of 1835, that their lands beyond the Mississippi should never, without their consent, be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory. He objected to the bill on other grounds. There was do necessity for joining three such important subjects. The organization of Nebraska without a sufficient population to warrant it, nearly all being Indian territory; the organization of Kansas, entirely held and occupied by Indians; and the repeal of the Missouri compromise, an important consideration for the American people, were all placed in this omnibus shape, and presented for action. He had on former occasions supported the Missouri compromise, assisted by the south, because they regarded it as a solemn compact. Texas, he said, had been admitted upon that principle. It was an express condition of her admission, that in all new states formed out of her territory north of 30° 30', slavery should be prohibited.
Mr. H. said he had voted for the compromise of 1850; but he did not suppose that he was voting to repeal the Missouri compromise. He regarded it as a final settlement of this mooted question, this source of agitation. Great trials and emergencies, he feared, would arise between the north and the south. The south was in a minority; she could not be otherwise. If she should accede to the violation of a compact so sacred as this, she would set an example that would be followed when she did not desire it. He averred that he would resist every attempt to infringe or repeal the Missouri compromise.
On the 15th of February, the question was taken on the substitute of the committee reported by Mr. Douglas, to strike out the words which declared the Missouri compromise to be superseded by that of 1850, and to insert the provision declaring the Missouri compromise inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention of congress with slavery in the states and territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, and inoperative and void; and declaring the people free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States. The substitute was adopted, 35 to 10.
Mr. Cass expressed his regret that this question of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which opened all the disputed points connected with the subject of congressional action upon slavery in the territories, had again been brought before the senate. The advantages to result from the measure would not outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling accompanying the discussion would produce. Nor would the south derive any benefit from it, as no human power could establish slavery in the regions defined by these bills. He was, however, in favor of the amendment of the committee which declared that the people, whether in the territories, or in the states to be formed from them, were free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.
Mr. Cass, in the course of his speech, replied to the complaints that the south was excluded from, and robbed of the territories, and that they were appropriated to the north. While he repeated the opinion that congress was not authorized to restrain a person, by legal enactment, from taking slaves into any territory of the United States, he maintained that the prohibition of slavery
