The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine of 1850 must prevail.  In the discharge of the duty imposed upon us by the Senate, the committee could not hesitate upon this point, whether we consulted our own individual opinions and principles, or those which were known to be entertained and boldly avowed by a large majority of the Senate.  The two great political parties of the country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the compromise measures of 1850, “in principle and substance.”  A large majority of the Senate—­indeed, every member of the body, I believe, except the two avowed Abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner)—­profess to belong to one or the other of these parties, and hence were supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry out “the principle and substance” of those measures in all new Territorial organizations.  The report of the committee was in accordance with this obligation.  I am arraigned, therefore, for having endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate truly—­for having performed my duty in conformity with parliamentary law—­for having been faithful to the trust imposed in me by the Senate.  Let the vote this night determine whether I have thus faithfully represented your opinions.  When a majority of the Senate shall have passed the bill—­when the majority of the States shall have endorsed it through their representatives upon this floor—­when a majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have sanctioned it—­when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the Democratic party shall have voted for it—­when each of these propositions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the country, whether, as the organ of the committee, I performed my duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head so much denunciation and abuse.

Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to say about the mutations and modifications which this bill has undergone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in all future Territorial organizations.  Fortunately there is no necessity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in detail, and reply to each charge separately.  Each speaker seems to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader in the path marked out by the Abolition confederates in their manifesto, which I took occasion to expose on a former occasion.  You have seen them on their winding way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file, each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither venturing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground which did not bear the footprint of the Abolition champion.  To answer one, therefore,