OCR Text |
Show 482 TilE KANt!AS-NEll.H.A.:SKA lllL L. ration, iu the prcei ~e Janguuge of the comprond t;c mea. urcs of 1850." I t will thnR be seen that the report based 1he Hill upon the comprt)lllisc of 1 '50, so far as the question of . lavery \\as conccmed, and hence it LetolllC~ neces.·ary Lu l'l'fer to those lllcasurcs, to deLcnuiue wlmt principle was seLLictl Ly ill(' Ill. Ou the 2!JLh of January, 1850, while the slavery ngitution was rnging with great violence, threatening, indeed, the very cxii'5tencc of the go\·crnment, :Mr. Clay i11troduced into t!Jo Senate SCVCt'a.lresolulion upon the suLject or slavery, intended to form a basis of settlement upon that sul,ject. \Vhilc these resoluliuus were pending, the Comllliltco on ':rcrriturics reported a Bill fur the atlmis ·ion of California U13 a. State, and one for the organization of the 'l'oni tories of Utah ant1 N cw J\:Iexico, and the atljnclmcnt of the 'rexas bouudary. On the 1 !Jth of April a select committee of thirteen was appointed, of wl1ich Mr. Clay was ehairmn.u, and to tlmt comn1iLtce was rcfen·ctl the various propositions before the Senate. On the 8th of 1\:In.y, l\1r. Clay, from tho committee of thirteen, submitted to the Senate a report, accompanied by a bill, containing the essential features of tho two uills previously submitted by the Committee on Territol'ics, excepting as to the powers of the territorial legislature OVet slavery. rrhe tcutll SCCiion of the bill reported by tho Committee on Territories read as follows : ''.Ll.nd be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United SLates and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil." To which Mr. Clay's committee added these words: "nor in r·espect to .African slavery." On tho 31st of July, tho above clause added by Mr. Clay, was struck out by tho Senate, thus conferring on the Terri- 1'HS KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL. torial Legislature power over'' all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitu tion of the Uni ted StateH." "\-Vc have thus arrived at l.he llH'aning of the report, a 'CO illpanying the Kan:a;.;-NelJra:) k:l. Bill, from the COlllllli t tee to the Scllalc, on the 4th of J an11ary, 1854, when they :-:ay thai the Uill "pr·opo eH to Ca!'ry th ese prupo~·lition .· and prin ('iple~ into practical operation in the prcci~c J:.wgungc of the cultlpromi ·e measures of 1850." It i~ proper here to say, that when the compromise of' 1850 was uef'orc tl10 Senate, au attempt wa made to engraft upon iL an am ·ndment, dccluri11g in sub ·tance, that the tcrriloriul lcgislnture could not prohibit the introduction of slaves-that slaves were recognizeu as properly by the Constitution of the Unilcu •ta lc~, 1111d hence were eutilleu to the same protection as other property. lVIany Southern Senators took this view of tbe question; whilo, upon Lhc other lHl.nd, Messrs. Seward, Oha.·e, an<.l others from the N orlh, ad. vocate d. the power of Congress to prohibit slavery iu the territories, and offered. amend.meuls to that import. ':rho Bill pnssecl the Senate, however, in the shape already referred to, by a vote of 32 to 19. When the K.an as-N cbra ka. bill came before the Senate for discussion, it was contcnd.cd by some, that, in the slw.po it then was, it could not be carried iuto practical operation, inasmuch as it did not, in terms, repeal the act of Cougrcss of March 6th, 1820, prohibiting slavery uorth of 3GO 30', commonly, but mistakenly, called the Missouri compromi~e. W c say, mistakenly called the Missouri compromise, because the compromise undct· which that State was admitted into the Uuiou was pass d in 1821, while the section prohibiLiug slavery north of 36° 30' was a part of an enabling act for the admission of Missouri, passed in 1820, but which really had nothing to do with its final admission. This fuct, however, is immaterial, in point of principle, and we allude to it on ly to correct a populal' error. 'l,he question having thus arisen as to the prohibition of |