Newspaper Page Text
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
THE COMPROMISE BILL. Tuesday, June 18, 1850. On motion of Mr. Cut, the Senate proceeded to the con sideration of the bill for the admission of California into the Luton, the establishment of Territorial Government* for I tali and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the settlement of her northern and western boundary. The qui st on pending was on an amendment to the 1st aecUon, offered by Mr: Hah yesterday, as follows : " New States, not exceeding two in number, of convenient size, and having sufficient population, inay hereafter, by the consent of the said State of California, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal constitution." Mr. Foots moved to amend the amendment by adding thereto, after the word "constitution," the following : . " With or without slavery, as the people of s^id State a?k ing admission ma) desire." Mr. BERRIEN. I hope the amendment to the amend ment may prevail. The original amendment ol the Senator from New Hampshire only affirms a constitutional right. It only reaffirms that clause of the constitution. It givei to Congrei-s the power of admitting new States with the assent of the State or States out of which the said new State is to be formed. The amendment to the amendment gives to the people the right to determine their own institutions. That is a principle which cannot be too often affirmed, and I there fore trust it will be adopted. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I presume that it will not be necessary to have a vote on the amendment to the amendment. I presume that the Senator from New Hamp shire will accept it. He announced yesterday that he had otiered his amendment in the language of the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. But, on looking over those reso lutions, I find that the Senator, in his amendment, has omit ted the words now proposed to be inserted, by accident. I presume, therefore, that the Senator fiom New Hampshire will accept the amendment, so as to make it in the precis words of the resolutions tor the annexation of Texas?he having announced yesterday that he had couched his amend ment in the words of those resolutions. , Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I am surprised at the sug gestion of the honorable Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Bkr niEjr.) He says, if I understood him, that the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Footi) is necessary, because it is an affirmation of a right; and that mine is unne cessary, because it is the affirmation of a constitutional right. I understood yesterday that it was conceded by those who ad vocated the amendment of the honorable Senator from Lou isiana (Mr. Socle) that it was the mere affirmance of a constitutional right. If that was the mere affirmance of a constitutional right, it should have been objectionable on the same ground as the amendment which I have offered. But I think that the honorable Senator from Georgia (Mr. Bsn bieh) will see that there is a wide difference. California, if she is any thing, or if she will be any thing by the time we have got through with this bill?which, by the way, I do not see any great prospect of very soon?will be a State of the L nion. Then it will not do for the Congress of the United States to interfere by saying what institutions shall be en j.oyed within the limits of a particular State. This is not a 1 erritory. Here is a State, and it would seem to me to be a work of supererogation to say what institutions shall be en joyed within the limits of an organized State. However, I am not particular about this amendment, and, if there be no objection, I will withdraw it. Several Seetatobs. It cannot be withdrawn. Mr. CLA\. I object to the withdrawal of the amend ment, and ask for the yeas and nays on it. Mr. HALE. Gentlemen seem to be in rather too great a Lurry. I did not tay that I wished to withdraw the amend ment. I merely said that if there was no objection I would withdraw it. I am certainly not at all anxious to withdraw it. It any gentleman thinks be can spring a trap on me by calling the yeas and nays, I can tell him that he is mistaken. I am peifectly willing to answer to my name as long as the yeas and nays may be called. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the Senator that, if he desires to withdraw the amendment, a majority'can grant the privilege. Mr. HALE. I have not the least desire to withdraw the amendment. The question being r.n the ameniment to the amendment, the yeas ar.d nays were ordered. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise simply to stale tnat I am entirely opposed to the adoption of the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire. It eeems to me that it is the mere affirmation of a constitutional right. Whenever the people of California chose to apply lor the consent of Congress to form a new State wiihin their limits, Congress can give that assent, and the thing can be done. I have the same objection to bejng called upon to act in advance on this subject, as I had yesterilay on the amend ment of the honorable Senator from L ouisiana, (Mr. Socle.) I am, therefore, opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi; and I am opposed to it for the same reason, and for other reasons, which I urged yesterday. Mr. BERRIEN. I apprehend that, however unneces sary it may be, there can be no objection to the af firmance of a constitutional principle. The right of the people of the States to be formed out of California with her consent, to govern themselves, cannot be doubted. The right of the people of California to form a new State within their limits, wi'h the consent of Congress, cannot be doubted. I here can be no objection, however, to asserUng the right of any people to frame their local institutions so as to suit them selves. I trust, therefore, that the amendment to the amend ment will be adopted. Mr. CHASE. I agree, Mr. President, with what has been raid by the Senator from Georgia, that there can be no objection to the affirmance of a constitutional principle. But I am opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Missis sippi, (Mr. Fuote,) and wish now to state, briefly, the dis tinction which appears to me to be obvious, between the pro position into which his amendment would convert the amend ment of the Senator from New Hampshire, and the propor tion voted upon yesterday. That proposition related to the erection of States out of Territories. The proposition of the Senator trom New Hampshire is. that Congress shall authorize the erection of two new States out of California, after her admission as a State into the Union. She will come in free, for slavery is clearly prohibited within her limits. Mr. BERRIEN. But she may repeal that prohibition. Mr. CHASE. So she may. And when she does, a pro position that States to be erected thereafter within her limits ahall be admitted, with or without slavery, will not be without ? precedent. But, at present, the prohibition stands; and yet the Senator from Mississippi proposes that slave States may be carved out of this free State, if the people of the parts to be created into States so elect. This is not the case pre sented to us yesterday. Mr. President, the annexation resolutions contained a pro vision that States created out .of Texas south t>f 36 deg. 30 min. may come in with or without slavery, as thev may pre fer. Why - Obviously, because slavery existed in Texas Bouth of 36 deg. 30 mm. And Congress was willing to give to future States within those limits an option to continue or abolish the system, the free exercise of which should consti tute no barrier to admission. But this amendment would provide that States created out of a free State may come in with slavery. Its adoption would, in my judgment, be insult ing to California ' What would be thought of a proposition that a new State should be created within the limits of Ohio, P/:nn!,ylvani?. or ^ew York, with an option to come into the L nion as a free State or a slave State, as the Convention framing its constitution might determine > Would it not be discrediublc to the people of these States to suggest even that ey were prepared to exchange the institution of freedom for that ot slavery > I voted yesterday ag.iinst the proposition of the Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Socle ) I did not regard it as a aim pie affirmation cl a constitutional principle. Far from it. It went beyond the constitution. That instrument declares that new S.ates//iay be admitted by Congress into this Union." A distinct section provid.s that "the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government. J here is no provision in the constitution that I know of, declaring that Congress shall admit new States 1 without condition, other than that their governments be re publican in form. On the contrary, I have minread, greatly misread the language of the frames of that instrument, if it was not intended that the whole matter of the admission of new States should l>e entirely within the sound discretion of Congress. Sir, the original policy of this Government was to create ?nd admit free States?not slave States. That is clear, if any thing is cJeai. That is certain, if any thing is certain. A refusal to admit a slave State would merely restore this origi nal policy. Every way, thru, this amendment seems to me to be wrong, arid its adoj ti< u, in my judgment, would be a wrong to California. I am in favor of the original proportion so far ?a it merely re-effirms a principle of the constitution. I am ready, upon any proper occasion, to re-affirm a principle of the constitution, or to re-enact the will of God. Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President, I beg leave to suggest to the honorable S.nator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) that he has committed a great error in one respect. He asserts that the proposition whxh I submitted lo the Senate was insulting to California. Now, in the first place, I am incapable of prac tising any thing like insult to any State or Territory of this Lnion. But, secondly, the Senator did not make out his ci-e. I should lik?' hirn to explain how it is that the simple indulgence of the supposition that a Territory now claiming admission as a free State may hereafter, upon ascertaining that her cl inaie and soil and mineral producti >ns are of a na ture to make it hi neticial to her to introduce slavery wiihin her limits, how ig it that such a supposition can be insulting to California ' It cannot be insulting, unless there is something in the system of domestic (livery intrinsically degrading. And do not presume tbat the honoisble Senator will assert that. I do not believe that he would undertake to insult us and the ^fates we repiesent by expressing the opinion that the slave ' late* of (his Confederacy are not as respectable as the free tates. I do not presume he would make any such declaration of opinion. How, I ask, can it be insulting to California to ex press the opinion that she may hereafter possibjy alter her in ? sUtutions > . The honorable Senator says that it is insulting to the peo ple of California to suppose that they will change their civil institutions. Why, the people of California have lately adopt ed new civic institutions ; and I take it for granted that they like the people oi the rest of the republic, will from time to tune change their organic law in such manner as time and experience may dictate to be politic. On the other hand, I think it would be insulting, grossly insulting, to the people of C alifornia, to suppose that they would live under a constitution so hastily adopted, however skilfully framed, forever, without auv amer dment of it whatever. It woulJ be certainly in sulting to them to suppose that their laws, like those of the Medea and Persians, are to remain forever unchanged, while the whole world is in a state of progress ; while science and arts are all advancing ; while the science of government, in particular, in eveiy part of the world, in both hemispheres, is advancing with a celerity never heretofore known. C honorable Senator from Ohio supposes that the people ot California are so utterly stupid, so ignorant, so credulous, so bigoted, as to have resolved never hereafter to change their political institutions. If there be aiy point at all to the Senator s argument, he must mean either that the people of California should live under their present constitution un changed, for all time to com*, or he supposes that the simple introduction of tj?e institutions now existing in the South would th\uhAonC' nd!Lrading ,he ^?P,e of California. I know Lm . rl!!? 2*n,tor w,n not undertake to maintain this Utter proposition. He may throw out dark innuendoes, which mean something in one part of the country, and something very diflerent or nothing in another, but I must confess that the gene* ra! demeanor of the Senator here has been so strikingly suewhTof h nr"h8,*ndin* certain ra,ber offensive speeches of his delivered here, that I had certainly formed the opinion that he would be very far from offering'a deliberate States ? US ?n 'h'S Wh? ar? rePre*enting slave . ;VJr;. ,Mr.' -President, it seems to me that it is ut Sk , ? ? bringing up these hypothetical questions lor the consideration of the Senate. Mr. FOOTE. This question was not first raised by me. HaTT/ Senator from New Hampshire, (Mr. 1 knr ,hat ve7 wel1- But I object to this utxin th ' 0 Pr?ceed,n?* * will vote again.it it exactly Tuonlfr , ^ 1 TVOted ye8terday aKai,ist the pr-W-1 here ?2l f'T T Loui8'ana' 8octi.) We have th*,* ,k denominated an "omnibus" bill; and ri * ?,, fu, v.ee P,W3enf"K in "?California, the Territo tlemei ?f Texas' ""w honorable gen by way of T/polhesi" PUlU?g " manDer ?f Pa8?CDSer8' abo^s^T Cn?lged 'n ,he C5n8'Jf>ration of this subject silenie IK k ? W w'at hfireprofound have been anxious to have these matters brought to Honorahl .. W,8b1 10 866 When wil1 be terminated. Honorable gentlemen do not seem to be satined with consid " whether we sha" or shall not organize lemtonal Governments for New Mexico and Utah, but yesterday it was proposed to run ahead and anticipate the for wl w?/r!H ?Vernment8 for Ncw Mexico and Utah, e were called upon to consider what we would do, on the 'tk ! 7 W0U'd f?rm constitutions excluding sla ery. J hat was one branch of the alternative We were orm S,L pP?n l? COnside,r what we would do if they should rm tate Governments tolerating slavery. And I was called >n to fay yea or nay?to .ay whether I would admit them if hey passed a constitution tolerating slavery. I voted in the legative on that proposition. And nothing is to be inferred rom that vote except that I centered the proposition utterly' d.cu . us and one that ought not to be introduced to our con m Pr"eDt OCCMion' This ahead of #rd?V' BEREIEX- 1 woulJ the gentleman is in w riEk8,^fNT The *eD,,eman ? ?ot in or Mriji,u'"question before the Senate. iKinir \ \ i pardon : I did not mean to say any honorable member rhii.lt r ^n?W,* 'W WllJ understand tbat I meant no aay, in general terms, without referring to any one that if this may come before Congress in the remote future?if this aSStEtE ",U be t0ler4,ed here' We Canneverhave h11'6 CaUfd UROn by the h?norable Senator from State ofrSf"re.t0 ?OD8ider ,h* possibility of a division of the d? an ? n? i" 9?Ught by thst Sta,e at "ome remote callJTn Wh,Ch " not like|y cv" 'o hapj?en. We are Doi, h rnr,r^rfe0Ver' by the Sena,or from Mississippi, to sup the ni, t Va'u ?rDla 8ha" lH! divided '"to two or more Sta es, the people of the new States to be formrd out of her limi^ ill tolerate slavery. And then I am called on to say whe for thea 1 remote cantln"ency, I would or would not vote Z err 7TZt?\mCh int? ,he Union lolerati?8 slavery. I want to know what that has to do with the t rac S C: bef?re US- There are comingenS. Shi t T7 T'*'COn*ent t0 adivisi0? of her territory. i Congress may give their con oeoi'le m?v glVCa^nt, the convention of the n.?l ln,roduce a provision into their con maTKr avery- 11 mfly ,pn ypars hence ; it ? n ,ea" * ; 'l may ^ a hundred years hence I am totally opposed to this course of proceeding. I desire ^ha%e this bill expedited, although I do not suppose it will faised il'wf ? . i TC e ,flpM new <JUf?tion8 Sr , ha'e a" manncr?f hypotheses brought ?Ki k aK C"l,ed 00 t0 say whal we 8ha'? Jo in an ev?nt which may happen ten years hence, or fifty years hence or five hundred years hence, I desire to knJwhen we S to have an end to this thing' It may not receive the Ln^ion ?io! ?Tnn!h 0 K and lhen what wiI1 be our condi work d n ro Tn ? JU'y.We WiU h?ve t0 comracnce lhe Ca ifornk ^ i k6,,Up the <?Ue!5tion of lh? admission of the'oumryb wah^h?rriati0n bi'19' '"f lhe wholHegSaUon of a urnry, which remains unattended to. offhii binaVVSr?Wn- "? 0b9,acie in the of the passage Sfe ?"* M" l" Z\lZ orable ?2? ij"Jli?- " f. hon WMr? FOOTEa,iT' >ield him the< ^ but for a moment. The 'honSfabl'S^nalor^ay^that *,"7 an omnibus bill, and that there am 7 18 WM,. Th. i,.r tszirsm motiin60 HC ? bjUndary 9ue*tion. The omnibus is in who k' ,k l8a>'8 " 18 propowd in,rud? othtr pa'sengera - J? C- Ir. Hale) who has undertaken to stop this omnibus ^d to introduce offensive pa-sengers, who are likely io an'noy the IhiiT k 7 m the omnibu>- Now? what iiave I done > would ^nclTnedtoT *en,lenian-an/ humane man wouw be mcl ned to do. I propose to put another painter on bjard, and a perfectly decent one, who may expel the of fensive person, with a view to preventing his domg insult to the company if I may use sucK a figure? In othef wTds 'l have dispatched a weasel after a rat, not being able otherwise conveniently to accomplish the destruction of this pestife^ animal. .Now, if I am to blame for this, I am mistaken I have not pledged myself t0 vote for the amendment at ail. I have merely introduced thia passenger of mine to prevent.be K5?f T he fn,,or 'roD1 ?w Hampshire from doing nuachief. Uerefore, the Senator from Connecticut (Mi. Very well have spared me from his animadver One clsi i"? "re 7? * ?f P?litician'' 'n this country, i ? disposal! to exercise a little foreca,to ; the other Son%. h \T? '0f thC "nUciPa,ed ^ultiesin legisla tions to thifi"0!" ?r from Connecticut seems not to KinVn ? ? * mentioned class, but to the other. The ?n^he homri? ' M ?J an,iciPa,ive class is emb xlied , h,7P'y ?aj"n. "take time by the forel'Kk." The derstood^o'n 'r' h :>^0^"hl', Senator seems to Iwlonjr, are up 'hus "/ucfX/r UP?" 'u contr,r3r maxim, which runs vante<re i, f? /eust*re- He seems ?o think that much ad evemf ai n^r ; frT T l00king for"ard 81 H]l 10 fu,ure !tand him .oPk! i g for the "'me- In 0,hpr words, I under He^to^t^w1 >dT0Ca,e 0f th' ?? Plan refusal on our part t"' ,h*5?ui,l'y w,)l pr??per from an entire I thank tbe honorable^? "f^ ]^Uy" functions. sav thi? mu/*h r k i at?r having p?*rm:tted me to bn:"csrt r1 -t-v .Si'arr sts cr" 'bv v1"?"-"in Kquireil u.Uv'bl.',11'/'!1 Mr. 8MITH. Mr. President, I hid not the (lightest re ference in the world to the honorable Senator from Miasiasippi. I merely referred to the course of proceeding which hat been introduced by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, and whicb, in my judgment, is just as proper and just at sound as the proposition iniroduced the other day by the honorable Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Soon.) I did not complain of the Senator front Mississippi for offering hi* amendment. I referred, in general terms, to the introduction of mere hypo thetical propositions for our consideration, which have nothing to do with any practical matter before us. I spoke of that as consuming thp public time, and preventing us consummating this bill, and taking the sense of the Senate unon it. I do not know that I have been very fortunate in presenting my views to the 8enate, but they are substantially what I verily believe. We have, as I before remarked, in this bill, the question of California, the question of the Territories, and the question of the Texas boundary. Now, I am prepared to meet every proposition appertaining to those practical matters. But I do utterly resist every proposition which is merely supoosition, merely based on hypothesis ; which looks to the remote fu ture, which depends on contingencies which may never hap pen, and whicb is, after all, but declaring what a future Con gress?entirely competent to judge and act for themselves? shall do on these subjects. It was upon these grounds that I yesterday voted against the proposition of the honorable Sena tor from Louisiana, (Mr. Souiij) and it is not to be in ferred from that vote what my course would be, one way or the ether, in the event that we had the constitution of a State before us which either did or did not tolerate slavery, and I was called upon to say whether I would or would not'admit it into the I nion. By that vote, I simply intended to express the opinion that it was a question upon which the Senate ought not to act at the present time. I think exactly so of the proposition of my honorable friend from New Hampshire. California may not, and probably never will, seek a division of her territory. Congress may never agree to it. But if California should seek it, and Congress should agree to it, the convention of the people to form a constitution for themselves would never allow the toleration of slavery therein. ? \\ e are, therefore, Mr. President, called upon to express opinions by our votes on these questions depending on remote contingencies, and having nothing whatever to do with any practical question before the body. I will not occupy the time of the Senate further. Mr. CHASE. I hsve already said that I see no objection to the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, so far as it merely affirms a constitutional principle. But there is an objection to it, to which I intended to refer when last ap. It proposes to pledge the action of a future Congress, This, I apprehend, we caryiot do. So far as the amendment seeks to establish a compact between this Government and Califor nia, and the States proposed to be erected within h?r limits, ^vhich is to restrict the free extrcise of the discretion of a | future Congress in relation to tie admission of New States, so far, in my judgment, it seeks an object beyond our coasti' tutional power. We cannot fonsiitutionally bind the discre tion of a future Congress. One word in response to the Senator from Mississippi. My course of action hitherto has, I trust, sufficiently shown that while I shall ever naintaio, upon this floor, my own views with firmness and decision, I am incapable of any im proper imputation upon the motives or intentions of anv Senator. J Mr. RLSK. Mr. President, I merely wish to say a very few words. I shall vote for this amendment to the amend ment, and I wish to make it forever binding. It gives only to the people there, wben they may come to form a state con stitution, the right to frame their own government in every particular, or in other words, to form and give character to their own local government. The mischief that we have had for years past has resulted from an attempt on the pslrt of this Government to draw from the local Governments the powers which, by our constitution and system of government, ought to belong to them. That has been the difficulty. And now Congress, four or five thousand miles from California, is seek ing to give character and caste to her local institutions. It is beyond our power. National powers were all that were given to Congress. All other power was reserved to the local governments of the States. Whenever the powers of the local governments are withdrawn, those governments must be broken up, and then this Government would go. Here, with out any knowledge on the subject, merely because it is sec tional, the Congress of the United States are seeking to con trol the local Government of California at a distance from it and outside the powers granted by the constitution. Mr. HALE, i wish to occupy the attention of the Senate but for a moment. I am not the originator of amendments of this character. One was offered yesterday and adopt ed by a large majority, which in effect was merely a reaffirm ance of a constitutional principle; and, as the Senate had ven tured into that field of legislation, I thought it would be as well to engraft on the bill also the proposition I have offered in relation to California. This proposition the Senator from Connecticut, (Mr. Smith,) however, seems to think a ridi culous one, but being cautioned that he would not be in order in thus characterizing it, he qualified hi? remarks, so as to apply that^ term lo it as nearly as it was parliamentary to ex- j press it. The Senator also went on to denounce the'general course of proceeding in offering propositions of this kind as unstatMmanlike; but the Senator from Mississippi, CMr. too-rt,) evincing a dispositiort to take offence at this, the Senator from Connecticut withdraws from the danger of such a collision as that, and takes a safer horn of the dilemma- He pours all his wrath on my head, and says he meant no one , but the Senator from New Hampshire. He excepts from his censure the Senators from Louisiana (Mr. 8ocle) and Mis sissippi, (Mr. Foote,) who first started and are the fathers of this course of proceeding, and pours the whole of it upon the Senator from New Hampshire. The course of the Cenator remints me ol an old fable which I recollect seeing in the school b'K'ks, where a dog met a crow sitting on a sheen s head and picking it. Said he, "you would not dare to i.ick my head to. ?'Ah," replied the crow, "I know whose head I pick. The Senator from Connecticut, it seems to me, also evinces a choice as to the heads he picks, and not deeming it politic or prudent perhaps to go into the Senator* from-Loui siana or Mis*ie<ippi, he has given his denunciation a safer vent and turned it all upon my head. Well, I am content to take it, and I rose merely to congratulate the Senate and the coun try on the fact of having in this body a Senator whose abili ties, position, capacities, and statesmanship qualify him, with out assumption or the appearance of arrogance, to tell less distinguished men that their arguments do not amount even to decency, as was the case yesterday; or that their proposi tions are unstatesmanlike, as was the case to-dav. I think it a great safeguard both to the Senate and to the Nation, to havo a man thus qualified standing in the Senate to rebuke with safety to themselves and benefit to the nation, any of those exhibitions which evince a lack of statesmanlike de portment. Mr. SMITH. I believe every member of the body will bear me witness that I stated in express terms that the propo sition of the Senator from New Hampshire was just as proper to be brought before this body as the proposition of the Sena tor from Louisiana. I objected to the whole course of pro ceeding in this matter?to this bringing before us for our con sideration of merely hypothetical propositions. I cast nocen sure on the Senator from New Hampshire in particular, nor 1 ""?ogate to myself the right of censuring any member of this body. I claim no such privilege; but I have a right, as a member oflhis body, to complain of the introduction of to pics here which have nothing to do with the important and practical matters of legislation which we have before us. hen I rese to address the Senate, my object was merely to make an explanation, and not to occupy time. I meant to say to tbe Senate that I voted against the proposition before us yesterday oecau-e I regarded it as a mere hypothetical one, and to say that the proposition now pending is of the same character. I made no attack upon the Senator and cast no reproaches upon him. I am not in the habit of occupying the time of the body in long speeches; neither do I sxt up to utter witticisms or to indulge in sarcasms upon others. I have sat hpre all a!or.< listening to the Senator from New Hamp shire, who has had his full share of the public time, and has -rtV'T mu<ih ?J k a8an> ??ber of the i?,7 ik *i <"nLd 0ther ?emb?? of the Senate bring nto the bedy merely hypothetical questions, of no practical k9 an,humb e member of the body, one who has been s.ttmg here for six long months listening to the Senator. hiTLr P! e *"d and other Senators until S W ,e*haUBted l? lhe *ery degree, I foel that I Th?n?hi K u t?,0bjtC.t t0 thii C0Ur*> of proceeding. th?/? U. ' h" [)een mterrupted during all this time, noVb.ri r V m7 a[. r ' an'' yet thi* "omnibus bill" is the nnnTl wZ" comP'??? of this interruption to he public business, the Senator holds me up as an object for take thisr* ?' C?"rTP\ ?f th? Senate' The may take this course it he chooses, and I shall not complain. I arul mv nrtv k" '' ^ 1 h?**' an honMt and my only object was to express my disapproval of this nv? nn, [r?.cw!'iu,g- *cttre not u done with this bill; which inT ^Ure gpeeJy Ji"P?sition Of it-a result which can ne\er be attained if we are to engraft all these pr.v p~.uon. opo, ,1. ( .bill ,W?re, 4,i? ,l| 0f lhL, nay, if any man was to call upon me to say, in this connex T* mf injunctions of the sacred decalogue itself should be respected in the new Territories, I should vote against it. fenators say that they desire to re-a/firm the prin t? lL ? COn*",U'i0U.! , Where wi? be the end of" > to ""V"' Pr'RC,ple8 m, the C0M,i,uli?n in relation If A "I* raa* 5? on from now until the miJdle of August, and, 1 >ok,ng to future and remote contingencies, be daily called upon to say what we would do in this case and what in the other. In the mean time this bill would be delayed, and six weeks or two months ahead the distinguish ed Senator from Kentucky would still be found in his seat. ??n,,dw?^n and disposi tion. This IS what I complained of, and, under the circum rt*M^ATr'HfioV b0ku 0f Ph* 8?a,0r wa*undeserved. Mr. ATCHISON. Mr. President, I regret to we thisn. c.tcment [laughter,] and I rise merely to express . hope that the Senators from .New Hampehne and Connecticut w?.l not carry this maOer out of the Senate, [laughter,] and, a. was suggested some time since in another instance, I hope bjth gentlemen wdl gtve the Senate a pledge, or voluntarily go before ? justice of the peace end give a pledge to that effect. [L?ShSoTB. The Senator from Connecticut announced in the meat imposing manner, and apparency under the strong est feeling of apprehension, that the dog days were almost at hand, anl in the same breath he complained that whilst his patience J ad been oftentimes exhausted in listening to other speakers lere, he had himaetf not been allowed to enjoy an opportunity of addressing this body as often as he desired. Now, I congratulate the honorable gentleman that there w some consolation.,yet in store for him. As the dog-days are almoet at band, the honorable Senator should not have for gotten the eld maxim, (I trust he will permit me to repeat it without the least intention of disrespect to him,) " Every dog has his day." I trust the honorable Senator will hereafter be allowed, at least as early as the dog-days ahall come on, to participate in our debates here aa freely as hia own ambition can possibly desire. . The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Foots to the amendment of Ml1. Hali, and it was adopted^ Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Is that the amendment to di vide California into several 8tates > A SasiTOR. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. It atrikfs me to be rather premature. There is no State of California yet, still leas are limits adopted of what shall constitute her a State. If it is proposed to divide her territory before we know what is ita extent, it is taking time rather too far by the forelock. The proposition presupposes every thing, and is so much in ad vance thit I do not think it proper to consider it. * I Mr. iALE. Preciaely the same objection raised by the Senator from Mississippi will apply to the stipulations in re- j gard to Texas. At that time htr boundaries were unsettled and sh? was not a State. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Yes. Mr. HALE. She waa not a Stale of this Union, and her boundiries certainly were unsettled, and ju?t the same objec tions vould have applied to her then as are applied to this propoation in regard to California now. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. No, the casea are very differ ent. Texas was an independent State, with a certain part of he territory undisputed. Some part was in dispute, but the p?rt undisputed, and which did finally remain part of the State of Tex a*, ia still large enough to be divided. Mr. BERRIEN. There certainly ia a diversity between the case of Texas and California, as is suggested by the Sena tor from Mississippi. The boundaries of Texas were unas certained, however, and the United States had the right to as certain them. Now, the other objection made by the Sena tor from Mississippi would be operative with me, if the provi sion now attempted to be inserted in the bill could not be co temporaneoua with one describing and limiting the boundaries of California. But they are to go together, and one does not at all anticipate the other. I hope, therefore, that the Sena tor from Mississippi will not urge his objection to the amend ment, which, it seems to me, having been presented in this form, it is desirous should be adopted. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. The bill calls on me to vote in relation to this matter before the bill is passed ; therefore my votB will not be cotemporaneous with the admission of California aa a State ; it must precede that order of business. Then again I hope, ?he:i California is admitted, it will be with the exact limit? she should have as a State, and.no more. I for one certainly cannot consent to admit an empire on the Pacific, with a prohibition of slavery in its constitution, so that future States may be carved out of it under the moulding influence of that constitution. It is but another mode to ac complish the same end, and a more effectual one than the fa mous Wilmot proviso. Mr. KING. I myself had taken the same view of th? question as the Senator from Mississippi. I think that we should be a little cautious how we attempt to provide for the formation of any number of States out of this territory until we ascertain what is the extent of the legitimate boundaries of California. The objection which weighed on my mind at first, is, however, in some degree removed ; because, if we should fail (and if no other Senator will bring forward the proposition I shall) to limit the boundaries of California in applying to be admitted as a Slate, then it will become a ques tion whether we should. provide for the formation of new States or not. There is a diversity of opinion on this subject. Some are under the impression that, being so large, there ought to be provision made for the erection of new Statesfrom the territory hereafter. But, whether we make this provision j or not, Congress, if it gives its assent to the admission of California into the Union with her present limits, will always have the power to carve out new States; and the simple ques tion, therefore, here is, whether we shall make an expression of opinion on the subject that the present boundaries of California are too large, and therefore ought to be divided ; reserving to the people of . the different sections taken off, the power of coming into the Union with or without slavery as they may think proper. I agree that, by the present arrangement in California, the probabilities are greatly in favor of those uew States coming into the Union on the same principle which has | governed in California, because her constitution, applying as. it dees over the whole of the territory, will exclude all persons ( From going there who might be disposed to bring with them j :his description of property. I have ever said that, while I am , inxious to foim States of suitable size from this territory, I \ was willing to leave it to the people to say whether they would j tiave slavery of not. If they choose not to have it, I have no j uore objection to their admission into the Lnion on that ac- j :ount than if they had established the institution. I wish it | o be understood that gentlemen of the North are mistaken if j hey suppose that we of the 8outh are struggling in this matter , jvith a view to prevent the admission of a Slate into the u nion jecause its constitution prohibits slavery. No such thing. ( We neither wifh to dictate to nor to restrain them, but we wish , hem to act of their own volition, governed by what they be- j ieve to be best for themselves. And having so acted, on ; implying with the usual requisite*, and limiting themsefvea ,o a proper boundary, then I would say admit them. I am : greatly at a loss to decide whether it is best to take the amend-, nent as proposed or not. It amounts to nothing more than a leclaration of what may be done hereafter by the majiwity of Congress, with the assent of California, if admitted ; that is, j ;he forming out of her extended territory of new States. The ^ jnly difference ia, that it declares in advance to the people, , ;hus to be cut off with the assent of California, that they shall have the power of controlling their own internal affairs at the , .ime of their formation of a Slate constitution, without being Fc*tricted by any prohibition in the constitution of California. They will thus be enabled to ask their admission into the Union on an equality with other States, without any other . restriction on their sovereignty than is imposed by the consti- j ;ution of the United