the Mexican law became inoperative at the moment of acquisition, and that slave-holders could take their slaves into the Territory and hold them there under the provisions of the Constitution.  The Territorial Compromise acts, as the committee tell us, steered clear of these questions.  They simply provided that the States organized out of these Territories might come in with or without slavery, as they should elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of State governments.  That question was left entirely to judicial decision.

Well, sir, what did the committee propose to do with the Nebraska Territory?  In respect to that, as in respect to the Mexican Territory, differences of opinion exist in relation to the introduction of slaves.  There are Southern gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, they can take their slaves into the territory covered by it, and hold them there by virtue of the Constitution.  On the other hand the great majority of the American people, North and South, believe the Missouri prohibition to be constitutional and effectual.  Now, what did the committee pro-pose?  Did they propose to repeal the prohibition?  Did they suggest that it had been superseded?  Did they advance any idea of that kind?  No, sir.  This is their language: 

“Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment.  The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union.  In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void, while the prevailing sentiment in a large portion of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law.  Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions.  They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850.”

This language will bear repetition: 

“Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions.  They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850.”

And they go on to say: