tutional and effectual. But did the committee propose to repeal it, or suggest that it had been superseded? No. They said they did 'not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. 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 eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.'
"Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The committee oh territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute."
Mr. Chase traced the progress of the committee's bill. "As published January 7th, it contained twenty sections. On the 10th, it was published again: it then had twenty-one sections. The omission of the last section was alleged to be a clerical error. It was, he said, a singular fact that this twenty-first section was not in harmony with the committee's report. It in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Was it possible that this was a mere clerical error?
"But the addition of this section did not help the bill. It declared, among other things, that the question of slavery in the territories and in the states to be formed therefrom, was to be left to the decision of the people through their representatives. But this did not meet the approbation of the southern gentlemen, who claimed the right to take their slaves into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition either by congress or by a territorial legislature. It was not enough that the committee had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section in direct contravention of its reasonings and principles; the section must itself be abandoned and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape which would not deny the slaveholding claim. He next alluded to the amendment of the senator from Kentucky, which came square up to repeal and to the claim. The amendment probably produced some fluttering and some consultation. It met the views of southern senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill had assumed. For it was just seven days after the amendment had been offered by senator Dixon, that a fresh amendment was reported from the committee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. This new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories." This new bill thus provided for the repeal of the Missouri prohibition:
"The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inap-
