Newspaper Page Text
-? ' mntio st Ell wood EUl)**' A Edwin De Leon. TERMS. DAILY, flO 00 Tn[-WEEKLY, 5 00 WEEKLY, 2 00 ?p* Subscriptions payable in advance. Any person procuring five suiiscribers shall receive one copy ? gratis. All letters to the Editors to be post-paid. PRINTED BY G. A. SAGE & HER. H. HEATH. Office, Pennsylvania Avenue south side, between 3d and 4$ streets. SPEECH OP div Hon. V. E. HOWARD, of Texas, mo Against the admission of California, and the dis- M niembermentof Texas?delivered in the House of Representatives, June 11, 1850, in the Committee of the Whole on the California message. The House being in Committee of the 001 Whole, and having under consideration the <lUl President's message in relation to the ad- e.v' mission of California? l'tT Mr. HOWARD said: Nothing, Mr. Chairman, but the deep ,wo interest which my immediate constituents and the State of Texas have in these ques tions, could induce me to claim the attention of the Committee at this late period ot the p* discussion. The time has as length arrived when the peace and welfarcaf this country require, not a compromise, but justice to (lu' the South, and an observance of constitutional requirements and official oaths for *-? their support. The South demands her constitutional rights, and a just share in the tr.v y benefits of this Government; no other com- ma "promise is required, or will secure tranquility to the country. ffu< I am not, sir, about to enter into any ab- tl0 stract speculations upon the nature and char- no acter of slavery. 1 am content to treat the 'r0 institution as it was regarded by the fathers of the country who framed the Constitution under which we here assemble, as an exist- me ing relation of society, drawing to itself Prc certain fixed, and, in theory, firmly estab- ?r( lished civil and political rights. What the greatest and purest men that the world has f"8 ever seen?a Washington, a Franklin, a . Hamilton, and a Madison?guaranteed as a PIC right, cannot be proved sinful by the latter str day saints of abolition and free-soil, however men may dilfer as to its character in I"' other respects. Neither shall 1 so far follow m' the hackneyed examples of bad taste, as to participate in the sectional recriminations which have been so freely indulged in by an speakers from all sections during this bebate; they are beneath the dignity of the subject, . and unworthv of the American Congress. VIS ? ~ -- - J -- - _ _ 0 Sir, when oar forefathers, the men ol the Cl Revolution, framed the present Constitution, the great charter of American liberty? ",( slavery constituted no objection to the Union. If, in the progress of events and opinions, it has become so odious and sinful in the | estimation of any considerable section of *? this country, that the Government cannot be Sr: administered in its original spirit, and the r.es letter of the Constitution complied with, let . the fact be proclaimed, and the legitimate n*' consequences follow. But it is not in candor and honesty to appropriate the advan- ?.r tages of the compact, and then refuse to M abide by its obligations and express stipula tions; the performance, like the benefits, must be mutual by all the contracting par- nii ties. co It cannot be disguised, that attachment ?la and loyalty to the Constitution arc, in some ha sections of the Union, greatly weakened, w! and in danger of being entirely destroyed, tei During the present session of Congress, wl petitions have been presented from free jus States asking for a dissolution of the Union, rn< on the ground that the petitioners could not oc conscientiously remain in a Union, the (Jon- St stitution of which guaranteed slavery. A pr< very considerable party openly took the mi ground, that the Constitution i.i opposed to 0f the divine law in this respect, and must a i yield to this new rule of |>olitical faith.. It sti is a novel revelation, and above the word of ha Cod, for the Sciiptures, as well as the Con- tr: stitution, recognise slavery, and pronounce pe it legal. . en It was satisfactory to near this disreputa- Si ble doctrine denounced by the distinguished ju< me.mbcr from New Vork, (Mr. DrtR,) as Cj well as by the eloquent member from Mass a- St chusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) although the w; value of their reprobation was very much tv weakened by certain phrases which they let of fall about habea* corput and jury trial. It thi cannot be necessary to remind gentlemen, as tic intelligent as they are, thrt the difference pp between one who openly and boldly sets the ni; Constitution at defiance, and one who ad- he mits its obligation, vet evades it bv dexter- foi ous legislative devices, as to the remedy, is thi scarcely worth the consideration of the casuist. . (]t The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the Consti- pe tution, in relation to the restoration of fugi- ge tive slaves, has become a dead letter, and thi so, I believe, it is destined to remain. This gr condition of things is calculated to awaken : th* the most lively apprehensions. The whole joi foundation of the American theory of gov-j lik ernmcnt is the respect and attachment of In the people lor their written Constitutions.? dc When they cease, the representative repub-! th lican system of government is at an end.? ! is If the people of this country ones embrace (ge the opinion that there is a Divine law, or pn any other rule of government above the is sanctions of the Constitution, and the obli- er gations of an oath, an end of republican N forms will soon follow. na No one can read the acts of certain State f0i Legislatures, prohibiting the restoration of ex fugitive slaves, opposed, as they are, to the th Constitution, the law of Congress, and the foi decisions ol the Supreme Court, without Ti fueling his pride as an American citizen hum- hu bled in the dust. . p<j After the close of a brilliant war the gov- ' sc ejnmcnt acquired, by treaty of cession, an si< extens ve and valuable country from Mc.\i- da co. This acquisition was the result of com- (\ mon blood and treasure, freely expended by , th all section! of the Union. On obvious If principles of equity and justice this public on domain, thus belonging as a common fund ve to the whole country, ought to be open to te the citizens of all the States, with their cil property. If there is such a dilfcrcncc be- ' cu tween the institutions and property of the an slave and non-slave States, as to make a C< common occupation by their citizens repug- st: Inant to tho interests or feelings of those1 sa emigrating from different sections, or inex-; to pedient for any reason, then the timo-hon-, ha ored princifde of a division of estate, by Si proprietors who cannot agree to occupy in j common, should at once be the rulo of ad- g;i justment. If it cannot be occupied in coin- di mon, the territory should be divided by di: some equitable line of partition. hi I am not wedded to any particular line of; nc -X. ? Till Vol. 1. 'ision. I am free to say that, twelve inths ago, I would not have voted for the issouri Compromise line ; but the active ervention of the Executive and others in i affairs of California, and which will be itinued as to the other Territories if this estion is left open, render a settlement, sn by this line, desirable at the present i ......i.i v.? -,:n: r..? ? .1:.?r ic. i vyuuiu i/o iui ? uivimuii ui s Territory by parallels of longitude, and uld prefer the bill of the honorable memr from Maryland, (Mr. McLane,) which iposes to extend the Texas boundary to i Colorado and the Gulf of California, -ing to the State of California the iance of the country. This would fix ! institutions of the whole Mexican acisition, and leave no further territory for i Wilmot Proviso and the legislation of ngress. If there cannot be a division of the coun, then the Mexican law ought to be forlly repealed. This would not be an esilishment of slavery, but would leave the jstion to stand merely upon the Constitun and non-intervention. Congress has power to destroy property, or exclude it m a Territory; hut it may remove obuctions and obstacles. If there be any sxican law excluding the .manufactures or ichanic arts of the North, or the slave iperty of the South, it is the duty of Conjss to repeal these laws. I might go fur>.r, as a question of right, and maintain it there is a broad and obvious distinction tween the power to create, or establish a ice of property, and the power to deoy. Congress ought to settle this matter, and ice it beyond doubt. The inclination of r own mind is, that the Mexican law, in ation to slavery, is superseded by the institution; yet it is a question in contest, d, as long as it remains in that condition, one will think of taking slaves into these irritories. No prudent lawyer would adie his client to that course; how, then, u he consistently vote for any settlement lich does not secure the right, and place i emigrant beyond the harassment of xatious lawsuits in relation to this species property? The present condition of the v is the subject ol too much uncertainty be a safe rule. It will prevent the emi?* ?!? oloifftKAl/lorc in ite nrtirtirql nilWJI VI atUT?iiuiuviO) vi in a??? iults, exclude the South from any fair parion in the advantages of the common Tcraries. Let there be a removal of all structions, in the shape of Mexican laws, an acknowledgment of the right on one le of a given line. THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. The first measure of the series is the adssion of California as a State, with her nstitutional boundaries and inhibition of very. This action in California, by a ndful of men, excludes the South from the lole Pacific coast, running through some i degrees of latitude, and embracing the tole Pacific country of any real value. The itice of permitting a few persons thus to mopolize an empire, which they cannot cupy, to the expulsion of one halt of the ates of the Union, cannot readily be apehended. Within reasonable and legitiboundaries, first ascertained, the people a Territory, when forming a State, have right to prescribe their own domestic intutions; but a few men or inhabitants ve no right or power to monopolize large icts of the public domain tor an indefinite riod of time, which they cannot enjoy, and cumber it with their political institutions, ich a course of action is alike forbidden by stice and the Constitution. In the case of ilifornia, it is particularly odious to the ates it was aimed at, from the fact that it is accomplished through the instrumentaliol political agitations, and the interference Executive agents and emissaries. 1 know is hashecn denied, and I do not now men>n the subject with any other view than to oduce the proof, furnished by the Califori convention, on a proposition to extend r boundaries to the line of New Mexico, the purpose of excluding slavery in all at vast region. "Mr. SHERWOOD. The gentleman, dr. McCarvk.r,) says he is in favor of a rmanent boundary. How is he going to t a permanent boundary by fixing it upon e Sierra Nevada ? Is he sure that Coness will not cut us off on the South ? If e gentleman has that assurance from a malty of the members of Congress, 1 sliould ;e to see it I hope he will produce it. my opinion, if a majority of Congress are lermincd to settle the question of slavery, ey will give us the whole territory. If it objected to by Mr. Calhoun, or any other ntlcman who is in favor of slavery over a rt of California, it will be answered that it too expensive to establish a territorial govnment on the eastern side of the Sierra evada ; that that territory is for the most irt a desert waste, and may rest with Calirnia as a part of the State without being ipensiye to the people of California; but at it would be quite a burden in thirty or rty years, at an annual expense to the reasury of the United States of one or two M'leA/l fli/tiiBon/l /1/vltura a fnar?.!? hmrn ution of wliicli wc would liavc to pay ourIvcs. In regard to preventing our admis> >n into the Union, by extending the. bounty to New Mexico, we expressly sav to angress that, if they will not give us that, ey may cut us down to the Sierra Nevada. wc cut ourselves down now, gentlemen i the other side will say wc have acted ry foolishly in not embracing the whole rritory, and thus throwing out of the couns ot the nation the subject of all the diffiIty. If wc are admitted into the Union, id bceomc a constituent part of the great jnfederacy?a new star in the galaxy of irs?wc shall always, I trust, have the me desire to keep the Union together? preserve it in pirit and substance?as we id when we were residents of the older :atcs. "Mr. SEMl'LE. 1 feci under some ob!iition to repeat a conversation which has a rect bearing upon this matter. There is a stifiguished member of Congress, who holds s seat from one of the States of this Union, ?w in Calitotnia. With a desire to obtain f ft c. - PORTFOLIO * SOI' T I Washing all the information possible, in relation to the tc state of things on the other side of the p mountains, I asked him what was the desire a of the people in Congress; I observed to him ti that it was not the desire of the people of s< California to tal.e a larger boundary than the ir Sierra Nevada; end that we would prefer p not embracing within our limits this desert ii waste to the east. His reply was, ' For e God's sake leave us no territory to legislate C; npon in Congress.' He went on to state, b then, that the great object in our formation of a State government, was to avoid further ft legislation. There would be no question as to n our admission Joy adopting this course; and it that all subjects of minor importance could v afterwards be settled. 1 think it my duty to s< impart this information to the Convention. I The conversation took place between Mr. h Thomas Butler King and myself. s " Mr. BOTTS. I have remarked it as a g singular fact, that we have reports daily, and a almost hourly, ol some important information a that has been received from some particular a sources; letters that have arrived, conversa- u tions that have occurred, something that v some gentleman has heard Mr. Thomas But- f: ler King say. Now, sir, 1 take it that Mr. ri Thomas Butler King, nor no other single in- ti dividual, is the exponent of the wishes of the c Congress of the United States. He is but rJ one man on the floor of that Congress. He s gives but one vote, and that vote it is not in c his power to give whilst he remains in the ii State of California. No, sir, not even that e vote, either directly himself, or indirectly tl through iiis friend upon this floor. Sir, I take n it that if Mr. Thomas Butler King did know d and had a right to tell us what were the o opinions of the Congress of the United States, x it would be for us to consider r: ther what' v our own opinions arc, than those of Congress, upon this subject. Therefore 1 exclude the t whole testimony as totally irrelevant to this h matter." d Thus, it seems, that the opinions and dis- J courses of Mr. King, if not that of others, s did influence and control the action of the r California Convention upon this most delicate t subject. a It is a great mistake to suppose that the i highest interests of California require her im- i mediate admission into the Union. It has 1 been announced in the other wing of the 4 Capitol, that this new State must for a time j be supported by the Federal Treasury, hav- [ ing no revenue of her own. It is the first | instance of such a pretension, and is of evil ) example. States ought never to be depend- f ent on the Federal Treasury. a If the report of Mr. Jones be correct, that [ there never was a surveyor in California, t then it is true that there is not a com- t plcle title in that country; for it is a notorious < fact, that in no part of Spain or Mexico did the final title issue, until after survey and ju- , dicial possession. All these titles, on this , statement, are inchoate, and must depend for | validity on the future legislation of Congress. | If the statements of Mr. Jones are accurate, , fItnrn ic nnf n tills* in Pnlifnrnia flint will ciicu a tain an action of ejection. They are not j legal titles, but mere equities, requiring the action of Congress, which in good faith their owners are entitled to demand. The interests of California require legislative,action on these subjects far more than present admission into this Union. Whatever may be the difference of opinions as to the extent of the power of Congress over the municipal and internal affairs of a . territory when organized, there can be no1 well-founded doubt that the right to authorize a State territorial government is exclusively in Congress. Until, the ter.itory becomes a State, the light to govern is in the United States, and not in the people who happen to be present or located on the public domain, in the case of Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, that " perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the tacts that it is not within the nn,l 11? ISVtl aT ftntf r\1 ?-4 IA lllor Qtoto jlVWOI U1IU |Ul I?UIV/IIVII ui UUJ |>UI uvuun t7vin?. ^ ami is within the power an?l jurisdiction of the i United States. The right to govern may : be the inevitable consequence cf the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned."?(1 Peters, 542.) I do not admit that under this power Congress has any authority to destroy private property. This cannot be done either in the States or Territories by the Federal Government, because it is restrained by the Constitution. Hy express provision of the Constitution, it may take private property for public use, first making compensation thcrclor. It has no |?ower to lake or destroy private property to promote any general purposes of public good, or any real or mistaken views of human philanthropy. The Federal Government has no such mission. In the Territories, Congress may remove obstacles to the enjoyment of property, by giving remedies and salutary police regulations, but it can neither exclude nor destroy it'. The Federal Legislature is limited in its exercise of I power over property. Congress having in j ' itself no authority to exrludi or destroy pro- \ s ! |?erty in the Territories, ran d'dcgiitr. tin such power to tin: territorial icgidatuies. It can* not confer that on another which it docs not possess itself. If a Territory is within the |K?wcr and jurisdiction ol the United States, it is exclusively so uuld it acquires a new | sovereign; and this cannot he done unless admitted as a State into the ( nioii. How, can there constitutionally he a Stale on the I public domain within the limits of the United States, and yet outside of the Union, and j beyond the control of this Government ? I The idea is a solecism, a contradiction in terms. It is not a State, in the American! sense, for any purpose, until it is embraced; by the Union. As the power to admit new 1 States is entirely with Congress, there is no other tribunal which can authorize a government to be formed with a constitution preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. Tha sovereignty of the Territories must either reside in this Government or the people of the States. If such were not the case, it would be in abeyance, until a terri rHERI II-WEEKLY. ^ton, Tuesday, June 25, >ry acquired by the United States was peo- I led. The Supreme Court has decided that v u acquisition of territory is also an acquisi- t on of the sovereignty over it. If this be r >, it cannot be a divided sovereignty, partly r i the United States, and partly in the peo- t le of the Territory. It resides exclusively ? 1 the United States, and no government o rected in the Territories, in time of peace, t an have a legal existence, unless it has i een established or authorized by Congress, c Previous to the call of the convention at r lonterey, there was a provisional govern- i lent in California, organized by the author- t y of the United State#..jluring wa,'? a?d 1 diich was continued after peace by the con- t _r il _ a: _r xi _ tt. 'i-.i ct.i__ eni 01 me rjxecuuve 01 me unueu oiaies. j t was a government of necessity, with a i igal commencement, which could not be uperseded without the authority of Con- '< ;ress. It has been destroyed by an illegal i nd revolutionary movement, without the i uthority of the United States, constitution- 1 lly expressed. The action of General Riley, '> nder which the convention was assembled < /hich framed the present constitution of Cali- i srnia, has been disavowed by the Secreta- i ies of State and War of the last administraion, the only officers from whom an order < ould have proceeded to sanction his course. ' 'he convention had not even the m ?rit of a 1 pontaneous revolutionary movement pro- 1 eeding from the people. It had its origin 1 n the proclamation or military order of Gen- < ral Riley, of the 3d of June, 1849. By < his order he called a convention, fixed the umber of delegates, and the boundaries of t istricts. Thus were the highest attributes i f sovereignty arrogated by this military : ommandant, at a remote position, in open iolation of law and the Constitution. ' Although the convention which framed < he constitution of California was convened ] >y General Riley without Executive or- < lers, he states in a proclamation of 22d oi s une, that it was confirmed by instructions i ubsequently received by the steamer "Pa- s lama." Thus was this convention assem- i iled, contrary to law and the Constitution; 1 ind to the unauthorized Government which < t provided, was delivered over the then exsting government of California by General 1 Uley, with the remarkable declaration that i 'whatever may be the legal objections to I Hitting into operation a State government 1 irevious to its beiug acknowledged or ap- I iroved by Congress, these objections must rield to the obvious necessities of the case ; i or the powers of the existing government ire too limited, and its organization too imlerfect, to provide for the wants of a counry so peculiarly situated, and of a populaion which is augmenting with such unprecedented rapidity." If such action is authorized by the Con ititution of the United States, what be:omes of the doctrine of Jthe Supreme Court, that the right to governnhe Territories is in :he United States? I think it quite demonitrable, as a legal proposition, that this.acion in California is not merely irregular, iut that she cannot be admitted into the Union, under her present constitution, with>ut another convention authorized by Congress. I should rejoice to see this action tad, the slavery question settled, the limits>f California adjusted, and her worthy repesentatives admitted to their seats. 1 proceed to state some objections to the tresent admission of that State. The Constitution of the United States leclares, that " new States may be admitted nto the Union." Now, what is a State, in he sense contemplated by the Constitution >f the United States ? If Cuba, without iny previous sanction of Congress, were to present herself here with a constitution eadv formed, would she be a State which ould legally be admitted into the Union ? It leems to me that the previous assent of j Congress would be necessary to the creation | >f a State out of a foreign country, which lad not been under the laws of the Federal! Government by virtue of territorial organi- j '.anon. The case of Texas has been cited as fur- ' lishing a precedent for a different rule of iction ; but its authority is clearly the other vay. By the joint resolution of annexation, Jongress gave consent that Texas might be jrected into a State, in order to its admission nto the Union, by means of a convention >f delegates chosen by the people. This invention was assembled, and the constitu- ' ion formed by authority of the Congress of he United States, as well as by the legisla- ! ive department of the Republic of Texas. As he first admission of a foreign State into he Union, it is a strong precedent to prove 1 lie necessity of a previous consent in order ;o legalize the preparatory action of forming 1 1 government which is to enter the Union as i State. Obviously, no foreign government las a right to proceed to the election of Selators and Representatives until its admislion into the Union. No political organizaion has any warrant for this until it is inlide of the Union ; for it is by virtue of the Kederal Constitution, as well as of the Ticmbcrship of the Union, that a State has his privilege. The admission of Vermont, Kentucky, Hid Maine are not exceptions to this rule, inrsmucli as they were f rinedoutofpre-existing States; and, in that case, the Constitution ;outcniplates that the initiatory step shall be ' aken by the old States, and that the appro nation of Congress should follow; which, in heir admission, was the course pursued, the 1 espective laws of admission defining their boundaries. It is worthy ofobservation that in no case ' ins a State been admitted without the previous consent of Congress to form a consti- I ution and State government, unless such Stat? had previously been in the condition i if a territory, and had her boundaries de- I ined by an act of Congress during her ter- i itorial pupilage. It is difficult to perceive I io\*,on principle, it could otherwise be done, I \ State must have identity, to which dc- J initc boundaries arc indispensable. These i boundaries must be established by the United States, if the State is carved out of the public domain. Who but the proprietdr :an M up the limits of his own estate, when he parts with a portion of it? The i \ PRI 1850. Jnited States have clearly the right to say vhere shall be the limits of a new State to >e erected out of its own territory or donain. Naturally, before an? political comnunity enters on any portion of this domain o erect it into a State, the consent of Congress should be had,and, as a general course >f legislation, such has been the practice of he Government. The late treaty with Mcxco evidently contemplates that the Congress >f the United States will move first in this natter, and that, until it does act, these teritories will be governed by the authority of he United States. As to the time and netUod of admission, the language of the reaty is peculiar and quite different from the irovisions by which we acquired Louisiana ?nd Florida. The treaty with France of 1803, for the. icquisition of Louisiana, provides that " the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be ncorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, lccording to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States." In the treaty with Spain, of 1819, it was Jeclared that the inhabitants of Florida ' shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Consti'ution, and admitted to the enjoyment of all the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States." The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo declares that " Mexicans, who in the territory aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union at the United States, arid be admitted at the proper time (t? be judged by the Congress at the united btaesjto the enjoyment ol all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and, in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restraint. Here Congress is given a wide discretion by the treaty, which is the law of the case, unless it can be shown that it conflicts with the Constitution. Congress is made by the treaty the exclusive judge of the proper time For the admission of these people into the Union. It is a fair inference from the language used that the commissioners contemplated that Congress would say to them when the proper time for admission had arrived. It was not the people of the ceded territory, but Congress, who were to judge of this matter. The reaso.i for'this provision must occur to every one. At the period of the negotiation of this treaty, the mines of California were unknown ; the mass of the population were Mexicans and pueblo Indians, and they(were to have a year to determine their citizenship. It was a very unpromising material out of which to form American citizens, capable of working our representative system. Mr. Trist knew their character well, and hence the provision in the treaty which gave to Congress unlimited control over the time of their incorporation into the Union, and made the previous action of Congress a condition precedent to their formation of States in order a. tt_: t> : i. iu an auimaoiv/ii mil/ uic u iliuu. II IS UUVIous, from the language employed in the treaty, that the commissioners contemplated a territorial government for these countries previous to their admission into the Union. Until admitted into the Union, the treaty express'y guarantees to these people their liberty, property, and religion, which shows that an intermediate territorial government was contemplated'by the commissioners. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the legal difficulty of the want of previous assent of v\ihigress to the formation of this State could figured by subsequent legislation, still there is another defect which is radical, and goes to the nullity of the very basis of the California constitution. The delegates who formed the constitution itself, were not elected by citizens of the United States with a legal and fixed domicil in California, and a large portion of those who voted for its ratification were laboring under the same disability. The Constitution ot the United States, wherever it speaks of federal numbers, looks to citizenship and domicil. The cit zens of one State cannot be enumerated in another. Citizens domiciled in one State cannot vote for members of Congress in another. To maintain the reverse would be ta overthrow the entire representative theory of the Government, and destroy the State system. The people of Ohio have no power, under the Constitui: ? nun, tu i'uiiiiii iiiu ciuzeiiH ui vxemucKV 10 be enumerated or vote for President or members of Congress in that State. If they had this power, the federal slave basis could be transferred to the free States, and the same federal numbers counted in different States. The exercise of the right of suffrage touching federal rights, under our system, cannot be separated from domicil. People domiciled in the States have no right, under the Constitution, to participate in the formation of a government for a new State in one of the Territories of this Union, or to vote for members of Congress to represent it. Their political rights, in this respect, arc fixed in and pertain to another jurisdiction. That the action of California violated the law and the Constitution in this respect, is evident from the following provisions established by the proclamation of General Riley, on the 3d of June, 1849: 44 Every free male citizen of the United States and of Upper California, twenty-one years of age, and actually resident in the Jistrict where the vote is offered, will be entitled to the right of sulfrage. "All citizens af Lower California, who havcMieen forced to come to this territory, on account of ha,v-', ing rendered assistance to the Americatf troops during the recent war with Mexico, should also be allowed to vote in the district where they actually reside." ' In the first place,, this proclamation is a direct violation of thft laws of naturalization of the United States. Those citizens' of Lower California who had been forced to ; .. . . . ? - sssn F _ ^ ' L"- * No. 1. i i ? e remove because they had assisted the United States troops, were not thereby naturalized, w nor were they embraced in the provisions of di the treaty of Hidalgo. Under the laws of 111 Congress on this subject, they are aliens, ^ and yet they have been permitted to vote c and aid in excluding- the South from this th rich and common heritage tof the Union. The next objection is, that lor citizens of the 0j United States to vote for delegates, citizen- si ship in California is not required, but mire rett'uU'.nce. * ? . With the exception of the admission of the new ? States formed out of the older States, and the case of Tvxus previous to admission, there has always been an act of Congress for the territory, fixing . boundaries and reguluting the l ight of suffrage. ^ At the time the convention was called at Mon- ^ terey, there wus no law of suffrage existing in California. The Mexican law, which fixed majority nt 25 years of age, and wus in other re; spects greatly restricted, was not pretended to he P followed by General Riley. The reason must be & obvious. As a purely political regulation, deter- ? mining the relation between the citizen and his ? Government, according to the writers on interna- ? tional law, as well as the English and American a decisions, this rule ceased on the transfer of Cali- 81 fornia to the United States. The language of the " Supreme Court of the United States is: "The / same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the 11 law, which may be denominated political, is ne- ? cessarily changed, although that which regulates jj the intercourse and general conduct of individuals ^ remains in force until altered by the newly created 11 power of the State. e. The right of suffrage is not a natural right; it is " a positive institution of society, confided to a cer- n tain portion or its members for the good of nil. ? The power to regulate it was usurped by the proclamation of General Riley, and was an abuse" T of authority without a parallel iti the history v of this Government. The convention appears to r have been aware of this defect in the very basis 1 of their proceedings, for the constitution which 11 they framed declares the qualification of voters, ? and provides that " every citizen of California, s .i??i? i... .v. c ucvuutu u icgoi tuici ijy iaia LUiioiuuia'n9 ?nu every citizen of the United States, a resident of ^ this State on the "day of election, shall be entitled ' to vote at the first general election under this con- f stitution, and on the question of the adoption thereof." Thus no domicil was required to vote 1 for the adoption of this constitution; nothia* but r simple residence on the day of election. I main- v tain that no one has a right to vote 011 the oi^jani- a zatinn of a State, unless he its domiciled within the 0 territory at the time. 1 denv the right of strangers 0 and denizens to exclude tine South and South- ? ern property from one of the territories by erect- 11 ing it into u State orgnnizaition. That cun be T effected only by citizens of tiie territory actually * domiciled, who are forming a State government under which they are to live. It is not the province of foreigners and strangers without domicil, r or any intention of a permanent residence, who, ? in contemplation of law, stilj retain their former i legal domicil, and have acquired no other. For the H rule of law is well settled, that the domicil of ori- N gin obtains until a new one is acquired, and it ^ cannot be acquired without :ui actual change and j an intention to abandon the former domicil and ( acquire another. , Resident is defined: "One who resides or dwells j in a place for some time. A. B. is now a rtriieul < of London." Judge Story informs us that " two things must concur to constitute domicil; first, | residence, and secondly, intention of making it the ; home of the party. There must be the fact, and the intent." < " If, therefore, a person leaves his home for 1 temporary purposes, but with an intention to return to it, this change of plja'atip not in law a change of domicil, * * for it is not the mere act of inhabitancy in a place which makes it the domicil, but it is the fact, coupled with the intention of remaining; there must be animo manendi" j (Story 011 Co 42.) , " A persoi -stive citizen of one State, , never ceases r until he has ac- , quired a ne * 'Story on { Constitutic , If perso of the ail 4 vote, it follows w. to make it their prrnuu,. institutions and policy. Unrtet ... frage, the citizens of other States on election might be brought into the new State .. sufficient numbers, and for the express purpose ^ of controlling its domestic policy. The injustice H and illegality of excluding the South IVom the c Territoties by such a course of proceeding under jj the pretence that it was a State action, or people 3 of u Territory settling the question of slavery for r themselves, is too manifest for disputation. y There can be no validity in the action of a convention, the delegates to which were chosen, and g whose constitution was adopted, by voters who ? were not citizens of or domiciliated in the State. ? I undertake lo.wiv, that where citizenship was ft necessary to the jurisdiction of a court in Cali- tj fornia, not one-fourlh of the voters for this con- t| stitution could have maintained a suit in the judicial tribunals. It is doubtful whether this portion f were there for the purpose of making it their home, 1 and without this intent, as the jurists prove, they -j could not urquire a donticil. Tliey were there , temporarily to dig gold, and with the intent to re- v turn as soon ns they had collected s certain quan- p tity of the glittering dust. It is no answer, in a legal sense, that inany would change this view; the in- c lent to rrmmn wns necessary to donticil and citi- p zenship. Without this intention, they had no p right to participate in the formation of a State go- J, vert intent, and to prescribe institutions to those u who were really resident citizens of the country. A Under the rule of their constitution, citizens of 0 other States might have voted on the adoption of n the constitution on the day they arrived in San |, Francisco, and departed for their homes on the lt following morning. ei Sir, it is not true that this constitution here pre- u sented wns fohned by the jteujtle of Californiu. It ?| is not their sense. It is the work of aliens, and n the-citizens of other States of the Union, without donticil or citizenship in California. It was n |, usurpation of political rights clearly opposed to j,, the principles of the Federal Constitution nnd the v spirit of our Govemmant. It is well known that tne great innss of the real citizens of California, ?] who were mude so by the treaty, or bad made al themselves such by residence, were entirely over- jj slaugbed by this action of adventurers and stratigers. The great majority of the citizens resided Hl south of 3Go 30*, and were unanimous in favor of 4 a territorial government. Their wishes were over- 1 ruled and defeated by a horde of new-comers, the t| men of a day, whose baggage had scarcely been triinaferred Ironi the shipping to the shore. It j is notorious that the people south of that line 0 were, in the sequel, induced to vote for the 0 State organization only to fVec themselves froin j present tlimculty, ana uiiuer assurances that it wax cj the only hope of civil government. Since the ~ agitation here, a portion of them have reiterated ? their choice for a territorial government. ,j Hut, air, such an the population wai, the number, al at the time of the formation of the Constitution, t| wax not enough to entitle them to a State govern- B| inent. ? tl The Ntatement of T. 0. Larkin, esq., navy ^ agent at Monterey, aa to the population of Call- (| fornia, in published in the American Quarterly tj Register and Magazine. "The population of M California in July, 1646, wax about 15,(XX), excluaive of . Indiana; in July, 1H49, it is about 35 to t< 40,000." tt The number of inhabitant* in a territory to en- w title it, under the Constitution, to a member of Congress and to admiaaion under thp present fed- r eral Twisje, ia 70,600. Hf-fore a Slate can be ad- [ miftetl, m a State government legally formed, it fl SHunt have thin number. It cannot form a State t government- atrd then awaft for the steamboats to t bring the. population. If a territory could do this, r the one hundred who first arrived in a territory, t might form a State government that would control , its institutions and give them a lasting character. ( There is still an insurmountable objection to the admission of California under the present Con- , I atitution, which haN been urged with great ability , [ in another place. It i* the absence in her Constitq- , * mt m 'Tb? Southern Frt?s,"-?ri-weekly I i published Oil Tuesdays^ Thursday. and Saturdays I "The Southern PreM,"?Weekly, I b published every Wednesday. I advertising rates. i or one square of 10 Lines, three insertions, |1 00 I ? every subsequent insertion, I Liberal deductions made on yearly advertising. I Individuals may forward the amooat of their I ibscriplions at ourrii-c. Address, (poet-paid) I ELLWOOD FISHER, I Washington City. I on of the recognition of the title of the United I tales to the public domain within her limitnaodtlic I ant of a compact not to interfere with the primary I sposition of the soil. The usage of the Govern- I ent demands such a provision, ft ia the exercise of I high sovereign power, and cannot be had without ie call of another convention, because the present I onstitution of California does not confer it upon I ie legislature. Without eucb a atipuhdion, the nited States cannot preserve any title to the puis- I : lands and mines of California. The title- -of I ie government to lands within another, is in con- I stent with the sovereignty of the latter, and can I llv be maintained, with the consent of the State, I i the nature of a compact. Such has been the uni- I rm construction of Congress, of our Constitution, I id system of State sovereignties, in regard to this I implex subject. ( T|pk object cannot be secured I y the simple leg4#latjop of Congress. It must I rve the form anu sMction of a compact, which I in be consummated only by the asseut of Cali- I >mia. I Since the Constitution of California must return I i the people for further action and new and im- I ortant provisions, it becomes the duty of Con- I ress to adjust her boundary and curtail the vast I xtent of this Pacific empire. There ia great dan- I er in permitting one State to engross all the porta I a the Pacific, especially when the remoteness I nd isolated condition of that country ia con- I idered. To say nothing of the political hazard I f our system, urising from combinations among I irge and disproportionate States, California, with I er vast limits, presents other subjects of serious I pprehension. She will be tempted to a separate I xistence by the wide extent and productiveness of I er mines?by the still richer treasures that will I ow from Eastern and Indian commerce. From all I hese causes we may look for hostility to the rev- I nue and commercial system of the Union. All I lie great commercial ports of the Pacific should I ot lie left under one local jurisdiction. San Diego I nd San Francisco ought to be in different States, I or many and cogent reasons of policy. In the I irogress of events, the Government of the Union I rill have slight hold upon that extensive isolated I egion, with its great mines and western trade, if I he country is all embraced by one State govern- I nent. It is our policy to strengthen the bands of I he Union there by the erection of two or more I Itates, the multiplication of seaports, and the I rention of commercial rivalries. If you admit I California with her present limits, the bay of San I Vancisco will engross nearly the whole of the I oreign and domestic trade of the Pacific. I It is apparent, from the report of Mr. King, I hat the country possesses mucn more n^iluminal power than i* generally supposed. Its mines rill fill tbe country rapidly witn a large population, population composed, in a considerable degree, r foreigners, with very little sympathy with our cn Government. It is not the part of wisdom to rganise this State in such a manner as to tempt to inhabitants with the advantages of a separate lolitieal existence, independent of tlie American Jnion. THE DISMEMBERMENT OF TEXAI. In opposing the compromise of Mr. Clay in its resent shape, I desire to speak of that illustrious talesman with all respect. By his lofty pntriotsm and great intellectual exertions during the ;>re>ent session of Congress, he has shown himself, vhat he has been often termed, the Chatham of Vmerica. But I urn constrained to say, that the Mroviaioiu of this bill in relatiou to Texas are toall y inadmissible as a Southern measure, glaringly inujst to that State, and destructive to her highest interest, to her security and prosperity as a slave State. The Senate bill declares, that all that portion of the territory of the United States acquired from Mexico by the treaty, concluded 2d February, 184S, and not included within the limits of the State of California, nor within the limits of the Territory of Utah, as prescribed in this act, be and the same is hereby erected into a temporary gov- . eminent, by the name of " the territory of New Mexico," with a provision that Congress may hererffter divide it into two States. This bill is accompanied by a report, with the following(statement: "The committee beg leave Text to report on the subject of the nortliern and western boundary of Texas. On that question a freat diversity of opinion has prevailed. Accordng to one view of it, the western limit of Texas van the Nueres; according to another, it extended ' ? Rio Grande, and stretched from its mouth * " The report then atates, that the t ?d on an amicable adjustment "Ury: "The northern - follows: Begin -ailed El "wl ?y si... _ . point whe>. roaaea lied river, ?. he line designated bet wee.. dexico, and the same ungle in Uu itory set apart for the Indians by tiu Itatea." In the first place, the bill and report taken toethef throw discredit and doubt upon the whole ,-estcrn boundary of Texas. They cast doubt jioil n jniruun w? ui? u?iv WW oiiu uv?.i? ?r a considerable period, under the quiet jurisdiclonof the officers and government of Texas, from lie mouth of the Kio Grande to El Peso. Tlie Senate bill, it will be perceived, pushes a re* line, down into the immediate vicinity of El 'ato, on the (Treat military road from the coast of Vxas to the Pacific. It opens a highway for our laves into New Msxico, Utah, and California, rith every means and facility for escape from the rontiers. Such a line cannot fail to render slave roperty in western and northern Texns, and esneially on Red river, insecure, and seriously affect a value. The salubrious climato, rich soil, and roductions of Texas, together with cheap lands, nvite emigration, and offer great inducements to lie planter. Her capacities for producing sugar nd cotton are almost incalculable. She must relive a large portion of the negroes of the more orthern slave States, unless emigration is retarded y an unjust nnd, to the South, unwise adjustment r this subject. If Texas is true to her own interwts, she never will consent to such a boundary, lien the resolutions of annexation guarantee lavery to new States to be formed out or her teritory south of 3G degrees 30 mintues north latiide. I low can she consent to permit slavery to c abolished within her limits to the 33d degree of ititude, with the inevitable consequences in full iew ? This bill further provides: ' I f the State ofTexas ' liall refuse or decline to accede to the preceding rticles, they shall become null and voia, and the United Slates shall be remitted back to all their (rritorial rights, in the same state and condition * if these articles of compact hod never been tehered to tha acceptance of the State of Texas.*' 'be amount to be paid in cast Texas accedes to >c proposition i* by the hill left blank. It will be perceived that the Territory of New lexico is, by this bill, to be created with or withut the consent of Texns. It will of course be rganized according to its ancienf limits, and in erogation of the rights of Texas. It will be laimed that the bill legalizes the present military overnmeni in Sante Fe. It will give the appearrice of law to a systematic resistance to thejurisiction of Texas, nnd before the matter can be djuxted, practically determine the question against te State. It will produce civil war and moodlied between the people of Santa Fe and Ate autorites of Tepas. It leaves the State no ehbicw etween such a calamity and the acceptance of le money which may hereafter be inserted in ic bill. it includes country on the east itever ithin the limits of New Mexico^ and" transfers . to the new territory. It triage* no provision as > the future condition of the foreign and hostile ribes of Indiana now roaming over northern and western Texas. . ?* In relation to the people of "NeW Mexico pettier, which is now. situated on the West bftnlcOPthe tio Grande, the provisions of* th*'trtdty ' Itfth dexico are complied with if they ar* Mmftted nto the Unipn in any Stale. They have ftotltmrtto o their ancient limits, any mors than had the *eW? ?lc of Louisiana. Rut this ftilf transfers territory p them on the south and east, nbt1 fMbraced vithin the leeal limits of New Mexito|'a? ft txisted under Mexican rule. Up to the present time, ,thd'actions Of alltho lepartmcnts of this Government has' sisWHii Hie ilaim of.Texaa to the Rio Grande.in ita fa Rest extent. Individuals, a ftw members of Coftfrtw, a ..*!