A similar provision with a like reservation was added to the section providing for the election of a delegate from Nebraska. A prolonged and brilliant debate followed in the Senate, and finally in place of the original reservation the following was adopted, on motion of Senator Stephen A. Douglas, by a vote of 35 to 10: Except the section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and territories, as recognized by the legislation in 1850 (commonly called the compromise measure), is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States. Senator Chase then moved to add to the above the following: Under which the people of the territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. This amendment was voted down, yeas 10, nays 36, the Senate thus declaring its understanding that the people of the new territories should _not_ be allowed to prohibit slavery previous to their admission as a State. The bill passed on the morning of March 4th, by a vote of 37 to 14. In the House a separate bill had been introduced, but when it came up for consideration the Senate bill was substituted for it--by a parliamentary trick its opponents were prevented from offering amendments--and the bill was passed, yeas 113, nays 100. It went back to the Senate, in form as an original measure, but in effect the Senate bill, and on May 26 was finally passed by that body and was approved by President Pierce on May 30. The debate had been a memorable one; for the friends of Liberty, while they resisted to the last the surrender of what had been once bought for Freedom, joyfully recognized the fact that this act would in its logic make every compromise repealable, and thus kill in the womb all future political bargainings. Benjamin F. Wade said in the Senate that "the violation of the plighted faith of the nation would precipitate a conflict between liberty and slavery; and that, in such a conflict, it will not be liberty that will die in the nineteenth century. You may call me an Abolitionist if you will; I care little for that, for if an undying hatred to slavery constitutes an Abolitionist, I am that Abolitionist. If man's determination at all times and at all hazards, to the last extremity, to resist the extension of slavery, or any other tyranny, constitutes an Abolitionist, I before God believe myself to be that Abolitionist." William H. Seward said: "You are setting an example which abrogates all compromises....