Slavery? But it is supposed by some that this principle is less important in regard to Kansas and Nebraska than as a general one-a general principle applicable to all other present and future Territories of the United States. Do honorable Senators then indeed suppose they are establishing a principle at all? If so, I think they egregiously err, whether the principle is either good or bad, right or wrong. They are not establishing it, and cannot establish it in this way. You subvert one law capriciously, by making another law in its place. That is all. Will your law have any more weight, authority, solemnity, or binding force on future Congresses, than the first had? You abrogate the law of your predecessors-others will have equal power and equal liberty to abrogate yours. You allow no barriers around the old law, to protect it from abrogation. You erect none around your new law, to stay the hand of future innovators.

Sir, in saying that your new principle will not be established by this bill, I reason from obvious, clear, well settled principles of human nature. Slavery and Freedom are antagonistical elements in this country. The founders of the Constitution framed it with a knowledge of that antagonism, and suffered it to continue, that it might work out its own ends. There is a commercial antagonism, an irreconcilable one, between the systems of free labor and slave labor. They have been at war with each other ever since the Government was established, and that war is to continue forever. The contest,

when it ripens between these two antagonistic elements, is to be settled somewhere; it is to be settled in the seat of central power, in the Federal Legislature. The Constitution makes it the duty of the central Government to determine questions, as often as they shall arise, in favor of one or the other party, and refers the decision of them to the majority of the votes in the two Houses of Congress. It will come back here, then, in spite of all the efforts to escape from it.

This antagonism must end either in a separation of the antagonistic parties the Slaveholding States and the Free States-or, secondly, in the complete establishment of the influence of the Slave power over the Free-or else, on the other hand, in the establishment of the superior influence of Freedom over the interests of Slavery. It will not be terminated by a voluntary secession of either party. Commercial interests bind the Slave States and the Free States together in links of gold that are riveted with iron, and they cannot be broken by passion or by ambition. Either party will submit to the ascendency of the other, rather than yield the commercial advantages of this Union. Political ties bind the Union together-a common necessity, and not merely a common necessity, but the common interests of empire of such empire as the world has never before seen. The control of the national power is the control of the great Western Continent; and the control of this continent is to be, in a very few years, the controlling influence in the world. Who is there, North, that hates Slavery so much, or who, South, that hates emancipation so intensely, that he can attempt, with any hope of success, to break a Union thus forged and welded together? I have always heard, with equal pity and disgust, threats of disunion in the Free States, and similar threats in the Slaveholding States. I know that men may rave in the heat of passion, and under great political excitement; but I know that when it comes to a question whether this Union shall stand, either with Freedom

or with Slavery, the masses will uphold it, and it will

"tand until some inherent vice in its Constitution, not yet lisclosed, shall cause its dissolution. Now, entertaining these opinions, there are for me only two alternatives, viz.: let Slavery gain unlimited sway, or so to exert what little power and influence I may have, as to secure, if I can, the ultimate predominance of Freedom.

Sir, I have always said that I should not despond, even if this fearful measure should be effected: nor do I now despond. Although, reasoning from my present convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise of 1820, I have labored, in the very spirit of those who established it, to save the landmark of Freedom which it assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I opposed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I have always preferred the compromises of the Constitution, and have wanted no others. I feared all others. This was a leading principle of the great statesman of the South, (Mr. Calhoun). Said he:

States. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in opposition to fanaticism than on the shifting sands of compromise. Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the Constitution."

I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending Freedom upon it as Mr. Calhoun did in defending Slavery. I was overruled then, and I have waited since without proposing to abrogate any compromises.

It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now; but the proposition has come from another quarIt is about to prevail. The

ter-from an adverse one.

shifting sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, and they are now, without agency of my own, taking hold again on the rock of the Constitution. It shall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm. This seems to me auspicious of better days and wiser legislation. Through all the darkness and gloom of the present hour, bright stars are breaking, that inspire me with hope, and excite me to perseverance. They show that the day of compromises has past forever, and that henceforward all great questions between Freedom and Slavery legitimately coming here-and none other can come-shall be decided, as they ought to be, upon their merits, by a fair exercise of legislative power, and not by bargains of equivocal prudence, if not of doubtful morality.

Mr. Douglas closed the debate, reiterating and enforcing the views set forth in his Report already referred to; and at last the vote was taken, and the bill passed: Yeas, 37; Nays, 14; as follows:

Yeas-For the Kansas-Nebraska bill:

Messrs. Adams,

Atchison,

Badger,

Bayard,

Benjamin,
Brodhead,

Brown,

Butler,

Clay, of Ala.,

Cass,

Dawson,

Dixon,

Dodge, of Iowa,

Fitzpatrick,
Geyer,

Gwin,

Williams-87.

Houston,

James,

Seward,

Dodge, of Wisc.,
Fessenden,

Fish,

Foot,

Hamlin,

Smith,

So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be "An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," and the Senate adjourned over to the Tuesday following.

In the House, a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska had been noticed on the first day of the session, by Mr. John G. Miller, of Mo., who introduced it December 22d.

Jan. 24th.-Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to organize said Territory.

Jan. 30. Mr. Pringle, of N. Y., endeavored to have the bill passed at the last session (leaving the Missouri Restriction intact), reported by the Committee on Territories; but debate arose, and his resolution lay over.

Jan. 31. Mr. Richardson, of Ill., chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill "To organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," which was read twice and committed.

Mr. Richardson's bill was substantially Mr. Douglas's last bill, and was accompanied by no

"I see my way in the Constitution; I cannot in a compromise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the Constitution is stable. It is a rock on which we can stand, and on which we can meet our friends from the non-slaveholding report. Mr. English, of Ind., submitted the

views of a minority of said Committee on Territories, proposing, without argument, the two following amendments:

1. Amend the section defining the boundary of Kansas, so as to make "the summit of the Rocky Mountains" the western boundary of said Territory.

2. Strike out of the 14th and 34th sections of said bill all after the words "United States," and insert in each instance (the one relating to Kansas, and the other to Nebraska) as follows:

Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the people of said Territory, through the properly constituted legislative authority, from passing such laws, in relation to the institution of Slavery, as they may deem best adapted to their locality, and most conducive to their happiness and welfare; and so much of any existing act of Congress as may conflict with the above right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

This appears to have been an attempt to give practical effect to the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty; but it was not successful.

May 8th. On motion of Mr. Richardson, the House-Yeas, 109; Nays, 88-resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and took up the bill (House No. 236) to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and discussed it -Mr. Olds, of Ohio, in the chair.

On coming out of Committee, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tenn., moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to move the printing of Senate bill (No. 22, passed the Senate as aforesaid) and the amendment now pending to the House bill. No quorum voted-adjourned. May 9th. This motion prevailed. After debate in Committee on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Committee found itself without a quorum, and thereupon rose and reported the fact to the House-only 106 Members were found to be present. After several fruitless attempts to adjourn, a call was ordered and a quorum obtained, at 9 Р.М. At 10, an adjournment prevailed.

May 10th. Debate in Committee continued. May 11th.-Mr. Richardson moved that all debate in Committee close to-morrow at noon.

Finally, at 11 o'clock, P.M., of Friday, 12th, after a continuous sitting of thirty-six hours, the House, on motion of Mr. Richardson, adjourned.

May 13th. The House sat but two hours, and effected nothing.

May 15th.-Mr. Richardson withdrew his demand for the Previous Question on closing the debate, and moved instead that the debate close at noon on Friday the 19th instant. This he finally modified by substituting Saturday the 20th; and in this shape his motion prevailed by a two-thirds majority-Yeas, 187; Nays, 66the following opponents of the bill voting for the motion, namely:

MAINE.-Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall-2.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE. Geo. W. Kittredge, Geo. W. Mor
rison-2.

MASSACHUSETTS. -Nathaniel P. Banks, jr.-1.
CONNECTICUT. -Origen S. Seymour-1.
NEW-YORK.-Gilbert Dean, Charles Hughes-2.
PENNSYLVANIA. Michael C. Trout-1.

OHIO -Alfred P. Edgerton, Harvey H. Johnson, An-
drew Ellison, William D. Lindsley, Thomas Richey-5.
INDIANA. Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace-2.
ILLINOIS.-John Wentworth-1.
MICHIGAN - David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens-2.
WISCONSIN.-John B. Macy-1
VIRGINIA.-John S. Millson-1.
Total-21.

