previous next
[233] people of these Territories to choose their own Governor as well as Legislature,--which was rejected; Yeas 10;1 Nays 30.

So far, the bill had been acted on as in Committee of the Whole. On coming out of Committee, Mr. Clayton's amendment, above mentioned, was disagreed to--22 to 20--and the bill engrossed for its third reading by 29 to 12--and, at a late hour of the night2--or rather, morning — passed: Yeas 37; Nays3 14: whereupon the Senate, exhausted by struggle and excitement, adjourned over from Friday to the following Tuesday.

In the House, this bill was not taken up for more than two months after it had passed the Senate. There were scruples to vanquish, objections to remove or to soften, and machinery to adjust, in order to give the measure a chance of success. Meantime, the hum of public dissatisfaction rose louder and louder, and members who were soon to face Northern constituencies were reasonably reluctant to vote for it, unless the Democratic majorities in their districts were well-nigh impregnable.

A House bill (nearly a copy of that of Mr. Douglas) having been reported4 by Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, from the Committee on Territories, Mr. English, of Indiana--a most unflinching Democrat--from the minority of said Committee, proposed to strike out the clause which we have seen reported by Mr. Douglas to the Senate, and adopted by that body, repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, and insert instead the following:

Provided, That no 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the above right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

It is highly probable that this proposition could not have been defeated on a call of the Yeas and Nays in the House — which was doubtless the reason why it was never acted on. The House bill was never taken up, save at a late day,5 so as to enable the Senate bill to be moved as an amendment.

There was a violent struggle in the House for and against closing the debate on this measure, and it was finally agreed that said debate should terminate on Saturday the 20th. And now, Mr. Alex. H. Stephens, of Georgia, originated, and was enabled to execute, a parliamentary maneuver which, if recognized as legitimate, must prove an important aid to party despotism and a screen to vicious legislation through all future time. The right of a majority to prescribe a reasonable limit to discussion — to afford

1 Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Foot, Hamlin, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Sumner, Wade--10.

2 March 3d.

3 Messrs. Bell, of Tennessee, Houston, of Texas, and Walker, of Wisconsin, who had voted against Mr. Chase's amendment above cited, and Mr. James, of Rhode Island, who had not voted on it at all, now voted Nay. Messrs. Bayard, of Delaware, Cass, of Michigan, Thompson, of Kentucky, Geyer, of Missouri, Thomson, of New Jersey, who did not vote for or against Gov. Chase's amendment, whereon we have given the Yeas and Nays, were now present and voted for the bill.

4 January 31st.

5 May 8th.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
May 8th (1)
March 3rd (1)
January 31st (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: