Newspaper Page Text
r -======= ~? - ?' 1 ==editkd bt ?111 wood Fisher 4k Edwin De Leon. TERMS. DAILY, - f 10 00 TRI WEEKLY, - 5 00 WEEKLY, a 00 ^ Subscriptions payable in advance. Any person procuring five subscribers shall receive one copy gratis. All letters to the Editors to be post-paid. rHINTED BT a. A. SAGE & HER. H. HEATH. , , ^ ^ ttdiiL . ,v f | THE SOUTHERN PRESS. DAILY. ~ "' 'J ' ' - * I ' Hi In -i' f'l". ' I . ;. - ' :'- 1 H'l ! - ? , .... * . . , ' 'i *~. :~" 1 ' '. 1 - ' ?; VeL 1. Washington, Monday, dune 94, 1?&0. No. 7. UWICE, renusylvauia Avenue south side, between 3d and 4| streets. 99BB9SBS9B9EESSeS9SSSSS99SBfi99n99ni SPEECH OF Hon. . B. HOWARD, of Taxes, Against the admission of California, and the dismemberment of Texas?delivered in the House of Representatives, June 11, 1(150, in the Committee of the Whole on the California message. The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration the President's message in relation to the admission of California? Mr. HOWARD said: Nothing, Mr. Chairman, but the deep interest which my immediate constituents and the State of Texas have in these questions, could induce me to claim the attention of the Committee at this late period ot the discussion. The time has as lenjrth. arrived when the peace and welfare of this country requir3, not a compromise, but justice to the South, and an observance of constitutional requirements and official oaths for their support. The South demandshe* constitutional rights, and a just share in the benefits of this Government: no other rom promise is required, or will secure tranquility to the country. I am not, sir, about to enter into any abstract speculations upon the nature and character of slavery. I am coutent to treat the institution as it was regarded by the fathers of the country who framed the Constitution under which we here assemble, as an existing relation of society, drawing to itself certain fixed, and, in theory, firmly established civil and political rights. What the greatest and purest men that the world has ever seen?a Washington, a Franklin, a Hamilton, and a Madison?guaranteed as a right, cannot be proved sinful by the latter day saints of abolition and free-soil, however men may differ as to its character in other respects. Neither shall 1 so far follow the hackneyed examples of bad taste, as to participate in the sectional recriminations which have been so freely indulged in by speakers from all sections during this bebate; they are beneath the dignity of the subject, and unworthy of the American Congress. Sir, when our forefathers, the men ol the 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 administered in its original spirit, and the letter of the Constitution complied with, let the fact be proclaimed, and the legitimate consequences follow. But it is not in candor and honesty to appropriate the advantages of the compact, and then refuse to abide by its obligations and express stipulations ; the performance, like the benefits, must be mutual by all the contracting parties. It cannot be disguised, that attachment and loyalty to the Constitution are, in some sections of the Union, greatly weakened, and in danger of being entirely destroyed. During the present session of Congress, petitions have been presented from free States asking for a dissolution of the Union, on the ground that the petitioners could not conscientiously remain in a Union, the Constitution of which guaranteed slavery. A very considerable party openly took the ground, that the Constitution i3 opposed to the divine law in this respect, and must yield to this new rule of political faith. It is a novel revelation, and above the word of God, for the Scriptures, as well as the Con stitution, Tecogmse slavery, anu pronounce it legal. It was satisfactory to hear this disreputable doctrine denounced by the distinguished member from New York, (Mr. Duer,) as well as by the eloquent member from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) although the value of their reprobation was very much weakened by certain phrases which they let fall about habeas corpus and jury trial. It cannot be necessary to remind gentlemen, as intelligent as they are, that the difference between one who openly and boldly sets the Constitution at defiance, and one who admits its obligation, yet evades it by dexterous legislative devices, as to the remedy, is scarcely worth the consideration of the casuist. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution, in relation to the restoration of fugitive slaves, has become a dead letter, and so, I believe, it is destined to remain. This condition of things is calculated to awaken [ the most lively apprehensions. The whole I foundation of the American theory ol gov- j ernment is the respect and attachment of the people for their written Constitutions.? When they cease, the representative republican system of government is at an end.? If the people of this country once embrace me opinion mai mere is a uivine law, or; any other role of government above the | sanctions of the Constitution, and the obli- j gations of an oath, an end of republican! forms will soon follow. No one can read the acts of certain State Legislatures, prohibiting the restoration of fugitive slaves, opposed, as they are, to the Constitution, the law of Congress, and the decisions ot the Supreme Court, without fueling his pride as an American citizen humbled in the dust. After the close of a brilliant war the government acquired, by treaty of cession, an extens vc and valuable country from Mexico. This acquisition was the result of com- ; mon blood and treasure, freely expended bv j all section! of the Union. On obvious principles of equity and justice this public 11 domain, thus belonging as a common fund ' to the whole country, ought to be open to I the citizens of all the States, with their i property. If there is such a difference be- i tween the institutions and property of the i slave and non-slave States, as to make a I common occupation by their citizens repug- i nant to the interests or feelings of those i emigrating from different sections, or inex- , 1 pedient for any reason, then the time-hon- j I ored principle of a divison of estate, by i proprietors who cannot agree to occupy in common, should at once be the rule of ad- j justment. If it cannot be occupied in com- 1 i mon, the territory should be divided by i some equitable line of partition. : | I am not wedded to any particular line of, i division. 1 am free to say that, twelve months ago, I would not have voted for the Missouri Compromise line ; but the active intervention, of the Executive and others in (the affairs of California, and which will be continued as to the other Territories il this question is left open, render a settlement, even by this line, desirable at the present time. 1 would be willing for a division of the Territory by parallels of longitude, and would prefer the bill of the honorable member from Maryland, (Mr. McLane,) which proposes to extend the Texas boundary to the Colorado and the Gulf of California, giving to the State of California the balance of the country. This would fix the institutions of the whole Mexican acquisition, and leave no further territory for the Wilmot Proviso and the legislation of Congress. (f tfrfT* be atUviakm of the coun try, then the Mexican law ought to be formally repealed. This would not be an establishment of slavery, but would leave the question to stand merely upon the Constitution and non-intervention. Congress has no power to destroy property, or exclude it from a Territory; but it may remove obstructions and obstacles. If there be any Mexican law excluding the manufactures or mechanic arts of the North, or tha slave property of the South, it is the duty of Congress to repeal these laws. I might go further, as a question of right, and maintain that there is a broad and obvious distinction between the power to create, or establish a piece of property, and the power to destroy. Congress ought to settle this matter, and place it beyond doubt. The inclination of my own mind is, that the Mexican law, in relation to slavery, is superseded by the Constitution; yet it is a question in contest, and, as long as it remains in that condition, no one will think of taking slaves into these Territories. No prudent lawyer would advise his client to that couise; hew, then, can he consistently vote for any settlement which does not secure the right, and place the emigrant beyond the harassment of vexatious lawsuits in relation to this species of property? The present condition of the law is the subject of too much uncertainty i. i r? _..i? n ._:ii t iu~ ; iu uc a sate iuic. 11 nut jiicvciu uic cmi? gration of slaveholders, and in its practical results, exclude the South from any fair partition in the advantages of the common Territories. Let there be a removal of all obstructions, in the shape of Mexicau Jaws, or an acknowledgment of the right on one side of a given line. THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. The first measure of the series is the admission of California as a State, with her constitutional boundaries and inhibition of slavery. This action in California, by a handful of men, excludes the South from the whole Pacific coast, running through some ten degrees of latitude, and embracing the whole Pacific country of any real value. The justice of permitting a few persons thus to monopolize an empire, which they cannot occupy, to the expulsion of one halt of the States of the Union, cannot readily be apprehended. Within reasonable and legitimate boundaries, first ascertained, the people of a Territory, when forming a State, have a right to prescribe their own domestic institutions ; but a few men or inhabitants have no right or power to monopolize large tracts of the public domain for an indefinite period of time, which they cannot enjoy, and encumber it with their political institutions. Such a course of action is alike forbidden by justice and the Constitution. In the case of California, it is particularly odious to the States it was aimed at, from the fact that it was accomplished through the instrumentality of political agitations, and the interference of Executive agents and emissaries. I know this has been denied, and I do not now men --i.:--* ?:*l ...... *i A_ lion me suojeci wiui mijr uiuci view mail IU produce the proof, furnished by the California convention, on a proposition to extend her boundaries to the line of New Mexico, for the purpose of excluding slavery in all that vast region. "Mr. SHERWOOD. The gentleman, (Mr. McCarver,) says he is in favor of a permanent boundary. How is he going to get a permanent boundary by fixing it upon the Sierra Nevada ? Is he sure that Congress will not cut us off on the South ? If the gentleman has that assurance from a ma- [ jority of the members of Congress, I should , like to see it I hope he will produce it. In my opinion, if a majority of Congress are determined to settle the question of slavery, they will give us the whole territory. If it is objected to by Mr. Calhoun, or any other gentleman who is in favor of slavery over a part of Calilorn^,, it will be answered that it is too expensive 10 establish a territorial government on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada ; that that territory is for the most < part a desert waste, and may rest with Cali- i fornia as a part of the State without being I expensive to the people of California; but ? that it would be quite a burden in thirty or i forty years, at an annual expense to the i Treasury of the United States of one or two j i hundred thousand dollars a year?a large 11 portion of which we would have to pay our- j i selves. In regard to preventing our admission into the Union, bv extending the boun- | darv to New Mexico, we expressly say to Congress that, if they w ill not give us that, | ik pv mav rut nv dnwn tn tkn Sierra \ev:nln ? ? ? .. If we cut ourselves down now, gentlemen an the other side will say we have acted very foolishly in not embracing the whole Lerritory, and thus throwing out of the conn- i cils of the nation the subject of all the difficulty. If we are admitted into the Union, i ind beeome a constituent part of the great Confederacy?a new star in the galaxy of rtars?we shall always, I trust, have tfy i tame desire to keep the Union together? ! to preserve it in pirit and substance?as we 1 had when we were residents of the older I States. i "Mr. SEMPLE. I feel under some obli- i gation to repeat a conversation which has a | direct bearing upon this matter. Th^re is a ! distinguished member of Congress, who holds i bis seat from one of the States of this Union, | now in California. With a desire to obtain < ! all the information possible, in relation to the state of things on the other side of the raouutains, I asked him what was the desire of the people ia Congress; I observed to him j that it was not the desire of the people of j California to ta!;e a larger boundary than the : Sierra Nevada; end that we would prefer; not embracing within our limits this desert waste to the east. His reply was, i For God's sake leave us no territory to legislate npon in Congress.' He weut 911 to state, then, that the great object in crtir formation of a State government, was to avoid further legislation. There would be no question as to our admission by adopting this course; and that all subjects o( minor importance could afterwards be settled. I think it my duty to impart this information to the Convention. The conversation took place between Mr. Thomas Butler King and myselt. M Mr. BOTTS. I have remarked it as a j singular fact, that we have reports daily, and almost hourly, of some important intormaliou i that has been received from some particular i sources; letters that have arrived, conversa- i tions that have occurred, something that some gentleman has heard Mr. Thomas But- ! ler King say. Now, sir, I take it that Mr. i Thomas Butler King, nor no other single in- 1 dividual, is the exponent of the wishes of the i Congress of the United States. He is but one man on the floor of that Congress. He i gives but one vote, and that vote it is not in i his power to give whilst he remains in the i State of California. No, sir,"not even that i vote, either directly himself, or indirectly I through his friend upon this floor. Sir, I take i it that if Mr. Thomas Butler King did know < and had a right to tell us what were the < opinions of the Congress of the United States, < it would be for us to consider r: ther what i our own opinions are, than those of Congress, upon this subject. Therefore I exclude the I whole testimony as totally irrelevaq^. to this 1 matter." < Thus, it seems, that the opinions and dis- . courses of Mr. King, if not that of others, i did influence and control the action of the i California Convention upon this most delicate I subject. s 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 : been announced in the other wintr of the ' Capitol, that this new State must for a time be supported by the Federal Treasury, having no revenue of her own. It is the first instance of such a pretension, and is of evil example. States ought never to be dependent on the Federal Treasury. If the report of Mr. Jones be correct, that there never was a surveyor in Calitornia, then it is true that there is not a complete title in that country; for it is a notorious fact, that in no part of Spaiu or Mexico did the final title issue, until after survey and judicial 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, there is not a title in California that will sustain an action of ejection. They are not 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 no vt*^ll_fr?nnrlorl /lniikf "v" IVU..MVM uvuui II1UI UIC Ilgllt IU clUlUUlize a State territorial government is exclusively in Congress. Until the territory 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 facts that it is not within the : power and jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the 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. By express provision oi the Constitution, it may take private property for pubI: ^ L\ l l A * a. i r _ A iic use, nrsi making compensaiun inereior. i It has no power to take or destroy private i property to promote any general purposes of i public good, or any real or mistaken views 1 of human philanthropy. The Federal Gov- i eminent has no such mission. In the Terri- 8 tories, Congress may remove obstacles to the t enjoyment of property, by giving remedies s and salutary "police regulations, but it can* J neither exclude nor destroy it. The Fede- r ral Legislature is limited in its exercise of t |>ower over property. Congress having in itself no authority to exclud or destroy pro- a pcrty in the Territories, can delegate no such ? power to the territorial legislatures. It can- I i not confer that on another which it does not c possess itself. If a Territory is within the t power and jurisdiction ol the United States, I it is exclusively so until it acquires a new t sovereign; and this cannot be done unless r admitted as a State into the Union. How I can there constitutionally be a State on the public domain within the limits of the United h States, and yet outside of the Union, and v beyond the control of this Government ? t The idea is a solecism, a contradiction in f" terms. It is not a State, in the American o sense, for any purpose, until it is embraced fi by the Union. As the power to admit new r Stales is entirely with Congress, there is no h ather tribunal which can authorize a govern- > ment to be formed with a constitution pre- f paratory to its admission into the Union as a t State. Tha sovereignty of the Territories I must either reside in this Government or the t people of the States. If such were not the c :-a$e, it would be in abeyance, until a terri- y tory acquired by the United States was peopled. The Supreme Court has decided that an acquisition of territory is also an acquisition of the sovereignty over it. If this be so, it cannot be a divided sovereignty, partly in the United States, and partly in the people of the Territory. It resides exclusively in the United States, and no government erected in the Territories, in time of peace, can have a legal existence, unless it has been established or authorized by Congress. Previous to the call of the convention at Monterey, there was a provisional government in California, organized by the authority of the United States during war, and which was continued after peace by the conseut of the Executive of the United States. It was a government of necessity, with a legal commencement, which could not be superseded without the authority of Congress. It has been Octroyed by an illegal and revolutionary movement, without the authority of the United States, constitutionally ex] ressed. The action of General Riley, under which the convention was assembled which framed the present constitution of California, has been disavowed by the Secretaries of State and War of the last administration, the only officers irom whom an order could have proceeded to sanction 1 is course. The convention had not even the m^rit of a spontaneous revolutionary movement proceeding from the people. It had its origin in the proclamation or military order of Gensral Riley, of the 3d of June, 1849. By this order he called a convention, fixed the aumber of delegates, and the boundaries of districts. Thus were the highest attributes >f sovereignty arrogated by this military commandant, at a remote position, in open violation of law and the Constitution. Although the convention which framed the constitution of California was convened by General Riley without Executive orders, he states in a proclamation of 22d of June, that it was confirmed by instructions ?ubsequently received by the steamer "Panama." Thus was this convention assembled, contrary to law and the Constitution; md to the unauthorized Government which it provided, was delivered over the then existing government of California by General Riley, with the remarkable declaration that 'whatever may be the legal objections to putting into operation a State government previous to its being acknowledged or opproved by Congress, these objections must -1 J t. A. 1 -* - r a i yieiu u> me uuv;ous necessities o: me case ] lor the powers of the existing government ire too limited, and its organization too imjerfect, to provide for the wants of a coun:ry so peculiarly situated, and of a popula- ' ;ion which is augmenting with such unprc:edented rapidity." If such action is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, what becomes of the dcctrine of the Supreme Court, that the right to govern the Territories is in the United States? I think it quite demonstrable, as a legal proposition, that this action in California is not merely irregular, but that she cannot be admitted into the Union, under her present constitution, withjut another convention authorized by Congress. I should rejoice to see this action iad, the slavery question settled, the limitsjf California adjusted, and her worthy representatives admitted to their seats. 1 proceed to state some objections to the present admission of that State. The Constitution of the United States Jeclares, 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 my previous sanction of Congress, were to >resent herself here with a constitution eady formed, would she be a State which couldlegally be admitted into the Union? It teems to me that the previous assent of 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- ; sation. The case of Texas has been cited as fur- 1 Dishing a precedent for a different rule of iction ; but its authority is clearly the other vay. By the joint resolution of annexation, Congress gave consent that Texas might be j erected into a State, in order to its admission nto the Union, by means of a convention >f delegates chosen by the people. This :onvention was assembled, and the constituion 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 1 he Union, it is a strong precedent to prove 1 he necessity of a previous consent in order ; 0 legalize the preparatory action of forming ( 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 iniide of the Union; for it is by virtue of the Pederal Constitution, as well as of the nembership of the Union, that a State has his privilege. rri.? ,.i: _r ir l lie ciuiii irtMuu Ui eiiuuiiv^ A.CIIIUUK), ind Maine are not exceptions to this rule, in- ; tsmuch as they were fi rmed out of pre-existing states; and, in that case, the Constitution ontemplates that the initiatory step shall be aken by the old States, and that the approlation of Congress should follow; which, in heir admission, was the course pursued, the espective laws of admission defining their mundaries It is worthy of observation that in no case ias a State been admitted without the preious consent of Congress to form a constiution and State government, unless such Jtate had previously been in the condition f a territory, and had her boundaries demed by an act ol Congress during her teritorial pupilage. It is difficult to perceive iOw,on principle, it could otherwise he done. V State must have identity, to which deinite boundaries are indispensable. These >i undaries must be established by the Jnited States, if the State is carved out of he public domain. Who but the proprietor an s*t up the limits of his own estate, vh?n he parts with ? portion of it? The United States have clearly the right to say where shall be the limits of a new State to be erected out of its own territory or domain. Naturally, before any political community enters on any portiou of this domain to erect it iato a State, the consent of Congress should be had, and, as a general course of legislation, such has been the practice of the Government. The late treaty with Mexico evidently contemplates that the Congress of the United States will move first in this matter, and that, until it does act, these territories will be governed by the authority of the United States. As to the time and method of admission, the language of the treaty is peculiar and quite dillerent from the provisions by which we acquired Louisiana and Florida. The treaty with France of 1803, for the acquisition of Louisiana, nrovide* that u the ? 7 I """ " inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according 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 declared 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'u- 1 tion, 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 of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to ba judged by the Congress of the United Sta'esjto the enjoyment of 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 Inn- ' guage used that the commissioners contein- j plated that Congress would say to them , when the proper time for admission had ar- i rived. It was not the people of the ceded 1 territory, but Congress, who were to judge j of this matter. The reason for this provis- < ion 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 in- 1 corporation into the Union, and made the previous action of Congress a condition precedent to their formation of States in order to an admission into the Union. It is obvious, from the language employed in the treaty, that thfc commissioners contemplated a territorial government for these countries previous to their admission into the Union. Until admitted into the Union, the treaty expressly 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 J assent of Congress to the formation of this , State could be cured by subsequent legisk- i tion, 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 1 Qfnfna unfit n ??1W1 u iv^ai aim I1ACII UUIIIICII III VXilllfornia, and a large portion of those who voted for its ratification were laboring under the same disability. The Constitution of the United States, wherever it speaks of federal numbers, looks to citizenship and dotnicil. 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 to overthrow the entire representative theory of the Government, and destroy the State system. The people of Ohio have no power, under the Constitution, to permit the citizens of Kentucky to 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 a. Gi-i i i -i '? 111 me oiuws i.ave 110 ngnt, unuer the i on- i stitution, to participate in the formation of i a government for a new State in one of the , Territories of this Union, or to vote tor mem- j bers of Congress to represent it. Their po- i litioal rights, in this respect, are fixed in and 1 pertain to another jurisdiction. That the ac- 1 lion of California violated the law and the , Constitution in this respect, is evident from < the following provisions established by the 1 proclamation of General Riley, on the 3d of ( tune, 1849: " Every tree male citizen of the United ' States and of Upper California, twenty-one , pears of age, and actually resident in the < Jistrict where the vote is offered, will ba cn;itled to the right of suffrage. All citizens J )f Lower California, who have been forced t :o come to this territory, on account of hav- r ng rendered assistance to the American :roops during the recent war with Mexico, j1 should also be allowed to vote in the district t where they actually reside." r In the first place, this proclamation is a 1 lirect violation of the laws of naturali- t cation of the United States. Those citizens a >f Lower California who had beeu forced to 1 * remove because they had assisted the United States troops, were not thereby naturalized, nor were tbey embraced in the provisions of the treaty of Hidalgo. Under the laws of Congress on this subject, they are aliens, and yet they have been permitted to vote and aid in excluding the South from this rich and common heritage of the Union. The next objection is, that for citizens of the United States to vote for delegated, citizenship in California is not required, but mere residence. Willi the exception of the admission of the new States rnrnw>(l nut nfthnnldor Sfjifpa miwI fh*> mite of Texas previous to admission, there bus always been an act of Congress for the territory, fixing boundaries and regulating the right of suffrage. At the time the convention wua called at Monterey, there wua no l.\w of suffrage exiating in California. The Mexicun law, which fixed majority at 25 years of age, and wua in other reaped* greatly restricted, waa not pretended to be followed by General Riley. The reaaon muat be obvious. As a purely political regulation, determining the relation bet ween the citizen and hia Government, according u> the writers on international law, us well us the English and American decisions, this rule censed on flie transfer of California to the United Sttit.es. The language of the Supreme Court of the United States is: "The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of t^ose who remain in it; and the luw, which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals remains in force until altered by the newly created power of the State. The right of suffrage is not a natural right; it is a positive institution of society, confided to a certain portion or its members for the good of all. Tha power to regulate it was usurped by the proclamation of General Riley, and waa an abuse of authority without a parallel in the history of this Government. The convention appears to have been aware of this defect m the very basis of their proceedings, fbr the constitution which they framed declares the qualifieutioii of voters, and provides that " every citizen of California, declared a legal voter by thia constitution, and every citizen of the United States, a nesident of tins State on the day of election, shall be entitled to vote at the first general election under this ?oustitution, and on the question of the adoption thereof." ThuB 110 domicil was required to vote for the adoption of this constitution; nothing but simple residence 011 the day of election. I mainlain that no one bas a right to vote on the organisation of n State, unless lie is domiciled within the rritory at the time. I deny the right of strangers ind denizens to exclude tnc South and Southini property from one of the territories by erecting it into a State organization. That can be snected only by citizens of the 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, or any intention of a permanent residence, who, in contemplation of law, still retain their former legal donncil, and liave acquired no other. For the rule of law is well settled, that the domicil of origin obtains until a new one is acquired, and it rannot be acquired without un actual change and in intention to abandon the former domicil and icquire another. I Resident is defined: "One who resides or dwells in a place for some lime. A. B. is now a retideiU | 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. 1 here must be the fact, aud the intent." " If, therefore, a person leaves his home for temporary purposes, out ^wun an intention to return to it, this change .< ?>lacc is not in law u change of domicil, *' ? for it in not the mere act of inhabitancy in a place which makes it the domicil, but iti? the/act, coupled with the intention of remuining; there must beanhrtOmanendi" (Story on Conflict, 42.) " A person who is a native citizen of one Slate, never censes to be citizen thereof until he lias acquired a new citizenship elsewhere." (Story on Constitution, 565.) If persons merely resident in a State on the day of the adoption ot a constitution are allowed to vote, it follows that strangers who do not intend to make it their permanent abode may control its institutions and policy. Under such a rule of suffrage, the citizens or other States on the day of election might be brought into the new State in sufficient numbers, una for the express purpose of controlling its domestic policy. The injustice and illegality of excluding the South from the Territoties by such a course of proceeding under the pretence that it was a State action, or people of a Territory settling the question of slavery for themselves, is too manifest for disputation. There can be nd validity in the action of a convention, the delegates to wliich were chosen, and whose constitution was adopted, by voters who were not citizens of or domiciliated in the State. I undertake to say, that where citizenship was leceHsary to the jurisdiction of a court in California, not one-fourth of the voters for this conititution could have maintained a suit in the judical tribunals. It is doubtful whether this portion were there for the purpose of making it their home, and without this intent, as the jurists prove, they :ould not acquire a domicil. They were there temporarily to dig gold, and with the intent to return as soon as they had collected a certain quantity of the glittering dust, ft is 110 answer, in a legal sense, that many would change this view; the intent to remain was necessary to domicil and citizenship. Without this intention, they had no right to participate in the formation of a State government. nnfl In nrrsrrilie InutitnlInno tn llmo? who were really resident citizens of the country. Under the rule of their constitution, citizens of other States might have voted on the adoption of the constitution on the day they arrived in San Francisco, and departed for their homes 011 the following morning. Sir, it is not true that this constitution here presented was formed by the peojtle of California. It is not their sense, it is the work of aliens, and the citizens of other States of the Union, without domicil or citizenship in California. It was a usurpation of political rights clearly opposed to the principles of the Federal Constitution and the spirit of our Government. It is well known that tne great mass of the real citizens of California, who were made so by the treaty, or had made thcmaelvss such by residence, were entirely overslaughed by this action of adventurers ana strangers. The great majority of the citizens resided south of 3fP 30', and were unanimous in favor of a territorial government. Their wishes were over ruled and defeated by a horde of new-comers, the men of a day, whose baggage had scarcely been transferred from the shipping to the shore. It is notorious thut the people south of that line wsre, in the sequel, induced to vote for the State organization only to fVee themselves from present difficulty, and under assurances that it was the only hope of civil government. Since the 1 sgitation here, a portion of them have reiterated their choice for a terrritorial government. But, sir, such n? the population was, the number, it the time of the formation of the Constitution, was not enough to entitle them to a State goternment. The statement of T. O. Larkin, esq., navy igent at Monterey, as to the population of California, is published in the American Quarterly Register and Magazine. "The population of California in July, 1846, was about IS,000, exclu?ivc of Indians; in July, 1849, it is about 3T> to 10,000." The number of inhabitants in a territory to subtle it, under the Constitution, to n member of Congress and to admission under the present fed ral basis, is 70,680. Before a State can be adni/ted, or a State government legally formed.it nust have this number. It cannot form a State government and then await for the steamboats to ring the population. If a territory could do this, he one hundred who first arrived in a territory, night form a Stats government that would control ts institutions and give them a lasting character. There is still an insurmountable objection to he admission of California under the present Conititution, which has been urged with great ability 0 another place. It w the absenc* in her Constjtu "The Southern Pre**,"?Tii-weekly, U published on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays of each week. "The Southern Preee,"?Weekly, la published every Wednesday. ADVERTISING RATES. ' ? *l- ' ' " ? rui one wjiuiro ui ju unci, mrcc insertions, jjl UU " every subsequent insertion, - - - 8S Liberal deductions made on yearly advertising. Individuals may forward the amount of their subscriptions at our risk. Address, (post-paid) ELLWOOD F1SHF.K, Washington City. tion of the recognition of the title of the United States to the public domain within her limits and the want of a compact not to intrrfVre with the primary disposition of the soil. The usage of the Government demunds such a provision. It in the exerciseof a high sovereign power, and cannot be had without the call of another convention, because the present Constitution of California does not confer it upon the legislature. Without such a stipulation, the Unitea States cannot preserve uny title to the public lands and mines of California. The title of one government to lands within another, is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the latter, and can only be maintained, with the consent of the State, in the nature of a conmact. Such has been the uniform construction of Congress, of our Constitution, and system of State sovereignties, in regnrd to this complex subject. This object cannot os secured by tne simple legislation of Congress. It must have the form and sanction of a compact, which can be consummated only by the assent of California. Since the Constitution of California must return to the people for further action and new and important provisions, it becomes the duty of Congress to adjust her boundary and curtail the vast extent of this Pacific empire. There is great danger in permitting one State to engross ull the ports on the Pacific, especially when the remoteness and isolated condition of that country^ is con aide red. To nay nothing or tne ponurui imznru of our system, arising front combinations nntong large and disproportionate States, California, with her vast limits, presents e'hsr subjects of serious apprehension. She will be tempted to a separate existence by the wide extent and productiveness of her mines?by the still richer treusures that will flow from Eastern and Indian commerce. From all these causes we ntuy look for hostility to the revenue and commercial system of the Union. All the great commercial ports of the Pacific should not he left under one iocul jurisdiction. San Diego and San Francisco ought to be in different States, for many and cogent reasons of policy. In the progress of events, the Government of the Union will have slight hold upon that extensive isolated region, with its great mines and western trade, if the country is all embraced by one State government. It is our policy to strengthen the bands of the Union there liy the erection of two or more States, the multiplication of seaports, and the creation of commercial rivalries. If you admit California with her present limits, the nay of San Francisco will engross nearly the whole of the foreign and domestic trade of the Pacific. It is apparent, front the report of Mr. King, that the country possesses much more agricultural power than is generally supposed. Its mines VvU fill the country rapidly with a large population, a population composed, in a considerable degree, of foreign era, with very little sympathy with our own Government. It is not the part of wisdom to organise .thin State in such a manner an to tempt its lultabiUtiU .with the advantages of a separate political existence., independent of the American Union. Ttuc WSMMWERMENT TCXA1. In opponing the cowprqHUse of Mr. CUy in its / present shape, I desire to spepk of that illustrious statesman with all respect. By liirt lofty imtriotJ ' " ?J.,,;.,l,o nr.._ ism tuiagrew, inmictiuiu ..... sent session of Congress, lie bus shown himself, what he has luce* often termed, the Chatham of Anierien. But I turn eonstmined lo say, that the provisions of this laill ii? relation to TexaH are totally inadmissible as a ttoutlieru measure,glaringly uimjst to that State, and dostiructive to her highest, interest, to her security and prosperity-as u 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, 184#, and not included within the limits of th* 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 heredfter divide it into two Stales. This bill is accompanied by a report, with the following (statement: "The committee beg leave next to report 011 the subject of the northern and western boundary of Texas. O11 that question a great diversity ot opinion haw prevailed. According to one view of it, the western limit ef Texas was the Nueces; according to another, it extended to the llio Grande, and stretched from its mouth to its source." The report then states, that the committee had agreed 011 an amicable adjustment with the following boundary: "The northern boundary of said State shall bs as follows: Beginning on the Rio del Norte, commonly called El Pato, and running up that river 20 miles, measured by straight line thereon, and thence eautwardly to a point w here the 100th degree of west longitude crosses Red river, being the southwest angle in the line designated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line of the territory set apart for the Indians by the United States." In the first place, the bill and report taken together throw discredit and doubt upon the whole western boundary of Texas. They cast doubt upon a portion of the line which is and has been, I for a considerable period, under the quiet jurisdiction of the officers and government of Texas, from the mouth of the Rio Grande to El Paso. The Senate bill, it will be perceived, pushes a fret line, down into the immediate vicinity of El Paxo, on the great military road from the coast of Texas to the Pacific. It opens a highway for our slaves into New Mexico, Utah, and California, with every menns and facility for escape from the frontiers. Such a line cannot fail to render slave property in western and northern Texas, and especially on Red river, insecure, and seriously afiect its value. The salubrious climate, rich soil, and productions of Texas, together with cheap lands, invite emigration, and offer great inducements to the planter. Her capacities for producing sugar and cotton are almost incalculable. She must receive a large portion of the negroes of the more northern stave States, unless emigration is retarded by an unjust and, to the South, unwise adjustment or this subject. If Texas is true to her own interests, she never will consent to Btich a boundary, when the resolutions of annexation guarantee slavery to new States to be formed out of her territory south of 3fi degrees 30 mintuer north lati tude. How can she consent to permit, sluvery to be abolished within her limits to the 3&1 decree of I latitude, with the inevitable consequences 111 full view ? | This bill furtherprovides: " If theStateofTexas shall rofbse or decline to accede to the preceding ' articles, they shall become null and voiu, and the United States shall he remitted hack to all their i territorial rights, in the same state and condition as if these articles of compact had never been tendered to the acceptance <?f the State of Texas." The amount to be paid in caae Texas accedes to the proposition i? by the bill left blank. It will be perceived that the Territory of New Mexico is, by this bill, to be created with or without the consent of Texas. It will of course he organized according to ita ancient limits, and in derogation of the rights of Texns. It will be claimed that the bill legalizes the present military (rnvArnmon/ ir* Sonto P? It will irisrji flip ?innPAr-_ /tnce of law to a systematic resistance to tin* jurisdiction of Texas, nnd before the mutter can be adjusted, practically determine the question against the State. It will produce civil war and bloodshed between the people of Santa Te nnd the authoriten of Texas. It leaves the State no choice between such a calamity and the acceptance of the money which may hereafter be inserted in the bill. It includes country on the east never within the limits of New Mexico, and transfers it to the new territory. If makes no provision as to the fttture condition of the foreign and hostile tribes of Indians now roaming over northern and weatern Texas. In relation to the people of New Mexico proper, which ia now situated on the west bank or the Rio Grande, the provisions of the treaty with Mexico are complied with if they are admitted into the Union in any State. They have no claims to their ancient limits, any more than bad the people of Louisiana. But this bill transfers territory to them on the south and east, not embraced within the legal limits of New Mexico, as it existed under Mexican rule. Up to the present time, the actiona of all the departments of thia Government has admilUd the claim of Texas to the Rio Grand# in ita fullest, extent. Individuals, a few member! of Cong^M,