Mr. Richardson, having thus got in his resolution to close the debate, put on the previous question again, and the House-Yeas, 113; Nays, 59-agreed to close the debate on the 20th.

Debate having been closed, the opponents of the measure expected to defeat or cripple it by moving and taking a vote in Committee on various propositions of amendment, kindred to those moved and rejected in the Senate; some of which it was believed a majority of the House would not choose (or dare) to vote down; and, though the names of those voting on one side or the other in Committee of the Whole are not recorded, yet any proposition moved and rejected there, may be renewed in the House after taking the bill out of committee, and is no longer cut off by the Previous Question, as it formerly was. But, when the

Mr. English moved a call of the House: Re-hour for closing debate in Committee had

fused; Yeas, 88; Nays, 97.

Mr. Mace moved that Mr. Richardson's motion be laid on the table: Defeated. Yeas, 95; Nays 100.

Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, moved a call of the House. Refused: Yeas, 45; Nays, 80.

The day was spent in what has come to be called "Filibustering "-that is, the minority moving adjournments, calls of the House, asking to be excused from voting, taking appeals, etc., etc. In the midst of this, Mr. Richardson withdrew his original motion, and moved instead that the debate in Committee be closed in five minutes after the House shall have resumed it.

The hour of noon of the 12th having arrived, Mecsrs. Dean and Banks raised points of order as to the termination of the legislative day. The Speaker decided that the legislative day could only be terminated by the adjournment of the House, except by constitutional conclusion of the session. Mr. Banks appealed, but at length withdrew his appeal.

arrived, Mr. Alex. H. Stephens moved that the enacting clause of the bill be stricken out; which was carried by a rally of the friends of the bill, and of course cut off all amendments. The bill was thus reported to the House with its head off; when, after a long struggle, the House refused to agree to the report of the Committee of the Whole-Yeas, (for agreeing) 97; Nays, 117-bringing the House to a direct vote on the engrossment of the bill.

Mr. Richardson now moved an amendment, which was a substitute for the whole bill, being substantially the Senate's bill, with the clause admitting aliens, who have declared their intention to become citizens, to the right of suffrage. He thereupon called the Previous Question, which the House sustained-Yeas, 116; Nays, 90-when the House adopted his amendment-Yeas, 115; Nays, 95-and proceeded to engross the bill-Yeas, 112; Nays, 99-when he put on the Previous Question again, and passed the bill finally-Yeas, 113; Nays, 100as follows:

KENTUCKY.-John C. Breckinridge, James S. Chrisman, Leander M. Cox, Clement S. Hill, John M. Elliot, -2. Benj. E. Grey, William Preston, Richard H. Stanton -8.

TENNESSEE.- William M. Churchwell, George W. Jones, Charles Ready, Samuel A. Smith, Frederick P. Stanton, Felix Zollicoffer-6.

MISSOURI.-Alfred W. Lamb, James J. Lindley, John G. Miller, Mordecai Oliver, John S. Phelps-5.

ARKASNAS.-Alfred B. Greenwood, Edwin A. Warren-2.

FLORIDA. Augustus E. Maxwell-1.

TEXAS.-Peter H. Bell, Geo. W. Smyth-2. Total-69.

Total, Free and Slave States-113.

for a third reading-Yeas, 35; Nays, 13, as follows:

Yeas-For Engrossing :

Fish, N. Y.,
Foot, Vt.,

GILLETTE, Ct.,
Hamlin, Me.,
James, R. I.,
Seward, N. Y.,,
SUMNER, Mass,
Wade, Ohio.

Walker, Wis.-13. Democrats in Roman; Whigs in Italics; Free Democrats in SMALL CAPS.

The bill was then passed without further division, and, being approved by the President, became a law. The clause in the 14th section, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, with the Badger proviso, is as follows:

That the Constitution and all the 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 sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing

Slavery.

Dec. 3, 1855. The XXXIVth Congress convened at the Capitol, in Washington.-Jesse D. Bright, of Ind., holding over as President pro tempore of the Senate, in place of Vice-President William R. King, of Alabama, deceased. A quorum of either House was found to be present.

But the House found itself unable to organize by the choice of a Speaker, until after an unprecedented struggle of nine weeks' duration Finally, on Saturday, Feb. 20, 1856, the plurality-rule was adopted-Yeas, 113; Nays, 104 -and the House proceeded under it to its one

(Dec. 31st) his Annual Message, and next (Jan. 24th) a special message with regard to the condition of Kansas, in which he thus alludes to those who think Slavery not the best institution to make a prosperous and happy State, and to those who opposed the repeal of the Missouri restriction:

This interference, in so far as concerns its primary causes and its immediate commencement, was one of the incidents of that pernicious agitation on the subject of the condition of the colored persons held to service in some of the States, which has so long disturbed the repose of our country, and excited individuals, otherwise patriotic and law-abiding, to toil with misdirected zeal in the attempt to propagate their social theories by the perversion and abuse of the powers of Congress.

The persons and parties whom the tenor of the act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas thwarted in the endeavor to impose, through the agency of Congress, their particular views of social organization on the people of the future new States, now perceiving that the policy of leaving the inhabitants of each State to judge for themselves in this respect was ineradicably rooted in the convictions of the people of the Union, then had recourse, in the pursuit of their general object, to the extraordinary measure of propagandist colonization of the Territory of Kansas, to prevent the free and natural action of its inhabitants in its internal organization and thus to anticipate or to force the determination of that question in this inchoate State.

The President makes the following reference to the action of the people of Kansas, who, claiming the right "peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances," did so assemble, and sent a petition to Congress, to permit them to form a State Government, with the Constitution submitted:

Following upon this movement was another and more important one of the same general character. Persons confessedly not constituting the body politic, or all the inhabitants, but merely a party of the inhabitants, and without law, have undertaken to summon a convention for the purpose of transforming the Territory into a State, and have framed a constitution, adopted it, and under it elected a governor and other officers, and a representative to Congress.

March 12.-In Senate, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, from the Committee on Territories, made a report on matters relating to Kansas affairs, in which he says:

The act of Congress for the organization o the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, was designed to conforin to the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution, by preserving and maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the States of the Union, notwithstanding the restriction contained in the 8th section of the act of March 6, 1820, (preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,) which assumed to deny to Shapeople themselves, provided they should make their

settle question

homes and organize States north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Conforming to the cardinal principles of State equality and self-government, in obedience to the Constitution, the KansasNebraska act declared, in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1850, that, "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 constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission."

He then refers to the formation of the "Emigrant Aid Company,"* which had been organized on the principle of "State equality" by

hundred and thirty-third ballot for speaker, when Nathaniel P. Banks, jr. (anti-Nebraska) the people of Massachusetts. This proceeding

of Massachusetts, was chosen, having 103 votes to 100, for William Aiken, of South Carolina. Eleven votes scattered on other persons did not count against a choice. It was therefore resolved-Yeas, 155; Nays, 40-that Mr. Banks was duly elected Speaker.

But, during the pendency of this election, the President had transmitted to both Houses, first

he calls "a perversion of the plain provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act-that the only

*"The Emigrant Aid Company," with five millions dollars, to which Mr. Douglas alludes, and from the existence of which he makes a special plea for the Border Ruffians, was never organized: See Report of Special Committee of Congress, (page 100.)

kind of lawful emigration was "such as has filled up our new States and Territories, when each individual has gone on his own account, to improve his condition and that of his family." The report then states that the people of Missouri were greatly alarmed at the rapid filling up of Kansas by people opposed to Slavery-that this might endanger the exist ence of Slavery in Missouri and that, as the people of Missouri had a right to defend their own institutions, they might properly resist the formation of an Anti-Slavery State in their neighborhood. The report continues:

For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the Missourians who lived in the immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advantages over their rivals from the more remote portions of the Union. Each family could send one of its members across the line to mark out his claim, erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, sufficient to give him as valid a right to be deemed an actual settler and qualified voter as those who were being imported by the Emigrant Aid Societies. In an unoccupied Territory, where the lands have not been surveyed, and where there were no marks or lines to indicate the boundaries of sections and quartersections, and where no legal title could be had until after the surveys should be made, disputes, quarrels, violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as the natural and inevitable consequences of such extraordinary systems of emigration, which divided and arrayed the settlers into two great hostile parties, each having an inducement to claim more than was his right, in order to hold it for some new-comer of his own party, and at the same time prevent persons belonging to the opposite party from settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this state of things, the great mass of emigrants from the northwest and from other States who went there on their own account, with no other object, and influenced by no other motives than to improve their condition and secure good homes for their families, were compelled to array themselves under the banner of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure protection to themselves and their claims against the aggressions and violence of the other.

On the 29th of November, 1854, the first election in the Territory was held for a delegate to Congress. This was a very short time after the arrival of the Free State emigrants in suffi cient bodies to protect themselves. At this election, according to the returns, J. W. Whitfield had received 2,268 votes; other persons,

effort to send at least an equal number, to counteract the apprehended result of the new importation.

The report then gives a history of the Legislature elected March 30th, 1855, its removal from Pawnee City to the Shawnee Mission, its subsequent quarrel with Gov. Reeder, and continues:

A few days after, Governor Reeder dissolved his official of the seat of government, and while that body was still relations with the legislature, on account of the removal in session, a meeting was called by "many voters," to assemble at Lawrence, on the 14th or 15th of August, 1855, "to take into consideration the propriety of calling a Ter

ritorial Convention, preliminary to the formation of a State Government, and other subjects of public interest." At that meeting, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted with but one dissenting voice:

"Whereas, the people of Kansas Territory have been since the settlement, and now are, without any law-making power; therefore

"Be it resolved, That we, the people of Kansas Territory, in mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party distinctions, influenced by a common necessity, and greatly desirous of probona fide citizens of Kansas Territory, of whatever political moting the common good, do hereby call upon and request all views and predilections, to consult together in their respective election districts, and in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each representative in the legislative assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date 10th assembly in convention at the

March, 1855; said delegates to

town of Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State Constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the

Union of the United States of America."

This meeting, so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain, was the first step in that series of proceedings which resulted in the adoption of a Constitution and State Government, to be put in operation on the 4th of the present month, in subversion of the Territorial Government established under the authority of Congress. The right to set up the State Government in defiance of the constituted authorities of the Territory, is based on the assumption "that the people of Kansas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power;" in the face of the well-known fact, that the Territorial Legislature was then in session, in pursuance of the proclamation of Governor Reeder, and the organic law of the Territory.

The report then proceeds to narrate the circumstances attending the formation of a State Government in Michigan, Arkansas, Florida and California, and states that "in every instance the proceeding has originated with, and been conducted in subordination to, the authority of

575. Whitfield, of course, received the Gover- the local governments established or recognized nor's certificate, but great dissatisfaction was by the Government of the United States." It expressed by the Free State settlers, charging then refers to the case of the effort to change that many of the votes received by Whitfield the organic law, made in Rhode Island some

were given by men living in Missouri; and it afterward appeared that at the time of the first election there were but 1,114 legal voters in the Territory. Nevertheless, the report continues:

years ago, from which it says the "insurgents" (as the Free-State party in Kansas is called) "can derive no aid or comfort."

The following concludes the Report the words in Italics below perhaps explain in what sense the people of a Territory are "perfectly free to form their own institutions, in their own way:" Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion, in reference to the merits of that controversy, [referring to Rhode Island,] it is evident that the principles upon which it was conducted are not involved in the revolutionary struggle now going on in Kansas; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as a State. In the meantime, they are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to their organic law passed by Congress in pursuance of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes. Hence, it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent sovereign right, under the Constitution of the United States,

Certain it is, that there could not have been a system of fraud and violence such as has been charged by the agents and supporters of the emigrant aid societies, unless the Governor and judges of election were parties to it; and your committee are not prepared to assume a fact so disreputable to them, and so improbable upon the state of facts presented, without specific charges and direct proof. In the absence of all proof and probable truth, the charge that the Missourians had invaded the Territory and controlled the congressional election by fraud and violence was circulated throughout the Free States, and made the basis of the most inflammatory appeals to all men opposed to the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act to emigrate or send emigrants to Kansas, for the purpose of repelling the invaders, and assisting their friends who were then in the Territory in putting down the slave-power, and prohibiting Slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it a Free State. Exaggerated accounts of the large number of emigrants on their way under the auspices of the emigrant aid companies, with the view of controlling the election for members of the Territorial Legislature, which was to take place on the 30th of March, 1855, were published and circulated. These accounts, being republished and be- to annul the laws and resist the authority of the Territorial lieved in Missouri, where the excitement had already been government which Congress has established in obedience inflamed to a fearful intensity, induced a corresponding to the Constitution.