Newspaper Page Text
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,