veyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents."

Under this section, ás in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Ne- "Writs of error and appeals from the final debraska country by valid enactment. The decision cisions of said supreme court shall be allowed, and of this question involves the constitutional power may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United of Congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating States in the same manner and under the same the domestic institutions of the various territories | regulations as from the circuit courts of the United of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent States, where the value of the property or the statesmen, who hold that Congress is invested amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the territories, so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.

oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars, except only that, in all cascs involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except, also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decisions of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the Judges of the United States in the District of Columbia."

To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of 1850, known as the fugitive slave law:

That the provisions of the "act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12, 1793, and the provisions of the "act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force, in all the organized territories," as well as in the various States of the Union.

Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country, and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of the compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world, as a final settlement of the controversy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of From these provisions it is apparent that the Senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon duty, enjoins upon your committee the propriety the following propositions-First: That all quesand necessity of a strict adherence to the princi- tions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and ples, and even a literal adoption of the enactments in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to of that adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among other things, less material to the matters under consideration, the following provisions:

"When admitted as a State, the said Territory or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

"That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly."

"That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon

be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

Second: That "all cases involving title to slaves," and "questions of personal freedom" are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Third: That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all "the organized 'territories" the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your committeo have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850.

SPEECH OF THE HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS.

IN THE SENATE, JAN. 30, 1854.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, | while, in other parts, it was otherwise construed. proceeded to the consideration of the bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska.

As the object of the committee was to conform to the principles established by the compromise Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, when I pro- measures of 1850, and to carry these principles posed, on Tuesday last, that the Senate should into effect in the territories, we thought it was proceed to the consideration of the bill to organ- better to recite in the bill precisely what we underize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it stood to have been accomplished by those measwas my purpose only to occupy ten or fifteen ures, viz.: that the Missouri compromise, having minutes in explanation of its provisions. I de-been superseded by the legislation of 1850, has sired to refer to two points; first to those provisions relating to the Indians, and second to those which might be supposed to bear upon the question of slavery.

become and ought to be declared inoperative; and hence we propose to leave the question to the people of the States and territories, subject only to the limitations and provisions of the Constitution.

The Committee, in drafting the bill, had in view the great anxiety which had been expressed by Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the quessome members of the Senate to protect the rights tion had been taken up for consideration on Tuesof the Indians, and to prevent infringement upon day last; but since that time occurrences have them. By the provisions of the bill, I think we transpired which compel me to go more fully into have so clearly succeeded, in that respect, as to the discussion. It will be borne in mind that the obviate all possible objection upon that score. senator from Ohio, [Mr. CHASE,] then objected to The bill itself provides that it shall not operate the consideration of the bill, and asked for its upon any of the rights or lands of the Indians, postponement until this day, on the ground that nor shall they be included within the limits of there had not been time to understand and conthose territories until they shall by treaty with sider its provisions; and the senator from Massathe United States expressly consent to come chusetts [Mr. SUMNER,] suggested that the postunder the operations of the act, and be incorpo- ponement should be for one week for that rated within the limits of the territories. This purpose. These suggestions seeming to be reaprovision certainly is broad enough and clear sonable, in the opinions of senators around me, I enough, explicit enough, to protect all the rights yielded to their request, and consented to the of the Indians as to their persons and their prop-postponement of the bill until this day. erty.

Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I Upon the other point, that pertaining to the granted that act of courtesy to those two senators, question of slavery in the territories, it was the that they had drafted and published to the world intention of the committee to be equally explicit. a document, over their own signatures, in which We took the principles established by the compro- they arraigned me as having been guilty of a mise acts of 1850 as our guide, and intended to criminal betrayal of my trust, as having been make each and every provision of the bill accord guilty of an act of bad faith, and been engaged in with those principles. Those measures estab-an atrocious plot against the cause of free governlished and rest upon the great principles of self-ment. Little did I suppose that those two Senagovernment, that the people should be allowed to tors had been guilty of such conduct, when they decide the questions of their domestic institutions called upon me to grant that courtesy, to give for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, instead of having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line.