States. | On the whole, and in order to enable the Senator from ^ N'cw Hampshire to show whether he is in favor of bis own | intendment or not, I believe I shall vote for it, reserving to . rayself the right, as the bill may or not be modified hereafter, | .0 determine whether I will adhere to it or not. If the boun- j lary of California ahall be altered as suggested, then it will be necessary to strike out this amendment. I am for altering hat boundary, and I have no hesitation in saying that it | ihould be altered ; and I fear that unfortunately this slave juestion prevents us from doing what, under other circum itances, we would deem to be necessary ; and that is, to give o California such a boundary as would be reasonable and proper. They have a front on the Pacific greater in extent han the Atlantic coast from Maine to North Carolina. I hink, if gentlemen would look at it coolly and dispassionate- j y, they cannot fail to come to this conclusion. And they j >ught not to fear ; for, according to their own doctrine, if we , io admit her with reaaonable limits, large if you please, but: lot so extraordinarily large, if the destinies of California are o be what they say, they have a chance of getting not only me but two free States there. I shall vote for the amend nent, without much feeling one way or the other, reserving : o myself the privilege of reconsidering my vote, provided the ]; icundariea of California are restricted on the further progress * >f this bill. ? Mr. HALE. The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Kriro) lesires to try an experiment in regard to the present state of hings, and that is to ascertain how I will vote on my amend nent. I think, il I could have got it unmixed with the ideas if Mirsissipi i, be would have found very readily how I should rote. The Senator from Mississippi, in allusion to a remark >f the Senator fiom Connecticut, (Mr. Smith,) says that his intendment was offered to kill mine ; or, in other words, that 1 introduced into this omnibus a disagreeable passenger, and hat he desired to put in one who would throw hirq out. My intendment he said was the rat and his was th|t weasel. Sow, I do not take it so. I introduced a very respectable 1 gentleman into the omnibus?one from a free State, and the knatnr from Mississippi desires to introduce a negro in order ' o lake care of him. That is the way my amendment now j Hands, and in that compound state I have some doubts whe her I shall vote for it. The Senator from Liuisiana the other lay said that he wanted to f<.el ths pulse of gentlemen here, ind upon due application yesterday he found the pulse of the : Senate to be decidedly in favor of resisting and excluding ivery restriction over slavery. Well, I too wanted to try the I >ulse of the Senate and ascertain if it beat equally true in fa ror of one or two propositions that favored freedom, and it was with that intention I offered my amendment. I have ound that they were not willing to let a free man get into the imnibus unless-he took a negro with him, and, having ascer ained that, I willingly would now withdraw my amendment, >ut others object to it. Therefore I will let it go, and tsk that the question may betaken on it by yeas and nays. Tbe yeas and nays wt re then ordered. Mr. HUNTER. This proposition, if I understand it, is rally one proposing to admit three free States into the Union, [t gives the 8outh, the slaveholding States, no chance at all ; M-cau-e California, as proposed to be admitted by this bill, with wr present limits, has a strict prohibition against slavery. Under these circumstances, of course slaves cannot and will not go to California, whether divided into three States or one. The whole effect of this amendment, then, will be to provide now, by the action of Congress, for the admission of an addi tional number of free 8tates into the Union. This is not a parallel case to the amendment adopted yesterday. Then the North and the South were each presumed (whether truly or not I will not now endeavcr to investigate) to havd a fair chance to settle the Territories, and it only propoaed that Congress should iiy when they vera admitted u 8utea they might come in with or without slavery, aa the people of thoee State* might determine. But here there is no chance given to the flare States to aettle the territory. The territory i* firat put in a condition in which slavery ia restricted, and when that ia done, CongTesa ia to be pledged to divide that territory into three State* whenever the people of that State may de sire it. I think, therefore, that this would be a dangerous amendment, and I hope jf will not be adopted. Mr. PRATT. I feel inclined, because of the contrariety of opinion which has been expressed here in reference to this smeudment, and the vote which I shall give, to cay a word in reference to the objections urged by my friend from Mia?ia aippi, (Mr. Davis.) I do not think they were urged upon the full and mature reflection which he usually bestows on what he nay a in thia body. Every amendment, my friend will bear in mind, which ia offered to his bill, ia to the bill as il now stand*, and on the hypothesis that the bill as it now stands will pas*, and I humbly conceive that thia single re mirk answers the objection of my friend from Mississippi. Now, my friend from Virginia, (Mr. Hcntkb,) who bus just taken his seat, has fallen into an error into which other Senators who have spoken on this subject have also fallen. The proposed amendment does not declare, aa ia supposed, that theae Stales are to be formed by the State of California : it ia not that (he subject of freedom or slavery ia to ,be decided by the State of California; but after that State ahall consent to a division of her territory for the formation of new States, the people of the territory thus separated are to decide for them selvea whether they will or will not have slavery. ThaLia the amendment. Now, we may all differ aa to what maybe the ulterior effect of tbia amendment. Whether the people of j the Territories which may be separated from California for the formation of new States, may or may not be in favor of slave ry ia a speculative question upon which we may all differ, but certainly it is a question which ahould be left to the people who may inhabit the territory, and not to the State of Cali fornia to decide. I think that disposes of the objection urged by the Senator froth Virginia. Now, the Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Chase,) whose atten tion I desire to secure, has made a great discovery, for so it occurred to me, n the political hiatory of this country, and bis argument was based upon the assertion that slavery does not exist north of 36? 30' in the State of Texas. Well, now, sirj I supposed that Texss was a slave State, and that slavery existed throughout the whole limits of that State, irre spective of the extent of her territory. The resolutions of j annexation, it is true, aay that when new States are formed from her territory, those north of 36? 30' shall be free States. Mr. CHASE. So far aa I have studied geography, I have not yet discovered that there ia any portion of territory north i of 36? 30' belonging to Texaa. Mr. PRATT. The Senator may be right, sir, but he must recollect that Texas has both claimed and exercised jurisdic tion over territory north of 36? 30'. I certainly did under stand him to assert that the whole of Texas was not a slave State. And to show that thia is the necessary concluaion to be drawn from his argument, I ask the attention of the Sen ator to the course of argument which he pursued. He said that the amendment now attempted to be applied to thia bill was not parallel to the case of Texas "id why > Because, as he said, slavery was not to exist in Texas north of 36? 30', and thus a part of Texas, according to the agreement, was to be slaveholding and a part non-slavebolding, while here in reference to California, all was free territory, and therefore it was an insult to California; to say that, even with the con sent of her people, any portion ot her territory should become slave territory. That was the argument of the Senator, and his whole argument was based on that bypotheais. Now, I shall vote for this amendment, because, under the constitution, even if no provision is adopted similar to the one now offered for our assent or dissent, States may be formed from the ter ritory of California with the assent of California and the as sent of the Federal Government. Therefore, I think it would be better that we should in this way reaffirm the con stitutional rights of the people of California. Looking then, 8iV, to the extent of territory and the inconvenience which must result therefrom, it is very clear to my mind that new States will be hereafter formed by the division of California j and in exety view of the subject, it is in my judgment alto gether proper that the right of the people of the Territory which is to constitute the new State, to settle this domestic question for themselves, should be expressly affirmed in this bill. It is a question which should be left to the decision of i the people of the new State, and not to the State of California. Mr. FOOTE. I am indifferent whether this amendment be adopted or not; but I hope that the discussion, which I must regard as of a highly unprofitable character, will not be further prolonged. No one doubts that hereafter a State may be formed out of California, with her consent and the consent of Congress, whether we adopt a clause like this or not. This is clearly provided for by the constitution of the United States, and really there is much truth in what has been said by the Senator from Connecticut and others, that we are simply proposing to re-enact a clause of the constitution. I feel none of the apprehensions entertained by the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Huxtxr,) and I think he will not disa gree with me upon the question, whether or not the State of I California is divisible into as many States hereafter, as that 1 State and Congress shall determine to be politic. How the adoption of the amendment is to operate more injuriously to the South than to the North I cannot discover. I believe that our condition in the South, and that of our friends in the North, will be precisely the same after the adoption of the amendment as before; and, taking this view of the subject, I think it unnecessary to adopt it, and I therefore hope that the gentleman from New Hampshire will withdraw his amend ment, so as to enable us to take up some proposition of a more practical character. Mr. HUNTER. I shall follow, not the precept, but the example of the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Foots,) and say something in relation to this amendment, notwithstanding his wishes to the contrary, for I do not regard it, as he does, as a harmless proposition. Nor do I think I have fallen into the error, as the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Pratt) sup poses has been the case. He reminded me that these new States could not be formed without the consent of Congress. am aware of that, and at the same time I know that this is an invitation on the part of Congress to California to divide her territories into 8tates, and implies an obligation on the part of Congress to receive these States, when so divided, into the Union. My objection is, that we first admit California with her constitution excluding slavery from this territory so to be divided, and then invite her to divide that territory when there will not be a slave in it. The territory will be filled up under the operation of thia anti-slavery constitution, and of I course slaves will not go there. This will be carved up into new States when it is desirable to California, and it becomes her policy to do so. Of course it will be her desire and her interest to bring in these States with sympathies and policy similar to her own, and, if ahe ever agrees to divide her terri tory, her motive most probibly will be to increase the power of the free States of the Union. Nor do I suppose, aa the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Pratt) seems to believe, that the people will, on a division of the territory, be remanded to a territorial condition, upon which supposition is based his hope for the introduction of slavery ; on the contrary, when they obtain the consent of California and of Congress thereto, they will at once be formed into a State or States ; and I take it for granted that, when the States are thus formed, they will come in as free Statss. How can it be otherwise when the country has been previously settled under restrictions against the introduction of slaves ? Mr. FOOTE. If the Senator from Virginia will give way, I think the amendment can be withdrawn by unanimous con sent. Mr. HUNTER. I have no objection. Mr. FOOTE. The Senator from New Hampshire has be fore expressed his willingness to withdraw his amendment, and I am authorized to do so for him now. If this can now be done with the consent of the Senate, this discussion may be terminated. Mr. HUNTER. I have no objection. Mr. KING. The amendment is not now within the Sen ate's control. Mr. FOOTE. It can be withdrawn, I suppose, by unani mous consent Mr. BADGER. The yeas and nays have been ordered upon the amendment, and I suppose it cannot now be with drawn. Mr. DA\ IS, of Mississippi. An amendment to it'has also been adopted. Mr. KING. This is so, ar.d therefore it is not in the power of the Senator to withdraw it. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Uwumwoop.) In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment can be withdrawn by the unanimous consent of the Senate. The Chair sode :ide?, and, if there be no objection, the amendment will be :on?idered as withdrawn. There was no objection raised, and the amendment was iccordingly withdrawn. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I offer the following amend ment to the 21st section, to be added to the end of that lection : "And that all laws or parts of laws, usages or customs, ^re-existing in the Territories acquired by the United States rom Mexico, and which in said Territories restrict, abridge, >r obstruct the full enjoyment of any right of person or prop erty of a citizen of the United States, as recognised or guaran :ied by the conatitution or laws of the United States, are here >y declared and shall be held as repealed." Mr. HALE. I have an amendment which I want to offer :o that amendment. At the end of the amendment insert the ollowing : "Provided, That the laws abolishing slavery in the said Territories are excepted from this repealing clause." Mr. FOOTE. I never doubted myself that a!l constitu tional rights whatever, capable of hating existence in New Mexico or Utah, would, if found to be repugnant to the Mexican laws, be enjoyrd and exercised in apite of those lawa> In other worda, I never doubted that the laws of Mexico? those which might affect the constitutional righta of any American citizen, are null and void; nor did I ever diubt, for one, that the treaty with