have the Missouri compromise and all others which have been entered into. I hope, therefore, that we may press the bill to a vote; but not by depriving persons of an opportunity of speaking.

When you propose to give them a Territorial Government, do you not acknowledge that they ought to be erected into a political organization; and when you give them a legislature, do you not acknowledge that they are capable of self-government? Having made that acknowledgement, why should you not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation? Oh, these abolitionists say they are entirely willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are willing I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill to trust the Territorial legislature, under the limi- the most ample time. Let us hear them all patations of the Constitution, to legislate upon the tiently, and then take the vote and pass the bill. rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to reli- We who are in favor of it know that the princigion, education, and morals, to legislate in regard ple on which it is based is right. Why, then, to the relations of husband and wife, of parent should we gratify the abolition party in their effort and child, of guardian and ward, upon everything to get up another political tornado of fanaticism, pertaining to the dearest rights and interests of and put the country again in peril, merely for the white men, but they are not willing to trust them purpose of electing a few agitators to the Conto legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes.gress of the United States?

SPEECH OF THE HON. S. P. CHASE, OF OHIO,

IN THE SENATE, FEB. 3, 1854.

MAINTAIN PLIGHTED FAITH."

The bill for the organization of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas being under consideration

Mr. CHASE submitted the following amendment:

Strike out from section 14 the words "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and;" so that the clause will read:

"That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoperative."

Mr. CHASE said:

Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago; to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] against myself and the other signers of the Independent Democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the Missouri prohibition.

I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personal unkindness. The issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings. I see the great question before me, and that question only.

the domestic institutions of one portion of the Confederacy, But, notwithstanding differences of opinion and sentiand involving the constitutional rights of the States. ment, which then existed in relation to details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted had given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the Confederacy. That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."

The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the Chief Magistrate of the country was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke.

these statements, and the permanency of this reA few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of

Sir, these crowded galleries, these thronged lob-pose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 bies, this full attendance of the Senate, prove the deep, transcendent interest of the theme.

A few days only have elapsed since the Congress of the United States assembled in this Capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in Congress or out of Congress. The President, in his annual message, had referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country. Let me read a brief extract from that message:

would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. We believed no permanent adjustment of that question possible except by a return to that original policy of the fathers of the Republic, by which slavery was restricted within State limits, and freedom, without exception or limitation, was intended to be secured to every person outside of State limits and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Government.

But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the country. Our number was small in Congress. By some we were regarded as visionaries-by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us

mistaken.

And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky.

"It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. But while the present is bright with promise, and the future full of demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and instruction. If its dangers serve not as But suddenly all is changed; rattling thunder beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfil the object of a breaks from the cloudless firmament. The storm wise design. When the grave shall have closed over all who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of bursts forth in fury. Warring winds rush into duty, the year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled conflict.

with anxious apprehension. A successful war had just terminated. Peace brought with it a vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing upon

"Eurus, Notusque ruunt, croberque procellis, Africus."

Yes, sir, "creber procellis Africus"-the south | North ever even suggest as a ground of condemwind thick with storm. And now we find our- nation that that prohibition was swept away by selves in the midst of an agitation, the ond and them? No, sir! No man, North or South, during issue of which no man can foresee.

Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into Congress not we, who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir: the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery.

the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or in that other discussion which followed their enactment throughout the country, ever intimated any such opinion.

