of these controverted questions.  They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850.”  And just as Congress deemed it wise in 1850 to refrain from deciding the matter in controversy, 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 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.”  The essential features of the Compromise of 1850, which should again be carried into practical operation, were stated as follows: 

“First:  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, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

“Second:  That ‘all cases involving title to slaves,’ and ’questions of personal freedom,’ are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Third:  That the provision of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all ‘the organized Territories,’ the same as in the States.”

The substitute reported by the committee followed the Dodge bill closely, but contained the additional statement.  “And when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any part of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."[446] This phraseology was identical with that of the Utah and New Mexico Acts.  The bill also made special provision for writs of error and appeals from the territorial court to the Supreme Court of the United States, in all cases involving title to slaves and personal freedom.  This feature, too, was copied from the Utah and New Mexico Acts.  As first printed in the Washington Sentinel, January 7th, the bill contained no reference to the Missouri Compromise and no direct suggestion that the territorial legislature would decide the question of slavery.  The wording of the bill and its general tenor gave the impression that the prohibition of slavery would continue during the territorial status, unless in the meantime the courts should declare the Missouri Compromise null and void.  Three days later, January 10th, the Sentinel reprinted the bill with an additional section, which had been omitted by a “clerical error.”  This twenty-first section read, “In order to avoid all misconstruction, it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the following propositions and principles, established by the compromise measures of one thousand eight hundred and fifty, to wit:”  then followed the three propositions which had accompanied the report of January 4th.  The last of these three propositions had been slightly abbreviated:  all questions pertaining to slavery were to be left to the decision of the people through their appropriate representatives, the clause “to be chosen by them for that purpose” being omitted.