FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   984   985   986   987   988   989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000   1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008  
1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   1014   1015   1016   1017   1018   1019   1020   1021   1022   1023   1024   1025   1026   1027   1028   1029   1030   1031   1032   1033   >>   >|  
. Douglass of Illinois, on the 10th of August, by which the eighth section of the law of the 6th of March, 1820, for the admission of Missouri, was revived and adopted, as a part of the bill, and declared to be "in full force, and binding, for the future organization of the territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." This, with some of the other amendments of the Senate, was disagreed to by the House. On the return of the bill to the Senate, a discussion arose, and continued for several days, on the question of agreement or disagreement with the amendments of the House to the Senate's amendments. The principal subject of this discussion was whether the Senate would recede from the above-mentioned amendment moved by Mr. Douglass, which was finally decided in the affirmative. In these discussions, a considerable portion of which was of a conversational character, Mr. Webster took a leading part; but of most of what was said by him, as by other Senators, no report has been preserved. The session of the Senate at which the last and most animated discussion of this subject took place, nominally on Saturday of the 12th of August, was prolonged till ten o'clock, A.M., of Sunday, the 13th. In the course of the debate on this day Mr. Webster spoke as follows.] I am very little inclined to prolong this debate, and I hope I am utterly disinclined to bring into it any new warmth or excitement. I wish to say a few words, however, first, upon the question as it is presented to us, as a parliamentary question; and secondly, upon the general political questions involved in the debate. As a question of parliamentary proceeding, I understand the case to be this. The House of Representatives sent us a bill for the establishment of a territorial government in Oregon; and no motion has been made in the Senate to strike out any part of that bill. The bill purporting to respect Oregon, simply and alone, has not been the subject of any objection in this branch of the legislature. The Senate has proposed no important amendment to this bill, affecting Oregon itself; and the honorable member from Missouri[1] was right, entirely right, when he said that the amendment now under consideration had no relation to Oregon. That is perfectly true; and therefore the amendment which the Senate has adopted, and the House has disagreed to, has no connection with the immed
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   984   985   986   987   988   989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000   1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008  
1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   1014   1015   1016   1017   1018   1019   1020   1021   1022   1023   1024   1025   1026   1027   1028   1029   1030   1031   1032   1033   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Senate
 
amendment
 
question
 

Oregon

 
amendments
 

subject

 
discussion
 
adopted
 

debate

 

parliamentary


disagreed

 
August
 

Douglass

 

Missouri

 

Webster

 
questions
 

political

 

general

 

involved

 

utterly


disinclined

 

prolong

 

inclined

 

proceeding

 

warmth

 

excitement

 

presented

 

strike

 
member
 
affecting

honorable

 
consideration
 

connection

 

perfectly

 

relation

 

important

 

proposed

 

government

 

motion

 

territorial


establishment

 
Representatives
 

objection

 

branch

 

legislature

 
purporting
 
respect
 

simply

 

understand

 
animated