Now, sir, let us come to the last session of Con gress. A Nebraska bill passed the House and came to the Senate, and was reported from the Committee on Territories by the Senator from Illinois, as its chairman. Was there any provision in it which even squinted towards this notion This will not escape the observation of the of repeal by supersedure? Why, sir, southern country. It is Slavery that renews the strife. It gentlemen opposed it upon the very ground that is Slavery that again wants room. It is Slavery it left the Territory under the operation of the with its insatiate demand for more slave territory Missouri prohibition. The Senator from Illinois and more slave States. made a speech in defense of it. Did he invoke And what does Slavery ask for now? Why, sir, southern support upon the ground that it superit demands that a time-honored and sacred com- seded the Missouri prohibition? Not at all. Was pact shall be rescinded-a compact which has en-it opposed or vindicated by anybody on any such dured through a whole generation-a compact ground? Every Senator knows the contrary. The which has been universally regarded as inviolable, Senator from Missouri, [Mr. ATCHISON,] now the North and South--a compact, the constitutionality President of this body, made a speech upon the of which few have doubted, and by which all bill, in which he distinctly declared that the Mishave consented to abide. souri prohibition was not repealed, and could not be repealed.

It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act; and such a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was advanced the other day by the Senator from Illinois that the compromise acts of 1850 "superseded" the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', in the act preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, "superseded" is the phrase "superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures."

It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed.

I will send this speech to the Secretary, and ask him to read the paragraphs marked. The Secretary read as follows

"I will now state to the Senate the views which in

duced me to oppose this proposition in the early part of the session.

I

"I had two objections to it. One was that the Indian title in that Territory had not been extinguished, or, at least, a very small portion of it had been. Another was the Missouri compromise, or, as it is commonly called, the slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that time-and am not now very clear on that subject-that the law of Congress, when the State of Missouri was admitted into the Union excluding slavery from the Territory of Louisiana north of 36° 30, would be enforced in that Territory unless it was specially rescinded; and, whether that law was in accordance with the Constitution of the United States or not, it would do its work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from going into that Territory. But when I came to look into that question, I found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the Missouri compromise, excluding slavery from that Territory.. Now, sir, I am free to admit, that at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, I should oppose the organization or the settlement of that Territory unless my constituents, and the constituents of the whole South the same footing, with equal rights and equal privileges, carrying that species of property with them as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, I acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed.

of the slave States of the Union, could go into it upon

Sir, this is a novel idea. At the time when these measures were before Congress in 1850, when the questions involved in them were discussed from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this Senate Chamber, who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was to be superseded? What man, at what time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea that the acts of that year were to affect the Missouri compromise? The Senator from Illinois the other day invoked the authority of Henry Clay-that departed statesman, in respect to whom, whatever may be the "I have always been of opinion that the first great crror differences of political opinion, none question that, committed in the political history of this country was the among the great men of this country, he stood ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory proudly eminent. Did he in the report made by free territory. The next great error was the Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is him as chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, or no remedy for them. We must submit to them. I am in any speech in support of the compromise acts, prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri comor in any conversation in the committee, or out of promise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of the committee, ever even hint at this doctrine of this Territory now as next year, or five or ten years supersedure? Did any supporter, or any opponent hence."-Congressional Globe, Second Session 32d Cong., vol. of the compromise acts, ever vindicate or condemn 26, page 1113. them upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition That, sir, is the speech of the Senator from Miswould be affected by them? Well, sir, the compromise acts were passed. They were denounced North, and they were denounced South. Did any defender of them at the South ever justify his support of them upon the ground that the South had obtained through them the repeal of the Missouri prohibition? Did any objector to them at the

souri, [Mr. ATCHISON,] whose authority, I think, must go for something upon this question. What does he say? "When I came to look into that question"-of the possible repeal of the Missouri prohibition-that was the question he was looking into-"I found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the Missouri compromise ex

cluding Slavery from that Territory." And yet, sir, at that very moment, according to this new doctrine of the Senator from Illinois, it had been repealed three years!

Well, the Senator from Missouri said further, that if he thought it possible to oppose this restriction successfully, he never would consent to the organization of the Territory until it was rescinded. But, said he, "I acknowledge that I have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed." Then he made some complaint, as other southern gentlemen have frequently done, of the ordinance of 1787, and the Missouri prohibition; but went on to say, "they are both irremediable; there is no remedy for them; we must submit to them; I am prepared to do it; it is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed."

that, as in respect to the Mexican Territory, differences of opinion exist in relation to the introduction of slaves. There are southern gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, they can take their slaves into the Territory covered by it, and hold them there by virtue of the Constitution. On the other hand, the great majority of the American people, North and South, believe the Missouri prohibition to be constitutional and effectual. Now what did the committee propose? Did they propose to repeal the prohibition? Did they suggest that it had been superseded? Did they advance any idea of that kind? No, sir. This is their language:

"Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the Now, sir, when was this said? It was on the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribmorning of the 4th March, just before the close ing and regulating the domestic institutions of the vaof the last session, when that Nebraska bill, re- rious Territories of the Union. In the opinion of those ported by the Senator from Illinois, which pro- with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested posed no repeal, and suggested no supersedure, of slavery in the Territories, the eighth section of the was under discussion. I think, sir, that all this act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of void, while the prevailing sentiment in a large portion of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the last session of Congress, nobody had ever the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what right to move into any of the Territories with his protook place at the commencement of the present enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your comperty of whatever kind and description, and to hold and session? The Senator from Iowa, early in De-mittee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into cember, introduced a bill for the organization of the discussion of these controverted questions. They the Territory of Nebraska. I believe it was the involve the same grave issues which produced the agitasame bill which was under discussion here at the tion, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of last session, line for line, and word for word. If I am wrong, the Senator will correct me.

1850."

This language will bear repetition:

Did the Senator from Iowa, then entertain the enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. "Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to idea that the Missouri prohibition had been super-They involve the same grave issues which produced the seded? No, sir; neither he nor any other man agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of here, so far as could be judged from any discus- 1850." sion, or statement, or remark, had received this And they go on to say:

notion. "Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from Well, on the 4th day of January, the Com-deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirmmittee on Territories, through their chairman, the ing or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the extent Senator from Illinois, made a report on the terri- of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the torial organization of Nebraska; and that report Territories; so your committee are not prepared now to was accompanied by a bill. Now, sir, on that 4th recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the day of January, just thirty days ago, did the Com-eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declarmittee on Territories entertain the opinion that atory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the compromise acts of 1850 superseded the Mis- the legal points in dispute." souri prohibition? If they did, they were very Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. careful to keep it to themselves. We will judge the The Committee on Territories declared that it was committee by their own report. What do they not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not say ir. that? In the first place, they describe the right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse character of the controversy in respect to the Ter- agitation. They declared that they would abstain ritories acquired from Mexico. They say that from any recommendation of a repeal of the prosome believed that a Mexican law prohibiting sla-hibition, or of any provision declaratory of the very was in force there, while others claimed that construction of the Constitution in respect to the the Mexican law became inoperative at the moment of acquisition, and that slaveholders could Mr. President, I am not one of those who suptake their slaves into the territory, and hold them pose that the question between Mexican law and there under the provisions of the Constitution. the slave-holding claims was avoided in the Utah The territorial compromise acts, as the committee and New Mexico act; nor do I think that the intell us, steered clear of these question. They sim- troduction into the Nebraska bill of the provisions ply provided that the States organized out of these of those acts in respect to slavery would leave the Territories might come in with or without slavery, question between the Missouri prohibition and the as they should elect, but did not affect the question same slaveholding claim entirely unaffected. I am whether slaves could or could not be introduced of a very different opinion. But I am dealing now before the organization of State governments. with the report of the Senator from Illinois, as That question was left entirely to judicial deci-chairman of the committee, and I show, beyond all controversy, that that report gave no counte Well, sir, what did the committee propose to nance whatever to the doctrine of repeal by su do with the Nebraska Territory? In respect to persedure.

sion.

legal points in dispute.

Well, sir, the bill reported by the committee was of latitude on the south, and divides the residue printed in the Washington Sentinel on Saturday, into two Territories-the southern Territory of January 7. It contained twenty sections; no more, Kansas, and the northern Territory of Nebraska no less. It contained no provisions in respect to It applies to each all the provisions of the Utah slavery, except those in the Utah and New Mex- and New Mexico bills; it rejects entirely the ico bills. It left those provisions to speak for twenty-first clerical-error section, and abrogatesthemselves. This was in harmony with the re- the Missouri prohibition by the very singular port of the committee. On the 10th of January-provision which I will read: on Tuesday-the act appeared again in the Sentinel; but it had grown longer during the interval. It appeared now with twenty-one sections. There was a statement in the paper that the twenty-first section had been omitted by a clerical error.

But, sir, it is a singular fact that this twentyfirst section is entirely out of harmony with the committee's report. It undertakes to determine the effect of the provision in the Utah and New Mexico bills. It declares, among other things, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives. This provision, in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Is it possible, sir, that this was a mere clerical error? May it not be that this twenty-first section was the fruit of some Sunday work, between Saturday the 7th, and Tuesday the 10th?

"The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as section of the act preparatory to the admission of Miselsewhere within the United States, except the eighth souri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is there fore declared inoperative."

Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the prohibition. The Senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to break up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I have now proved that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. It was never seen or heard of until the 23d day of January, 1854. It was upon that day that this tree of Upas was planted: we already see its poison fruits.

But, sir, the addition of this section, it seems, did not help the bill. It did not, I suppose, meet the approbation of southern gentlemen, who con- The provision I have quoted abrogates the Mistend that they have a right to take their slaves into souri prohibition. It asserts no right in the Terthe Territories, notwithstanding any prohibition, ritorial Legislature to prohibit slavery. The Senaeither by Congress or by a Territorial Legislature. tor from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful I dare say it was found that the votes of these gen- to assert no right of legislation in a Territorial tlemen could not be had for the bill with that clause Legislature, except subject to the restrictions and in it. It was not enough that the committee had limitations of the Constitution. We know well abandoned their report, and added this twenty-enough what the understanding or claim of southfirst section, in direct contravention of its reason-ern gentlemen is in respect to these limitations ings and principles. The twenty-first section itself and restrictions. They insist that by them every must be abandoned, and the repeal of the Missouri Territorial Legislature is absolutely precluded prohibition placed in a shape which would not from all power of legislation for the prohibition deny the slaveholding claim. of slavery. I warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that their votes for this provision will be regarded as admitting this claim.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DIXON,] on the 16th January, submitted an amendment which came square up to repeal, and to the claim. That I have thus given a brief account of the mutaamendment probably, produced some fluttering tions which this bill has undergone. I have shown and some consultation. It met the views of the recent origin and brief existence of the pretense southern Senators, and probably determined the that the Missouri prohibition is superseded by the shape which the bill has finally assumed. Of legislation of 1850. I now appeal to the Senators the various mutations which it has undergone, I who sit around me, and who with me participated can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last to in the discussions of 1850-I ask them to say the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. whether any one of them imagined then, or beThat there is no effect without a cause, is among lieves now, that the Missouri prohibition was suour earliest lessons in physical philosophy, and perseded by the legislation of that year. Here, I know of no cause which will account for the re-sir, síts the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON] markable changes which the bill underwent after-will he say that at any time before the 23d of the 16th of January, other than that amendment, January, 1854, he ever heard such a proposition and the determination of southern Senators to stated or maintained anywhere, by anybody? No, support it, and to vote against any provision re- sir, he will not say it. There is no evidence that cognizing the right of any Territorial Legislature the assertion was ever made before that day, to prohibit the introduction of slavery. when it made its appearance in the Senator's bill It was just seven days, Mr. President, after the It is a remarkable circumstance, that five thouSenator from Kentucky had offered his amend-sand copies of the committee's report have been ment, that a fresh amendment was reported from printed by the order of the Senate, and I know the Committee on Territories, in the shape of a not how many for individual subscribers, and cirnew bill, enlarged to forty sections. This new bill culated through the country, sustaining the bill cuts off from the proposed Territory half a degree upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition is