Mr. SUMNER. Mr. I had intended yesterday, had I been recognized by the Chair, to say something in reply to the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. WADE;]. the occasion passed, and I have no desire today to recall that controversy. I shall content myself, therefore, with one word to explain the vote which I propose to give. I prefer the amendment moved by the Senfrom Missouri; but if that be voted down I shall gladly accept the amendment moved by the Senfrom Vermont. I prefer that moved by the Senfrom Missouri, because it is in conformity with fixed precedents in the congress of the U.S. It places the equality of all men before the law o: the protection of a compact between the U.S. on the one part and the State on the other part. It therefore has not only the validity of legislation, but the further supremacy, if I may so express myself, of Compact. On this point I desire to call attention to the language which was once uttered in this Chamber by Mr. Web ster; and indeed I doubt if in all his utterances he ever expressed himself with more power and felicity. I believe on another occasion I called the attention of the Senate to this same passage; but it will bear repetition. Alluding to the ordinance for the Northwest Territory, by which slavery was forever prohibited there, Mr. Webster uses the following language: “It fixed forever the character of the population in the vast regions northwest of the 0. by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper also than all i. i constitutions.” Those are the words of Mr. Webster, and they are strictly applicable to the amendment of the Senator. Missouri, should it be adopted by Congress and become a part of the statute admitting Nebraska into. Union. It is therefore on account of its positive, recognized efficacy, according to the approved precedents of our history, that Iprefer that amendment. But, sir, should the Senate not agree with me, should it be voted down, then I shall take the next best thing; I shall take the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont. I shall try to othat also as in the nature of a compact, but not of so positive and express character as the other form of the proposition. But whatever may be its validity, the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont, if adopted, will have at least this efficacy: it Congress will keep the of the U.S. on the record olear and above reproach; it will save the nation from, being stultified by an act of Congress hich, as it now stands, is in absolute defiance of the 1st principles of the DeclarIndep. It is, therefore, because it will have the effect of bringing the statute at last into harmony with the DeclarIndep that I shall vote for it. I accept it reluctantly as a settlement of this question, but I am willing to accept it. Preferring, however, the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, I shall be obliged to vote against the proposition of the Senfrom Vermont if it is moved as a substitute for that:.I had hoped that he would not antagonize his proposition with that of the Senfrom Missouri, but that he would allow us to vote on each separately. I now think that would be the best form of proceeding; but if the Senator perseveres in antagonizing his owith the other, I shall be obliged, at the 1st stage, to vote against it.