But, sir, the addition of this section, it seems, did not help the bill.  It did not, I suppose, meet the approbation of Southern gentlemen, who contended that they have a right to take their slaves into the Territories, notwithstanding any prohibition, either by Congress or by a Territorial Legislature.  I dare say it was found that the votes of these gentlemen could not be had for the bill with that clause in it.  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 twenty-first section itself must be abandoned, and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape which would not deny the slave-holding claim.

The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Dixon), on the 16th of January, submitted an amendment which came square up to repeal, and to the claim.  That amendment, probably, produced some fluttering and some consultation.  It met the views of Southern Senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill has finally assumed.  Of the various mutations which it has undergone, I can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.  That there is no effect without a cause, is among our earliest lessons in physical philosophy, and I know of no causes which will account for the remarkable changes which the bill underwent after the 16th of January, other than that amendment, and the determination of Southern Senators to support it, and to vote against any provision recognizing the right of any Territorial Legislature to prohibit the introduction of slavery.

It was just seven days, Mr. President, after the Senator from Kentucky had offered his amendment, 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—­the southern Territory of Kansas, and the northern Territory of Nebraska.  It applies to each all the provisions of the Utah and New Mexico bills; it rejects entirely the twenty-first clerical-error section, and abrogates the Missouri prohibition by the very singular provision, which I will read: 

“The Constitution and all 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 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative.”

Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the prohibition.  The Senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment.  Those who are willing to break up and destroy the old compact of 1820 can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect.  But I appeal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause.  I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue.