The southern press. [volume], July 29, 1850, Image 1

About The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
feu -1
CMTBO If
EUvm4 Fisher 4k fcd*lto 0e Leon.
TERMS.
DAILY, I10 00
TJU-WEEKLY, - - 5
WEEKLY,
O Subscriptions payable is Advsnce. Any pwaun
procuring fiva subscribers shall receive one copy
gnttu. All Letter* to the Editors to be Post-paid.
PRINTED IV O. A. SARI.
OrrtCK, Pennsylvania Avenue south side, between
Sd end 4ft streets.
Debate In the Senate.
Saturday, July 27,1850.
Mr. SEWARD. I submit the following
amendment to the amendment of tbc senator
from Maine:
Insert after the word " That," in the first line,
the following:
u New Mexico shall, on proclamation by the
President of the United States, be admitted as
a State into this Union, on an equal footing
with the original States: Provided, That the
President, before issuing such proclamation,
shall be satisfied that the constitution recently
framed by the Convention of New Mexico has
been approved and ratified by the people of New
Mexico .in the election held for the purpose of
considering it on the 20th of June last".
The effect of this amendment is to bring before
the Senate a ereat and important question
9 ' ' - - :."W - -~o- ?y*-. ,-7 - -,- .. - ? - r _ -- -- - .--- - - - - ?T- --.- -.- - ,
^ * * /' ?_ ,* >*< , 1 ' r ig!gg!a
| B?-I l-H I 1 I I l-J
JH? _J(l_ _JL J j _jl_ _IL_ _JL ?II?*mt ?m|L. JL ?JH? y J
daily.
Vol. 1. Washington, iWonday, July 29, 1850. No. 36.
?that is, the admission of New Mexico, aa one
of the States of this Union, upon an equal foot*
ing with the original States, and under the constitutiou
which she has already adopted. I have
heard, Mr. President, much said here about nationality,
national sympathies, national principles,
and national feelings; and so fhr as such
sympathies, principles, and feelings are concerned,
they obtain my highest respect and admiration.
But I differ very much fryui many who
bestow that commendation with regard to what
interests, principles, and feelings, those are which
dese'rve the character of nationality. So far as
I have heard, it has been generally bestowed
not so much upon those principles and measures
which are designed to give permanence to the
institutions of the country, as upon such as contain
some expedient, some compromise for the
present hour, and for a temporary purpose.
In such sympathies and feelings I have no
part I do not participate in them at all, and
TAP til A PPflBATl tKot T KnliotTA til at oAmnPAmian
for to-day, postponement for to-day, only increases
the embarrassment and the evils of tomorrow.
It is my desire that this great question,
thus brought before tho Senate, may now
be definitely settled. I know that it may be
said that this proposition comes prematurely before
the Senate, inasmuch as the Senate lias no
official information that a constitution has been
adopted bjr the people of New Mexico; but
while this is true, and therefore there would be
a propriety in delaying the proceeding, in order
to receive official information from the President
of the United States of the adoption of the constitution,
and that the constitution itself might
be laid before us for our approval, I feel myself
obliged to bring the question thus prematurely
before the Senate, for the reason that the subject
is prematurely before the Senate, and that
the bill which is now under consideration pro.
vidfcs for a disposition of this subject which will
prevdnt the bestowal of a just consideration upon
the claims of New Mexico, when they shall
be presented here with official authority and in
due form and force. It is not ray fault, therefore,
that the question springs upon tfio Senate
now. If this whole matter of the boundary of
Texas and of the Territory of New Mexico
could bo severed from the mil, then the whole
subject might well be postponed until it should
come UD Drouerlv for disDosition at a more suita
ble time and in the customary form.
Mr. President, the effect of the bill before the
Senate is to postpone all questions about the
admission of New Mexico until after the report
of commissioners, and after the action of Congress
upon the report of the commissioners, and
by that time there may be no New Mexico to
be admitted. Now, sir, I am opposed to the delay
thus proposed, because, in the first place, I
believe it inconsistent with the interests and
rights of the people of New Mexico. The Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] has truly
stated the rights of that people. They are a
conquored and a subjugated people; but they
are, notwithstanding, a people possessing rights
that are as important to them as the rights of the
citizens of any territory or any State within the
United States. It is only a change of their sovereignty
that has been effected, when the peoof
New Mexico lost their rights, secured to them
by the constitution of Mexico, they acquired the
rights of American citizens, secured by the Constitution
of the United States, and those rights
involved the protection of their property and
presesvation of their liberty, and the protection
of their territory from invasion. All these are
rights of which the United States can deprive
mo communiy on earth. They may extend their
conquering arm over the States, and territories,
and provinces, but it carries with it freedom and
and security, and the guarantees of them. Now,
air, in regard to the rights of the people of New
Mexico, if they had not been secured by treaty,
they would have been still secured by the obligations
arising out of the law of nature and of
nations. These riohts are secured not, onlv hv
the law of nations, but they are secured, moreover,
by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The
United States found New Mexico a territy or
provinco of the empire of Mexico, and they stipulated
by the treaty with Mexico,and of course
with the people of the provinces of Mexico, that
they should be protected in all their rights, and
that they should be admitted to the rights of
citizens, and that they should have a government
established over them. Now, sir, the proposition
which I submit is to incorporate New Mexico as
a State; but I resist the proposition contained
in the bill, which is to incorporate New Mexico
as a territory of the United States. 1 submit, in
the first place, that the proposition contained in the
amendment laid upon your table is one which is
most harmonious and congenial with the treaty?with
a fair and just construction of the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. What is the
language of the treaty 1 It is not that the
Territory of New Mexico, or that the provinces
of New Mexico and California, shall
be admitted into the United States as Territories
; but it is that they shall be admitted as
States. The treaty contains no provision and
no allusion whatever to bringing them into a
a provincial or territorial condition. It is a fair
' construction of the treaty to say that it coni
a. i-i-J il . _ J _/ rn a
Iiemuiaieu uie uumission 01 uie lerniones no*
as 1 erritories or provinces, but as States, upon
an equal footing with tlie original States; for it
j is fair to presume that if the United States had
i Contemplated that New Mexico and California
, were to be held in a territorial vassalage nnder
; the Union, that intention would have been exi
pressed. I know that the United States reserved
i to Congress the right to judge of the time to
1 admit them as Statea; but that is all that it did
| reserve?the right to determine the time when.
Well, air, the time when is when these provinces
| are left in just exactly the condition that they
| now are?deprived of any effective government.
and expoaed to great danger. In the next place,
i sir, the proviaion contained in this amendment
| is moat compatible and harmonious with the
I Constitution of the United StAtes. It is a remarkable
feature ot the Constitution of the
United States that its framers never contenl1
plated a territory or colony; but, on the other
; hand, contemplated nothing less than States?
; perfect States?equal States, and, as they are
, called here, sovereign Statea. There was a do,
main belonging to the United Statea, which was
, for temporary purposes, and until it should be
i inhabited, (at the time of the Constitution of the !
! United States)sct ofT for the purpose of being'
i organized into a Territory?the Northwest Ton
I ritory; hut that was regarded as only a terapoI
rary measure, and ancillary to the establishment
' of live new States within that Territory. There
is reason?there is political wisdom in this provision
of the Constitution excluding colonies,
which are subject always to oppression, and excluding
provinces which always tend to corrupt,
and inevitably and ultimately to drag down the
parent State. Then, the proposition which 1
submit is congenial with the treaty?truly conS
nial and compatible with the Constitution of
e United States?and the proposition to establish
a territorial form of government over
this people is in violation of tne spirit of the
treaty and of the.Constitution.
But, air, New Mexioo is entitled to be admitted
into the Union of the United States under
that treaty, because it cannot be regarded aa a
treaty stipulating or contemplating an oppressive
exercise of the right of Congress in defining
the time of admission, but a reasonable exercise
of it?the exercise of a sound discretion for the
good of the people with whom the stipulation
and covenant were made. It is a covenant tor
their protection and benefit, and not a stipulation
for their oppression and ruin. Wluit, then,
is the time when New Mexico ought to be admitted
1 That time, sir, has come when the admission
of New Mexico, not as a province, is necesssary
to save the liberty of the people and
the integrity of her territory. That is the time,
and that time has now come; for both are in
danger. The liberties of New Mexico are in
danger of being subverted by an absorption by
the State of Texas, and her actual existence is
endangered by the efforts of that State to bring
about her subjugation by force. What answer
shall be given to me upon this point, sir ? There
is no answer, except it bo tliut New Mexico is
not in a condition to be admitted. But New
Mexico fufils all the conditions which you have
ever required for the admission of any State
into the Union. There is but one condition
which the Constitution recognizes ; and that is,
that she shall present a republican form of gov
ernment. New Mexico fulfills that condition.
You have before you established precedents
by which you have required a population
of a given amount of numbers to constitute a
State. That number is a number sufficient to
elect one member of Congress. New Mexico
fulfils thut condition; for she has a hundred
thousand souls?she has a population larger than
Texas when that community was admitted as a .
State. She has a population two-thirds as
large as that of Texus. Sixty thousand citizens
were needful to entitle the State of Ohio to admission?sixty
thousand wore all that were required
of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and
Florida; and New Mexico exceeds them all by
more than two-thirds of the number required.
But we have been told that the condition of
these people was such that they were nnfit for
self-government, and therefore should be denied
admission. Sir, it is too late to raise that objection.
They ore citizens of the United States;
and no man maintaining the capacity of man for
self-government can maintain that uny ninety
thousand people?citizens of the United States,
rAnnimistMi no sur>h Kv it? Pnnatihifinn ifa tiwi
ties, and its laws?are incapable of the functions
of self-government.
I know that it is said that you will govern
them better than they could govern themselves;
and how will you govern them better ? What is
the guarantee that you are offering them of governing
them better than they can govern themselves
? It is the proposition to dismember their
territory and to subvert their constitution. They
are a mingled population?a population marked
by characteristics which have resulted from the
extraordinary system of colonizatiomand of government
maintained by Old Spain in her provinces?a
policy peculiarly different from our own,
and marked by very different results in its influences
upon the people. The settlement of
the colonies of Spam proceeded altogether from
a thirst for gold, and nothing else. The government
which Spain exercised over the colonies
was the government of jealous, arbitrary
authority, exercised for the purpose solely of
deriving the utmost possible profit from her
colonies. The colonization of these States was
the result of an ardent thiret, not for gold, but
tor liberty; and the consequences which resulted
are seen in the widely different character of
the two populations. The people of the United
States have grown up by slow degrees. It was
one hundred and seventy years alter the first
attempt at colonization by the Anglo-Saxons,
before any forms of well-established institutions
were found on this continent. The career of
the Spaniards, on the other hand, was brilliant
and successful. The whole of the Spanish
portion of this continent speedily rose into viceroyalties,
which were filled with wealth, and
splendor, and pride.
But, after the lapse of another hundred years,
we see that the Anglo-Saxon power has gone
on steadily increasing, until it has converted the
whole or a large portion of the northern part of
the continent by subjugation, while the Spanish
portion is decaying and declining, and falls an
easy prey to conquest The Anglo-Saxon colonization
left the native inhabitants of these
countries out of its sympathy, and it left them
barbarous and savage, and they remained so.?
But the peculiar influences of the religion which
the colonists of Spain carried into her new territories
operated successfully in winning the
Indians to Christianity and to partial civilization;
and we have, therefore, this extraordinary fact,
that while we exclude Indians or aborigines
from the possession of liberty nnd the rights of <
citizens in our own States and in our own coun- |
try, we have conquered the aborigines in Spanish :
portions of the continent for the purpose of
making them citizens, nnd have extended to
them the rights of citizens. So, sir, the population
of New Mexico consists of some two
thousand people of the European race, and chiefly
Anglo-Saxons, then of some ten thousand of the
Creoles, or the descendants of the Spanish colonists,
and sixty thousand Indians, more or less 1
mixed in blood, but civilized and christianized. 1
My motion, sir, is tp bring this extraordinary
and peculiar population into the United States
as a State of this Union; and it is a motion '
upon which I shall stand, and stand so long as |
grace and strength are given me to stand for
anything. But, sir, if the question ?were now
whether this people should be invited to a share
in the government of this Union, I should an- i
swer no. If the question was whether the pub-1
lie treasury should pour forth money to bring
this population into this Union as a State, 1 ,
should say no. Still more, if the proposition
were to conquer this people, to bring them into
the Union, I should resist to the last. But those |
questions have all gone by.
You have brought, you have conquered, you *
have stipulated to bring them into the United i
States, and you have stipulated to bring them in, 1
not an territories, as provinces, but as States, i
You cannot do this except you give tliem the ?
power of a State, the privileges and prerogatives 1
of a State. They are, according to all histories <
and all travellers, an inoffensive, timorous, and 1
docile people. They arc, in many of these re- |
specU, very different from the pop illation of the
United States. The question now is, not 1
whether they shall be governed by na, but what i
the form of government that is to be exercised f
over them. That is the only question. You 1
can secure to them the same rights of citizenship I
the rights op property, and protection of their 1
territory effectually, in no other way bnt bv giv- 1
iug them the constitution of a State. This Dill I
betrays upon its face?the whole debate betray* I
?the truth of this proposition. Sir, New Mexico
is obliterated from the memory of the Sen- 1
ate of the United States. It is a name no longer
to be announced here; it is no longer to be
spoken; and the territory of New Mexico is
now spoken of not aa New Mexico, but as vacant
territory of the United States. But New
Mexico lias just exactly the same rights, in coming
into this Union, that Texas had. She is
annexed by conquest and Texas by treaty; but
Texas was admitted into the Union by treaty as
u State, and New Mexico was admitted into the
Union by treaty to be converted into a State*.
There is, then, only one question arising out of
this subject; and that is, whether it is necessary
for the protection of tho people of New Mexico
that they jhail be admitted as a State' now. That
is tike question in dispute, stated in the way most
favorable to those who oppose the interests of
New Mexico. There is a boundary question in
dispute between the people of New Mexico and
Texas. The government of the United Stau-s
is now engaged in providing for the settlement
of that boundary. Texas is a State, and is represented
here, and she is invited to appoint commissioner^,
as an equal of the United States, for
the settlement of this boundary.
New Mexico, the equal of Texas in right, in
justice, in position, and in everything except the
fact that you have not given to her the State
government you have engaged to give, is unrepsented
before yon and among you, and for that
reason alone. She is unrepresented in this hall
?she is unrepresented in either chamber of
Congress. Her voice is not heard in the election
of a Chief Magistrate; she has no representative
; and yet you are entertaining the question
of the dismemberment of her territory,
and the subjugation of a great part of it to Texas,
without even giving to New Mexico a hearing.
Fulfil your treaty engagement; bring New
Mexico in as a State, and let her be heard in
this debate. Let us hear her wrongs; let us
hear her story of her grievances, I have no
donbt that it will be as eloquent?I am sure it
will be as just?as the exposition of the rights
rn ...? 1
ui i caiiO) mucu wu ucur cvciy uiiy, xjiiii^
New Mexico here, then, before you decide upon
her late. Give her a hearing', * Strike," if you
will, but " hear."
If you bring in New Mexico as a State, as sho
is entitled to come, you have then a security that
justice will be done by your commissioners. If
you amend your bill by allowing her, as I have
provided in my amendment, to appoint commissioners
equal in authority, and powers and dignity
with those of Texas, then the United States
will stand equal and impartial between these
two contestants?these two interests. Who
will refuse a proposition, eonceived in justice
like this ? Admit New Mexico, and then you
can pass this bill without denying to New Mexico
the justice that you profess to be willing to
award to Texas. But, sir, bring New Mexico
into the United States, and you will have removed
all difficulties in the way of settling this
question judicially. The constitution and laws
provide for the settlement of this question, and
provide for the settlement of it by law, without
the interposition of the military arms of the
State.
Texas will find a respondent whenever she
chooses to file a bill in the Supreme Court of
the United States, to assert her claim to that
territory. New Mexico will go before that auSist
tribunal, and will stand in an attitude very
fferent from that which she maintains. Here
the laws of the land will regard her as an equal,
and Texns as an eqnal, and each as equal to the
United States. Her representative, appointed
by herself, has in vain sought admission to the
Housa of Represedtotives. With the fact before
you, known to the world, acknowledged in
this very debate this day, that the people of New
Mexico are on their way here with their constis
tution, by two senators and a representative, to
lay their rights and wrongs before you, I implore
you to wait. You are consuming all the hours
of this day?every day?in anticipating their arrival,
in order to be able to say to New Mexico
that the door was shut before she arrived. Tliis,
sir, is the justice and this is the magnanimity of
the United States of America! This tlie magnanimity
which is shown to a conquered and a
helpless and harmless people! Sir, there is not
in the history of the Roman empire on ambition
for aggrandizement so marked as that which has
distinguished the career of the American pejyple.
There is not in Roman history a transaction so
unjust as this. What is the reason?what is
the policy of such untimely haste?such violent
haste ?
The question we arc upon, is not with New
Mexico; it does not concern New Mexico. New
Mexico is a stranger to it. The question before
us, and which has engaged us from the commencement
of the session until now, and which
threatens to engage us to the end of the session
is not the admission of New Mexico, or the set-,
tlement of the boundaries of New Mexico, but
the right of California to be admitted into the
Union. Detach this question from both, and
leave the measnre to stand upon its own merits,
and leave the bill to contain only the measures
which are necessary, and you will afford New
Mexico the time to arrive here, and to give her a
hearing; and if then you pronounce against her,
she must submit, because from that decision there
is no appeal. Well, sir, what appology can be
offered for this violation of the rights of New
Mexico ? It is said that we are to prererve
peace, sir. How is peace to be preserved by the
exclusion of New Mexico from a hearing, and
giving notice to the whole world that you have
refused to admit her to a participation in this
commission and determined to reject her constitution,
to disorganise her government, and then,
n(V/tv Innao /?P n irnnv its 4??a as fIisaa transu
HIM.I UIC ?> pOC Ul U VI f?l/ VI UHCt J U??l o,
that commission comes back, bringing with it all
the excitement of this hour, together with the
increased excitement consequent upon agitation
throughout this broad land?agitation increased
by new injustice? Sir, those who expect to
make peace in this way, in my judgment,
"Stem the stream with sand,
And bind the flames with flaxen band."
There will be no peace, unless a hearing is given
to New Mexico.
I know, sir, that the constitution of 'New
Mexico is not here. That is not her fault nor |
my fault, it is enough that she lias a constitution,
a constitution of her own choice, that fact
is known; and my amendment provides for ascertaining
the adoption of the constitution by
official authority, in an official and conclusive
way. It provides for the admission of New
Mexico, when her constitution shall be offered
here and filed in tire Department of State, by a i
proclamation to that effect issued by the Presi-1
dent of the United States. All the world knows !
the contents of the constitution of New Mexico j
historically; and although It would Ikj more j
regular to have the constitution before ns to
examine its provisions, yet if the question must '
be whether New Mexico shall be admitted now
ar never, then 1 say she is entitled to be admitted
conditionally, upon her constitution being
presented.
Now, sir, it is due to myself to say that while
[ present this claim in behalf of New Mexico, it
a not my choice, nor my wish, to bring that
?reat question into this bill of compromise,
riven with the admission of New Mexico, under
the circumstances, the bill would be obnoxious
to all the reasons upon which I have opposed
the bill, and I should still oppose it. But if the
t>iH is to pass, then I ask that it may pass with
this amendment to protect and secure the rights
of New Mexico, otherwise so sure to he lost I
It will b? seen that i do not ask yon to define <
or even to admit the boundaries ?f Niwr Mexico
aa ahe has defined them in her constitution. I
do not desire to prescribe boundaries for New
Mexico, i liave drawn my amendment so as to
provide for carrying out the exeeutioft <0f the
design of the senator fVom Maine [Kir. Bradbury
1 in regard to the whole controversy, by
providing that New Mexico shall be admitted
when she shall have brought a constitution here,
and tliat commissioners of the United States
sliall meet not only the commissioners of Texas,
but the tfonnnissionors of New Mexico, and that
I they sliall ascertain the true boundary, and that
their proceedings shall bo valid and binding upon
all the parties when they shall have been approved
by the United States, and by tlx? States of
New Mexieo and Texas.
Nor do I intend to involve the fide of New
Mexico in the fate of this bill. My proposition
is only an amendment to the amendment of the
senator from Maine. 1 shall, in any event, vote
against that, and against the bill. But if it must
puss in the fortn contemplated by that amendment,
then I want New Mexico to be protected
by it as 1 have proposed. If the bill shall, on
the other hand, be lost altogether, then New
Mexico will have lost nothing by the effort made
by me in her behalf.
Mr. PRATT. I desire to say a word, sir, as
to what 1 conceive to be the most extraordinary
proposition ever submitted to this body. 1 apprehend
that such a proposition would not have
emanated from any other source than that from
which it has come. I feel confident that when
the yeas and nays are taken, as I intend to move
before I take my seat that they shall be, the
senator from New York [Mr. Seward] will
stund alone ; because I am sure that there is no
[ other member of this body who has at least advonced
openly to the body his utter disregard of
the Constitution and his oath to support it. Upon
two occasions, as it is known to every member
of tho Senate, the senator from New York has
announced here that from the origin of this goveminent
there have been two organized principles,
warring one against the other, which must
result in the course of time in the destruction
by the more powerful of those principles of the
other. The principle of human liberty, as he
terms it, and the assumption in the Constitution
of the universal equality of man, he has avowed
to be the higher law, which he feels himself constrained
to obey, although it may conflict with
the evnresH nrovisions of the. Constitution and
his oath to support that instrument. For example,
he believes and admits that the Constitution
of the United States positively prohibits tbe
Congress of the United States from abolishing
slavery within the States. Yet, inasmuch ns
this higher law, this principle of human liberty,
comes in conflict with that constitutional prohibition,
he says that he should be bound by
this higher law, and he would disregard the
Constitution of his country ; he would disregard
the oath which he has taken to support it before
he took his scat here ; and he would vote for
that admitted unconstitutional act?the abolition
of slavery within the States of tliis Union. I
think, then, Mr. President, that I am right in
assuming that no other senator upon this floor
v^ould have offered tho proposition upon which
I am now about to comment; because it is in
every one of its features directly subversive of
every constitutional provision in reference to the
formation of States.
Mr. SEWARD, (interposing.) Will the Senator
allow me a word of explanation?
The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from
Maryland yield the floor?
Mr. PRATT assented.
Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, I distinctly
deny that I have ever, on this floor or elsewhere,
maintained one solitary principle of all the principles
which have been put in my mouth, and
charged upon me by the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. PRATT. Why, sir, then the honorable
Senator should be very much obliged to mo for
giving him an opportunity of denying what is
universally believed here. Does the Senator
deny that ho has said and reiterated here thai
there is n law above the Constitution, which he
felt bound to obey ? Does he deny that ?
Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir, I deny that.
[Mr. S. states that he understood Mr. P. to
have added the words " when it conflicts with
the Constitution," and replied accordingly.?
Rf.p.]
Mr. PRATT. Then, sir, he denies, Mr. President,
wluit every man knows he has said. 1
have heard him say it over and over again; and
the Senator's denial does not make untrue what
I assert I have heard him say, that there was a
higher law.
Mr. SEWARD, (in his seat.) I do not deny
that.
Mr. PRATT. I call upon every Senator who
1 i. *1 c3 4 xt,,,..
iit*u.r? me iu nay wuvuicr wit? ucimtvi iium ncn
York dil not say there was a higher law; a
higher law than the Constitution, whieh he felt
bound to obey when it came in conflict with the
Constitution.
Mr. SEWARD, (in his seat.) I did not.
Mr PRATT. I call upon any Senator upon
this floor, other than the Senator from New
York, to deny that he said so.
Mr. BALDWIN. As the appeal lias been
made to other Senators, I must say, simply, that
I did not understand the sentiment uttered by
the Senator from New York as it has been stated
by the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. POOTE, (in his seat.) Every body else
did.
Mr. PRATT. I do not know what the Senator
from Connecticut means by this disavowal.
If he means that my commentary upon what the
senator has said is not exactly correct, that may
be so. But the senator cannot deny that he
heard the senator from New York say there was
a higher law than the Constitution, which he felt
bound to obey when it came in conflict with the
Constitution.
Mr. BALDWIN. I happen not to have a copy
of the speech of the Senator from New York
here, and I cannot of course be expected to
give the precise words. I understood the senator
to state that there was a higher law than
the Constitution, which was in hanrouy with the
provisions of the Constitution.
Mr. PRATT. Now, Mr. President, it will be
in the recollection of every one who hears me,
that in the second speech which was made by
the senator from New York?one which di.>
played all that preparation which I think every
senator should give to everything they are about
to utter in this body?which, if it had been displayed
in a better cause, would liavo been worthy
of his country?he reiterated the sentiment contained
in his first speech, and there uttered the
sentiment I have stated, that there were two
antagonist principles ingrafted originally in the
Constitution, and those two antagonist principles
were the alleged equality of man and the principle
of domestic slavery?the recognition of
domestic slavery.
Now, Mr. President, he avowed further, and I
think every one will agree with me, that whenever
these antagonist principles of which he was
speaking eaine In eonniet in the Constitntion, the
higher law wonld be obeyed by him in preference
to the Constitution itself. 1 have spoken
of this matter to all the friends of that senator,
and this is the first time I have ever beard any
one say he understood him differently from what
I have stated. I have mentioned it to them with
the announcement of the intention upon my
part to move the expulsion of that senator as a
member of this body. I have Hsted that when
that aerator took Ma watlwrt, ha Was bound, as
we were, to comply with tUt article of the Constitution
which says that senators, before they
take their seats, shall swear to support the Constiution.
I have said to them that if, when he
came to the book to take that oath, if he had
refused to tnkc the oath, he could not have taken
his seat; or if he had promulgated to the Senate
the reservation which he now makes, or has
hitherto mode, with reference to this superior
law, so us to make invalid that oath, there is not
a senator that would have permitted him to take
it. Therefore, sir, if he had not concealed
his understanding of the obligations which he
was about to take upon himself, ho would not
have been permitted to take his seat here. I
contended for this with his friends, and none of
them said I was wrong in the facts. I contended
that with these opinions we ought to turn him
out of the body, as he never should have taken
a sent hero.
Mr. President, I now come to the amendment,
which b this:
Insert after the word "That," in the first line,
the following:
"NewMexico shall, on proclamation by the President
of the United States, be admitted aa a State
into this Union, on an equal footing with the original
States. Provided, That the President, before
issuing such proclamation, shall be satisfied
that the conatitution recently framed by the convention
of New Mexico has been approved and
ratified by the people of New Mexico in the election
held fbr the purpose of considering it on the
90th of June last. "I
Here then, sir, ia a proposition that Congress
should admit New Mexico as a State into this
Union with a constitution which Congress has
never seen, establishing boundaries not Known to
the Senate or to any one else; that we should direct
the President of the United States to proclaim the
admission of New Mexico as a State, with whatever
boundaries she may choose to assume, even
if they include half or two-thirds of Texas, and
whether that constitution is republican in its form
or not,provided he shall believe that the people of
New Mexico are willing. Therefore, if tliey have
established a government not republican in its
form?a kingly government?the provision of the
Constitution which says that we shall admit no
State which is not republican in its form, or, if by
its .boundaries it includes a part of Texas, dipt
provision of the Constitution which prohibits separating
from the limits of any State, without the
assent of that State, are to be disregarded, and
New Mexico is still to be admitted as a Stale by
proclamation, although she does separate parts of
other States without the assent or those States,
and although her constitution may not be in a republican
form. Am 1 not right then, in saying
that no one?except the Senator from New York
?entertaining his opinions could submit a proposition
like tnis? Am I not right in saying that
there is no Senator upon this floor?and 1 ask the
yeas and nuys to see if there is any one?who will
vote for an amendment directly violative of these
two clauses of the Constitution to which I have
referred ?
Mr. President, I have desired upon all occasions,
and I am sure that it is still my determination
to cultivate towards my brother Senators feelings
of harmony and respect, so far as I am capable
of entertaining them. I will not say?1 will
not pretend to say?that such feelings can be entertained
by me with reference to such a proposition
as this, or to the member of the Senate who
made it.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President
The PRESIDENT. Did the Senator from
Maryland ask for the yeas and nays ?
mv pratt v^. <.;*
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have a request
The PRESIDENT. The Senator will suspend
until it is ascertained whether the yeas and nays
are ordered.
The yeas and nays were then ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. After the yeas and nays are
ordered, the request that I have to make caunot
be complied with. I meant merely to ask the
Senator from New York whether it would not be
better for him to withdraw his proposition.
Mr. CLAY, (in his seat.)- I object.
Mr. PR All, (in his seat.) The yeas and
nnys have been ordered.
Mr. SEWARD. If there is any proposition I
have ever made, any measure I have ever proEosed,
which I am willing to stand by here,
eforc the country and the world, it is the prorisition
I have now submitted. Therefore, though
stand alone, I shall be content, convinced that
I stand right.
I do not propose to reply to what is personal to
myself in the remarks of the honorable Senator
from Maryland. I have nothing of a personal
character to say. There is no man in this land
who is of sufficient importance to this country
and to mankind to justify his consumption of five
minutes of the time of the Senate at this period of
the discussion with personal explanations relating
to himself. When the Senator made his remarks,
1 rose to express t,o him the fret that he was under
a misapprehension. The speeches which I have
made here, under a rule of the Senate, are recorded,
and what is recorded lias gone before the people,
and will go, worthy or not, into history. I leave
them to mankind. I stand by what I have said.
That is all I have to say upon that subject.
The Senator proposes to expel me. I am ready
to meet that trial; and if I am expelled, I shall not
be the first man subjected to a punishment for
maintaining that there is a power higher than
human law, and that power delights in justice;
that rulers, whether despots or elected rulers of a
free people, are bound to administer justice for the
benefit of society. Senators, when they please to
bring me for trial, or otherwise, before the Senate
of the United States, will find a clear and open
field. I ask no other defence than the apeecnes
upon which they propose to condemn me. The
speeches will read for themselves, and they will
need no comment from me.
Mr. President, the objection which is made to
the interposition which I have submitted to the
Senate is this : that it may bring into the United
States a royal or kingly government. Sir, here is
the constitution of New Mexico, sent to me by
one who attended the convention of New Mexico.
I have just as good evidence to satisfy me that this
is the real constitution of New Mexico as I had to
BatisfV me that the honorable Senator from Maryland
had been elected a member of this branch of
legislature when I heard his credentials read.
Now, sir, 1 am prepared to answer the only argument
of the honorable Senator from Marylnnd
against the admission of New Mexico, which is,
that the constitution of New Mexico may be one
creating a kingly government, if the honorable
Senator does not disdain to examine a constitution
J not officially laid before the Senate. It begins
I with these words :
"We, the people of New Mexico, in order to
establish iuristice, promote the welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to
oujrposterity?"
Tnis, so ntr, is the language of the Constitution
of the United States. Tnen it proceeds to utter
what the senator from Maryland will consider a
dangerous heresy :
"Acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness
of th' sovereign Ruler of the Universe, and
imploring his aid and direction, in its accomplishment,
do ordain and establish the following constitution."
We see that here are a people who acknowledge
* hic-her nnufr than the Constitution.
Sir. PR A'W', (interposing.) Does the Senator
mean to my that I consider that a heresy ?
Mr. 8EWARD. I aay that the aenator characterized
what I aaid aa hereay when I txpressed
precisely thia opinion.
Mr. PRATT. Will the Senator yield the floor
a moment?
Mr. SEWARD. Certainly ; but I give the
aenator notice that I ahall make no anawer.
Mr. PRATT. Mr. Preaidenl, when one asaerta,
I am aorry to say, what he knows to be untrue
Several Sknatori. Order! order!
Mr. PRATT. 1 beg pardon, Mr. PresidentMr.
SEWARD. I hope the aenator may be
permitted to proceed.
Mr. PRATT. I was ahout to say that when a
senator makes an application to myself which is
[not correct, with theassertion upon the part of
that senator that nothing I can say will induce
him to replyi I feel that proper respect to myself
should induce me to say notning.
Mr. SEWARD. These people of New Mexico
then say that they hare " established a government
for the purpose of establishing justice, securing
the blessings of liberty for themselves and
for posterity, and that tfisy acknowledge the superintending
power of the sovereign Ruler of the
Universe, and invoke His blessing."
Mr. DAYTON. It is no part of my duty to
make any comment upon any course which any
senator may think in his best j idgment to be advisable
; but I cannot but feel that when we are acting
jointly in reference to a particular measure we
have something in common, and that there is
something due to each other ; and it seems to me
that it would have been better if the senator from
New York had consulted the views of those who
have concurred generally in their action upon this
measure, and have avoided offering this proposition
at this lime. This amendment belongs altogether
to a different line of policy, and the whole
effect of offering it at this time is to put the vote
before the country infinitely feebler than if the
proposition were to stand alone. Why, sir, 1
cannot vote for this aroendmend, while at the
same time I do not want to vote against the admission
of New Mexico as a State, as an alternative.
I cannot vote fbr this amendment to the
bill; and I put it to the senator from New York,
what is the effect of this amendment, supposing
you pass it, and incorporate it in this bill? Why,
sir, you adopt your own amendment, and this
i;?,? ~r . i .u? ...,i
iiinui iimc vi pviiujr y nuu iiic aciimvi uiiiiovii aim
others will have to vote against the omnibus bill.
Now, in what position are we placed? I subir't,
with very great respect, that it would have been
better ana easier not to have mixed up this question
with the omnibus bill. Let us stand alone
upon our own or a different policy. I do not
wish to vote for this bill. I do not wish to vote
against the admiision of New Mexico us a State,
under proper circumstances, as a mere alternative.
But I urn unwilling to vote for this amendment
for another reason. I do think this matter is premature.
I am unwilling to transfer to the President
of the United States, or to any other power
on earth, that right which the Constitution has
imposed upon us to judge whether the Constitution
of a State offering herself here is republican
or not. The Constitution of the United Slates
mukes it necessary that Congress should pronounce
upon that question. How, in the name
of God, can we transfer that Constitutional duty
to the Executive, and then satisfy our consciences
and our Constitutional obligations to that Constitution?
I cannot do that yet.
Again : I am unwilling to place the onus of
judging the question of boundary, and other provisions
of tlus Constitution, upon the President.
This amendment only says, that if the President
shall be satisfied that the people of New Mexico
have approved of some constitution, (what constitution
it does not say, and we do not know, because
the paper from which the senator has read
hns no official character,) he shall admit them as a
State by proclamation.
Mr. President, I regret very much that the senator
should have felt it his duty to embarrass us
in this matter. I do not complain of it, because
he has exercised only his Just and legitimate rights
upon this ffoor. The effect of this thing is to
drive those to vote against New Mexico, with the
admission of California, who, if the question were
separated and stood alone, and she, with her republican
constitution, properly authenticated,
came forward, would feel themselves bound to vote
for it. I cannot vote for her in this bill, because
if the amendment were adopted, you would drive
a large number of Senators to vote against it. It
is for these reasons I would very much have preferred
it, if it would have suited the senator, to
have had this proposition withdrawn.
Mr. SEWAkD. I regret very much that the
senator from New Jersey has been embarrassed
by this proposition. He sees that I have not the
Sower now to withdraw it, however much I might
esire to do so. At the same time I do not find that
difficulty in the case which seems to lie in the senator's
way. He says he must examine the Constitution
for himself, Rnd not delegate it to the
President of the United States. I have referred
nothing to the President of the United States, but
to ascertain as a historical fact, whether the constitution
has been ratified by the people of New
Mexico, in a convention held on a certain day for
that purpose. The constitution will then come
up for our adoption. 1 stated in the outset that
it was not myself who was responsible for the
premature presentation of the proposition that
this bill, if it passes, is a bill to shut the doors
against New Mexico when she shall come with
her constitution here in her hands, and with her
delegates here, to maintain and support her rights.
She is turned adrift without making her appearance,
and therefore it in that I am prepared, for
one, upon the information I have, to go for
her admission in order to secure her rights.?
Other senators may act as they in their discretion
may think right and proper. They will have
their own reasons, I have no doubt to justify
themselves and their constituents in regard to the
vole they shall give.
Mr. HALE. I concur with the honorable senator
from New Jersey, in what he has said in regnrd
to the amendment of the senator from New
York, sea reason fbr not voting for it. I cannot
vote for the proposition for another reason which
he has notudverted to; and that is,because those of
us who have contended against the piling of incongruous
measures in one bill should preserve our
consistency, if it is worth preserving, (I do not myself
consider it of any very great value,) and go
against increasing the load; for if California's back
was bent by what was already piled upon it, this
ftftrtiiinlv wmiltl nnt litrhlAn trap liurtlpn P1nr
that reason I would have preferred that this proposition
should have been presented in a different
shape.
But there is one remark of the senator from
Maryland that I wish to advert to. I do not know
that 1 understood the precise offence which the
senator from New Yorlc has committed, for which
the honorable senator from Maryland luui suggested
his expulsion. If it be the announcement
that there was a higher law than the Constitution,
and which we are bound to obey at all times and
at all hazards, I myself ought to be expelled, because
I belietfe it. I thought when tne Senate
went into the choice of a chaplain to perform the
ceremony of offering prayer and supplication,
that we did recognize that there was a higher
Power over us, ana I have not heard of late years
that it was a crime to recognize a power higher
than human power.
Mr. PRAtT, (in his seat.) No one denies
that.
Mr. HALE. I do remember, recorded in ancient
and sacred history, an occasion somewhat
analogous to this. It is recorded that on a certain
occasion the princes and governors and mighty
men of the realm got together, and suggested to
the king of Babylon to publish a decree that whoever
should put up any prayer or petition to any
other than the king, for the space of three days,
(it was limited to three days only, let it be remembered,)
should be cast into a den of lions; and I
have not heard that the decree was enforced but
three days. The operation was such that it never
was renewed in the kingdom of Babylon; and 1
have never heard of any country, civilized orsa
vage, where it has been a crime to Acknowledge,
an individual* or na members of an organized government,
that there is a power higher than your
Constitution?that there is a King of Kings, and
a Lord of Lords, before whose face the stubborn
pride of the republic must bend the knee.
Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President, will the senator
allow me to ask him?
Mr. HALE. I will get through in a moment.
Mr. FOOTE. It is only a short question.
Mr. HALE. How, sir, I wish this thing to be
put distinctly before us. 1 wish we might, as individuals,
understand whether it is necessary to
a seat on this floor for us to put the provisions of
our Constitution above the behests or the King of
Kings. What an idle mockery it is to stand up
and reverently kiss the Holy Book, and call upon
Him to help ua to maintain Ua precepts, when in
our hearts we maintain that our Constitution is j
above even Hia supreme authority! Sir, if this'
is crime,) am criminal. If the Senate is to be expur-:
Kted of every body who believes that sentiment,,
I the worl< commence, and Jet it commence pq*'. j
s?,??
1 I
" Tba I<*ikban* PNM/'-Tri-WMUr
U published udTuesday*. Tbumdayi and Saturday*
of sack wah.
" Th$ South?rn Pina,"?Weekly,
I* published every Iduday.
! " ~~
WTUTIIUIO UTII.
For one square of 10 lines, three insertions, f 1 Ob
? every eubseqdent insertion, tS
Liberal deductions mad* on yuarly advertising.
(p Individuals may forward the sonant of tbsir
subscriptions at ou risk. Address, (post-paid)
ELLWOOD FISHER,
Washington City.
Let the preamble show what ia the offence of which
they are guilty; that ia, that they believed, high ami
exalted as the sentiments^ they entertain of the
wisdom ami power of the Constitution which our
fathers fbrmed; that they irreverently believed
that there was a Power higher even than that
power to which republicans as welt as kings must
dow in submission. If it be a crime, air, I plead
guilty to it. I will not put the senator from Ma
ryianu nor any oouy eise 10 meirouoie 01 proving
it. 1 admit it; I believe it. Sir, I believe that
you have no right even to bring the supremacy of
your republic into conflict with the commands of
the Most High. I believe that sentiment in ita
broadest sense, and I have heretofore supposed
that in the action of our government, nnd the
sentiment of our government, we had not
vet, in the plenitude of ottr power and in the unbridled
slate of our pride, come to that pitch of
presumption that it was to be considered an offence
against the Constitution to bow rererently
to the power of the Most High.
