are miles larger than
the original thirteen States,(79) and more than four times the area
of Great Britain and Ireland. It was what was left of the purchase
after Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Indian
Territory were carved out. It then had only about one thousand
white inhabitants.

The desire to still placate the threatening South and to win its
political favor, led some great and patriotic men of the North to
attempt measures in the interest of slavery.

On January 4, 1854, Stephen A. Douglas, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Territories, made a report embodying constitutional
theories not hitherto promulgated, and questioning or repudiating
others long supposed to have been settled.

The report announced the discovery of a new principle of the Compromise
measures of 1850.

It declared:

"They were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring
effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the
recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to
establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish
adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all time to come avoid
the perils of similar agitation by withdrawing the question of
_slavery_ from the halls of Congress and the political arena,
committing it to the arbitration of those who are immediately
interested in and alone responsible for its consequences. . . . A
question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the
Territory of Nebraska. . . . It is a disputed point whether slavery
is prohibited in the Nebraska country by _valid_ enactment. In
the opinion of eminent statesmen. . . . the eighth section of the
act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void."

The eighth section prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory
north of 36 deg. 30', hence from the Nebraska Territory. The report
reiterated the absurd doctrine:

"That the Constitution. . . . 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."

(What law? The law of the place whence it came, or the law of the
place to which it was taken? Not even an ox or an ass can be held
as property save under the law of the place where it is; nor is
the title to the soil valid except under the law of the place where
it is located. As well as might a person claim the rig