The original bill reported by the committee as a substitute for the bill introduced by the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. DODGE,] was believed to have accomplished this object. The amendment which was subsequently reported by us was only designed to render that clear and specific, which seemed, in the minds of some, to admit of doubt and misconstruction. In some parts of the country the original substitute was deemed and construed to be an amendment or a repeal of what has been known as the Missouri compromise,

them an opportunity of investigating the substitute reported, the committee. I have since discovered that on that very morning the National Era, the abolition organ in this city, contained an address, signed by certain abolition confederates, to the people, in which the bill is grossly misrep resented, in which the action of the committee is grossly perverted, in which our motives are arraigned and our characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more, I find that there was a postscript added to the address, published that very morning, in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had I known those facts at the time I granted that act of indulgence, I should have responded to the re

quest of those senators in such terms as their "signed by the senators and a majority of the repconduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate and a respect for my own character would have permitted me to do. In order to show the character of this document, of which I shall have much to say in the course of my argument, I will read certain passages:

:

resentatives from the State of Ohio"—a statement which I have every reason to believe was utterly false, and known to be so at the time that these confederates appended it to the address. It was necessary, in order to carry out this work of de-, ception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio legislature, under a misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not only by the abolition confederates, but by the whole whig repre

"We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own States, and convert it in-sentation, and a portion of the democratic repreto a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters sentation in the other House from the State of and slaves."

A SENATOR: By whom is the address signed?

Mr. DOUGLAS. It is signed "S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio; Charles Sumner, senator from Massachusetts; J. R. Giddings and Edward Wade, representatives from Ohio; Gerrit Smith, representative from New York; Alexander De Witt, representative from Massachusetts;" including, as I understand, all the abolition party in Congress.

Ohio.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not yield the floor. A senator who has violated all the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed a consciousness of the character of the act he was doing by concealing from me all knowledge of the fact-who came to me with a smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even after that document had been uttered-who could get up in the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in

Then speaking of the Committee on Territo-order to get time to give the document a wider ries, these confederates use this language:

"The pretences, therefore, that the territory, covered by the positive prohibition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromise of 1850 requires the incorporation of the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith."

"Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again:

"Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained only by submitting to the demands of slavery."

Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings, and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile proceeding which is about to be consummated by the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, bears date Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears, that on the holy Sabbath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these abolition confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by what means they should deceive the people of the United States, and prostrate the character of brother senators. This was done on the Sabbath day, and by a set of politicians, to advance their own political and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy religion.

circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has no right to my courtesy upon this floor.

Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, the senator misstates the facts

Mr. DOUGLAS. yield the floor.

Mr. President, I decline to

Mr. CHASE. And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time comes.

The PRESIDENT. Order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Sir, if the Senator does interpose, in violation of the rules of the Senate, a denial of the fact, it may be that I shall be able to nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this address which are over his own signature, as a wicked fabrication, and prove it by the solemn legislation of this country.

Mr. CHASE. I call the Senator to order. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois is certainly out of order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then I will only say that I shall confine myself to this document, and prove its statements to be false by the legislation of the country. Certainly that is in order.

Mr. CHASE. You cannot do it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the republic was to prohibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the oid States to the Union, and made United States territory, for the purpose of being organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement. Such was not the practice in the early history of the But this is not all. It was understood from the government. It is true that in the territory northnewspapers that resolutions were pending before west of the Ohio river slavery was prohibited by the legislature of Ohio proposing to express their the ordinance of 1787; but it is also true that in opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for the territory south of the Ohio river, slavery was these confederates to get up some exposition of permitted and protected; and it is also true that the question by which they might facilitate the in the organization of the territory of Mississippi, passage of the resolutions through that legislature. in 1798, the provisions of the ordinance of 1787 Hence you find that on the same morning that this were applied to it, with the exception of the sixth document appears over the names of these con- article, which prohibited slavery. Then, sir, you federates in the abolition organ of this city, the find upon the statute books under Washington same document appears in the New York papers and the early Presidents, provisions of law show-certainly in the Tribune, Times, and Evening ing that in the southwestern territories the right Post-in which it is stated, by authority, that it is to hold slaves was clearly implied or recognized,