Mr. PRATT. It is a very easy matter, sir,
when an argument based upon one state of facts is
made, to answer it by making an argument upon
another state of facts which was never dreamed of
by the party who made the argument in the first
case. Does the Senator from New Hampshire
say in his place that he understood me to say I did
not believe in a supreme power?that 1 objected to
the Senator from New York for looking to a suKreme
power as a higher law than any human
iw! Did the Senator so understand me ? Ha
knows he did not; and yet he has got up here, in
the manner in which he usually arguea, using a
set of phrases which, however, well they may
suit certain occasions, and however they may exhibit
the talents of the author of them, will not
apply to every occasion, and have not just as much
application to one state of focta as another. He
assumes the facts to suit the phrases, and not hia
speech to suit the fhcts
Now, sir, I never raid ; nnd I am sure there is
not a Snnator who hears me who does not believe
that I have a higher respect for that Supreme
Power whose name is so frequently desecrated
her# than the senator from New Hamnshire*
Mr. HALE. Order!
[The Reporter feels called upon to state that he
understood the Senator to say " whose name is so
frequently desecrated by the senator from New
Hampshire," and so he took down the words at
the instant they were utteted ; but upon further
reflection, considering that the sentence would
have been incomplete by inserting the preposition
" by." and that by the Senator's letting his voice
fall after the word " New Hampshire "he intended
to flnish the sentence, the reporter is forced to the
conclusion that his ear was mistaken.]
The PRESIDENT. The Senator must not
make any reflection.
Mr. PRATT. I have not made any.
Mr. HALE. I call the Senator to order.
Mr. PRATT. I have yet to learn that telling
the truth is out of order.
The PRESIDENT. The Senator will take his
seat until the question of order is stated by the
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. HALE. I understood the gentleman to
say that I frequently desecrated the name of the
Most High.
Mr. FOOTE, (in his seat.) He did not say so.
The PRESIDENT. The Senator from New
Hampshire will reduce the words to writing.
Mr. HALE, having reduced the words to writing,
passed them to tnc Chair.
The PRESIDENT. The words, as written
down bv the Senator from New Hampshire, are
that " the name ofjthe Most High is frequently
desecrated by that Senator."
Mr. HALE. I have not had time to put down
the connexion in which they occurred, but that
in a part of the language I understood him to
utter.
Mr. PRATT. 1 said " so frequently desecrated
in the Senate."
Mr. CHASE. May I be allowed to suggest
that the words heard by the Senator from New
Hampshire were "so frequently desecrated here?"
The PRESIDENT. The Chuir will make its
decision, and then it will be in order for gentlemen
to appeal from it if they choose. The words
set down oy the senator from New Hampshire,
applying a remark of this character to an individual
senator, would certainly be out of order; but
the Chair did not so understand the senator from
Maryland, or he would have frit it his duty to call
hint to order, as the Chair rarely shrinlcs from
what he believes to be a discharge of his duty.
Mr. HALE. I hope it will De understood by
the Senate that the words I have taken down
were not intentionally misunderstood. I put
them down as they struck my ear. and the ears of
several gentlemen in my vicinity."
Mr. PRATT, (resuming.^ Now, Mr. President,
the higher law of which I spoke was not the
Divine law to which the Senator refers; and before
they can apply that Divine law so as to suffer
the Senator with whom this dispute originated to
be exempted frbm the position in which he is
placed, his advocates here must a sume this : that
the Constitution of the United States is violative
of that law?that here is the Constitution of the
United States, which violates the law of the Supreme
Being, and that therefore a person may
swear to support that, although he does violate it
with the mental reservation that he is only to support
it so far as he does not violate it. Now, tne whole
result of the position in which the advocates
of the senator over the way place themselves
is the one which I have stated. I conceive that
his position is not altered for the better from that
which is taken by his advocates. Now, if the
senator from New Hampshire entertains and avows
the opinions as he now expresses them, and an
expressed by the senator who sits behind him,
[Mr Seward,] then if I make a motion to expel
the senator from New York, I shall include him
in the motion, and move to expel him also, with
the utmost pleasure in the world. [Laughter.]
Now, Sir, are we here acting fiiirly together as
?euais ? I look at the Constitution of the country.
see nothing in it violative of any law which I am
pledged to obey in preference to it. Senators say
that the portion of the Constitution of the United
States wnich protects the master in the property
of his slaves is violative of the supreme law, and
that the supreme law being higher than the Constitution,
they are bound to obey it. Now I nay
that the honorable senator who entertains that
opinion, has not properly qualified himself to be a
member of this body, and should not be permitted
to remain here.
Mr. HALE. I ask the senator from Mary
land when he erer heard me say so i
Mr. PRATT. Say what?
Mr. HALE. That I held that part of the Con titution
which recognizes the holding of slaves as
property as contrary to the Divine law, and did
not feel bound to support it.
Mr. PRATT. I never heard the senator from
New Hampshire say so. But this brings me back
to the remark with which 1 commenced'?that the
senator argued that that was the higher taw of
which he spoke. He argued against me, and
wanted to hold my course up to rebuke, because I
stated an opinion which he denies and says he never
entertained. I stated that he so understood
me, and he knew he so understood me: and yet
he seemed desirous of staking a remark by which
it might go out to the world and break the effect
of the remarks I made, leaving the impression
that ( had a want of respect to the Supreme Being,-as
if I were some sacrilegious person who
had nor espect fbr that Supreme Being for whom
he professes trt entertain so profound a respect.
I will not detain the Senate longer upon this subject.
I started with the proposition that there m
contained in the speeches of the honorable senator
from New Yore, as he spoke?and I believe as
they have been written out since and printed?this
proposition : that there is a law higher than the
Constitution of the United States; and although
he has swom to support that Constitution, yet
that it violates this higher law, and he ianot bound
to stand by it at all. Now, the senator from Connecticut,
in his exposition of what the senator
from New York meant, said that it was a higher
law in harmony with the Constitution. Why, we
all believe in that Jaw. We alt believe?1 do most
sincerely and humbly?in the truth of that position,
as promulgated upon earth from Heaven.
Now, the senator say* UMU be understood the senator
from New York so to roafine his remarks as
to make that application of it to that higher levy
e fourth page,