“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 on Territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right, to renew the old controversy, and to arouse 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. President, I am not one of those who suppose that the question between Mexican law and the slave-holding claims was avoided in the Utah and New Mexico Act; nor do I think that the introduction into the Nebraska bill of the provisions of those acts in respect to slavery would leave the question between the Missouri prohibition and the same slave-holding claims entirely unaffected.’  I am of a very different opinion.  But I am dealing now with the report of the Senator from Illinois, as chairman of the committee, and I show, beyond all controversy, that that report gave no countenance whatever to the doctrine of repeal by supersedure.

Well, sir, the bill reported by the committee was printed in the Washington Sentinel on Saturday, January 7th.  It contained twenty sections; no more, no less.  It contained no provisions in respect to slavery, except those in the Utah and New Mexico bills.  It left those provisions to speak for themselves.  This was in harmony with the report of the committee.  On the 10th of January—­on Tuesday—­the act appeared again in the Sentinel; but it had grown longer during the interval.  It appeared now with twenty-one sections.  There was a statement in the paper that the twenty-first section had been omitted by a clerical error.

But, sir, it is a singular fact that this twenty-first section is entirely out of harmony with the committee’s report.  It undertakes to determine the effect of the provision in the Utah and New Mexico bills.  It declares, among other things, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives.  This provision, in effect, repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done.  Is it possible, sir, that this was a mere clerical error?  May it not be that this twenty-first section was the fruit of some Sunday work, between Saturday the 7th, and Tuesday the 10th?