while in the northwest territories it was prohib-| souri, that territory was allowed to legislate upon ited. The only conclusion that can be fairly and the subject of slavery as it saw proper, subject honestly drawn from that legislation is, that it only to the limitations which I have stated; and was the policy of the fathers of the republic to the country not inhabited or thrown open to setprescribe a line of demarkation between free tlement was set apart as Indian country, and renterritories and slaveholding territories by a natu- dered subject to Indian laws. Hence, the local ral or a geographical line, being sure to make that legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach line correspond, as near as might be, to the laws into that Indian country, but was excluded from of climate, of production, and all those other causes it by the Indian code and Indian laws. The muthat would control the institution and make it nicipal regulations of Missouri could not go there either desirable or undesirable to the people inhab- until the Indian title had been extinguished, and iting the respective territories. the country thrown open to settlement. Such being the case, the only legislation in existence in Nebraska Territory at the time that the Missouri act passed, namely, the 6th of March, 1820, was a provision, in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery.

Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical line, established by the founders of the republic between free territories and slave territories, extended as far westward as our territory then reached; the object being to avoid all agitation on the slavery question by settling that question forever, as far as our territory extended, which was then to the Mississippi river.

The Territory of Missouri having been left in that legal condition, positive opposition was made When, in 1803, we acquired from France the to the bill to organize a State government, with a territory known as Louisiana, it became necessary view to its admission into the Union; and a Sento legislate for the protection of the inhabitants ator from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introresiding therein. It will be seen, by looking into duced an amendment, known as the eighth secthe bill establishing the territorial government in tion of the bill, in which it was provided that 1805 for the territory of New Orleans, embracing slavery should be prohibited north of 36° 30 north the same country now known as the State of latitude, in all that country which we had acquired Louisiana, that the ordinance of 1787 was ex- from France. What was the object of the enactpressly extended to that territory, excepting the ment of that eighth section? Was it not to go sixth section, which prohibited slavery. That back to the original policy of prescribing boundaact implied that the territory of New Orleans ries to the limitation of free institutions, and of was to be a slaveholding territory by making that slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order exception in the law. But, sir, when they came to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subto form what was then called the territory of ject? Hence they extended that geographical Louisiana, subsequently known as the territory of line through all the territory purchased from Missouri, north of the thirty-third parallel, they used different language. They did not extend to it any of the provisions of the ordinance of 1787. They first provided that it should be governed by laws made by the governor and the judges, and, when in 1812 Congress gave to that territory, under the name of the territory of Missouri, a territorial government, the people were allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Now what is the inference from that legislation? That slavery was, by implication, recognized south of the thirty-third parallel; and north of that the people were left to exercise their own judgment and do as they pleased upon the subject, without any implication for or against the existence of the institution.

France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It was not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing line as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on each new acquisition of territory. True, the express enactment of the eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri compromise, only covered the territory acquired from France; but the principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the reasons in its support, required that it should be extended indefinitely westward, so far as our territory might go, whenever new purchases should be made.

Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed. There was inserted in that joint resolution a proThis continued to be the condition of the coun- vision, suggested in the first instance and brought try in the Missouri Territory up to 1820, when before the House of Representatives by myself, the celebrated act which is now called the Missouri extending the Missouri compromise line indeficompromise was passed. Slavery did not exist nitely westward through the territory of Texas. in, nor was it excluded from the country now Why did I bring forward that proposition? Why known as Nebraska. There was no code of laws did the Congress of the United States adopt it? Not upon the subject of slavery either way: First, for because it was of the least practical importance, the reason that slavery had never been introduced so far as the question of slavery within the limits into Louisiana, and established by positive enact- of Texas was concerned; for no man ever dreamed ment. It had grown up there by a sort of com- that it had any practical effect there. Then why mon law, and been supported and protected. was it brought forward? It was for the purpose When a common law grows up, when an institu- of preserving the principle, in order that it might tion becomes established under a usage, it carries be extended still further westward, even to the it so far as that usage actually goes, and no fur- Pacific ocean, whenever we should acquire the ther. If it had been established by direct enact-country that far. I will here read that clause. It ment, it might have carried it so far as the politi- is the third article, second section, and is in these cal jurisdiction extended; but, be that as it may, by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Mis

words:

"New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in

number, in addition to said State of Texas, having suffi- that the Missouri compromise was a solemn com cient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall pact and should never be violated or departed be entitled to admission under the provisions of the fede- from. Every man who is now assailing the prinral Constitution. And such States as may be formed out ciple of the bill under consideration, so far as I of that portion of said territory lying south of 36 degrees am advised, was opposed to the Missouri compro30 minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, mise in 1848. The very men who now arraign with or without slavery, as the people of each State ask me for a departure from the Missouri compromise ing admission may desire. And, in such State or States are the men who successfully violated it, repudias shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude ated it, and caused it to be superseded by the (except for crime) shall be prohibited. compromise measures of 1850. Sir, it is with rather bad grace that the men who proved faithless themselves should charge upon me and others, who were ever faithful, the responsibilities and consequences of their own treachery. Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat

created the necessity for the establishment of a new one in 1850, let us see what that compromise was.

It will be seen that it contains a very remarkable provision, which is, that when States lying north of 36° 30' apply for admission, slavery shall be prohibited in their, constitutions. I presume no one pretends that Congress could have power thus to fetter a State applying for admission into of the Missouri compromise in 1848 having this Union; but it was necessary to preserve the principle of the Missouri compromise line, in order that it might afterwards be extended, and it was supposed that while Congress had no power to The leading feature of the compromise of 1850 impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a was congressional non-intervention as to slavery compact with the State of Texas, that State could in the Territories; that the people of the Territoconsent for herself that, when any portion of her ries, and of all the States, were to be allowed to own territory, subject to her own jurisdiction and do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, control, applied for admission, her constitution subject only to the provisions of the Constitution should be in a particular form; but that provision of the United States. would not be binding on the new State one day That, sir, was the leading feature of the comafter it was admitted into the Union. The other promise measures of 1850. Those measures, provision was that such States as should lie south therefore, abandoned the idea of a geographical of 36° 30' should come into the Union with or line as the boundary between free States and without slavery as each should decide in its con- slave States; abandoned it because compelled to stitution. Then, by that act, the Missouri com- do it from an inability to maintain it; and in lieu promise was extended indefinitely westward, so of that, substituted a great principle of self-gov far as the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio ernment which would allow the people to do as del Norte; for our government at the time recog- they thought proper. Now the question is, when nized the Rio del Norte as its boundary. We that new compromise, resting upon that great recognized, in many ways, and among them, by fundamental principle of freedom, was establisheven paying Texas for it ten millions of dollars, in ed, was it not an abandonment of the old oneorder that it might be included in and form a por- the geographical line? Was it not a supersedure tion of the Territory of New Mexico. of the old one within the very language of the substitute for the bill which is now under consideration? I say it did supersede it, because it applied its provisions as well to the north as to the south of 36° 30'. It established a principle which was equally applicable to the country north as well as south of the parallel of 36° 30'-a principle of universal application. The authors of this abolition manifesto attempted to refute this presumption, and maintained that the compromise of 1850 did not supersede that of 1820, by quoting the proviso to the first section of the act to establish the Texan boundary and create the Territory of New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way of amendment, on motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia.

Then, sir, in 1848 we acquired from Mexico the country between the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that acquisition, the Senate, ou my own motion, voted into a bill a provision to extend the Missouri compromise indefinitely westward to the Pacific ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted. That provision passed this body by a decided majority, I think by ten at least, and went to the House of Representatives, and was defeated there by north

ern votes.

Now, sir, let us pause and consider for a moment. The first time that the principles of the Missouri compromise were ever abandoned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, I repeat, that in order to rebut the presumpwas by the defeat of that provision in the House tion, as I before stated, that the Missouri comproof Representatives in 1848. By whom was that mise was abandoned and superseded by the defeat effected? By northern votes with freesoil principles of the compromise of 1850, these proclivities. It was the defeat of that Missouri confederates cite the following amendment, ofcompromise that reopened the slavery agitation fered to the bill to establish the boundary of with all its fury. It was the defeat of that Texas and create the Territory of New Mexico in Missouri compromise that created the tremendous 1850. struggle of 1850. It was the defeat of that Missouri compromise that created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. Had we been faithful to the principles of the Missouri compromise in 1848, this question would not have arisen. Who was it that was faithless? I undertake to say it was the very men who now insist

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the States of Texas or other

wise."

After quoting this proviso, they make the fol