Mexico, extending, as it undeniably did, the constitution and its guaranties to all the territory ac quired by its instrumentality, most effectually secured all right* designed to be Mcured by tbu amendment, in a manner far more satisfactory than would be poeaible merely by aa act of Congress ; and 1 therefore think that the amendmeot of my colleague, if adopted, would only be a useless re-enact ment of that which is already part of the supreme law of the land. I may, notwithstanding, vote for the amendment, with a view to harmonize, as far as may be practicable wiih my colleague, inasmuch as it will be in itself, according to my understanding of it, harmlessly inefficient. The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, though, I cannot vote for, because it appears to me that it is a little worse than the worst form of the V\ ilmot proviso heretofore known to us. Having regarded this monster as dead, and having actually proclaimed his funeral obsequies as having formally taken place, I am not a little astounded at his sud den apparition in this body this morning, claiming recogni tion as a moral entity yet capable of potential action. The time was that " when the brains were out the man would die," but in this age of "gorgons, hydras, and chimeraa dire," you may slay this Wilmot proviso a thousand times, and yet he will be found again to assume some other shape of horrible vitality. , The debate was further continued by Messrs. CLAY, DA VIS, PRATT, BERRIEN, DOWNS, DAWSON, BAD GER, until a late hour, when, without taking the question, The Senate adjourned. Wednesday, June 19, 1850. On the motion of Mr. CLAY, the Senate, as in Commit tee of the Whole, proceeded to the consideration of the bill for the admission of California as a State into the Union, to establish Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the establishment of her western and northern boundaries. Mr. BENTON, at an earlier period of the day, before this bill was taken up, gave notice to the Senate of bis intention, at a convenient opportunity, to offer an amendment, whieh he submitted, that it might be ordered to be printed. The amendment was ordered to be printed, as tollows : Strike out of proposition 1st, of section 39. aher the word ??beginning," these words, ?? at the point on the Rio del Norte, commonly called El Paso, and running up that river twenty miles, measured by a straight line thereon, and thence eastwardly to a point where the hundredth degree of west longitude crosses Red River, being the southwest angle on the line designated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line ot the territory set apart for the Indians by the United States j" and insert aften the said word " beginning " these words, "at the point in the middle of the deepest channel on the. Rio Graude del Norte, where the same is crossed by the one hundred and second degree of longitude west from the meridian of Greenwich ; thence north, along that longitude, to the thirty-fourth degree of north lati tude ; thence eastwardly to the point at which the one hun dredth degree of west longitude crosses the Red River." Mr. WALKER. I move to amend the ninth section of the bill by adding thereto the words "and such aliens born as have declared their intentions to become citizens, according to the laws of the United States," so as to make it read: "Provided, That the right of suffrage, and of holding of fice, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, including those recognised as citizens by the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848, and such aliens born as have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United 5tates." Mr. KING. I really cannot aee what the honorable Se nator wants. Does he mean, to confer on aliens residing in the Territories piivileges which aliens residing in the States do not possess ? Under the treaty the Mexicans inhabiting these Terriiories were made American citizens on certain con ditions, and of course will be allowed to vote. It certainly cannot be the intention of the honorable Senator to allow Chinese, Sandwich Islanders, and others who know nothing about our institutions, to vote and be eligible to office. If he does not mean that, I should like to know what the amend ment does mean. I should really like to have some explana tion of its object. Mr. WALKER. Mr. President, I mean precisely what the amendment expresses. I mean that all aliens in these Territories, who have declared (heir intention to become citi zens of the United States, shall be allowed the privilege of voting. This is a subject that has been heretofore considera bly discussed in Congress. I de not feel any desire to discuss it now. The provision which I have proposed as an amend ment to this bill was not contained in the bill providing for the government of the Territory of Wisconsin. A great deal of dissatisfaction was consequently produced. A large por tion of our population were composed of Dutch. They had to sustain a Government in which they had no voice, and they complained very much of not being allowed to vote, although they had to pay taxes. Our Legislature finally passed an act allowing aliens who had declared their inten tions to becom< citizens the right to vote. The first election after.this was an election for delegates to form a constitution. This" provision was then inserted in the constitution of Wis consin. It has had, I believe, a very salutary effect. I never knew or heard of any evil resulting from it. I do not believe any evil would result in this case. I have offered this amendment with no desire to discuss it, but simply to get a vote of the Senate upon it. I believe that I am but fairly representing the wiehes and feelings of my constituents in offering and voting for this amendment. Mr. BUTLER. I am sorry that the chairman of the Committee on Territories (Mr. Douglas) is not now in his place. I recollect distinctly that the provision referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin was the subject of conversation in that committee. I do not think we ought to extend the ri?ht of suffrage and eligibility to office in these Territories beyond the cilizens of the United States and those made such by the treaty with Mexico. I thai I, therefore, vote against any such extension of the right as that contemplated by the amendment. I think our laws are uncommonly liberal to foreigners. There are certain rights which I have no doubt the Territorial Legislatures will grant these persons ; for in- ^ stance, the right ot holding property in land and various other rights. Buf the rights of suffrage and of eligibility to office ought not to be extended in these Territories beyond the terms of the treaty, or beyond the terms of the original bill. This matter, as I before remarked, was the subject of conver sation in the committee, and it was thought best to leave the provision aa it now stands. , The question then being taken on the amendment of Mr. Walkeh, it was not agreed to. Mr. WALKER. Mr. President, I have another amend ment to offer, of which I spoke some time since, which does not at all affect the general provisions of the bill. It is to strike out of the tenth section the words, " Nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents." I presume that no person who has lived in the ?\ estera country, or in any of the Territories, haa failed to observe that it is a great embarrassment to the Territories, as soon aa they begin to prosper and offer inducements to settlers, that the land is bought up in patches and quantitiea?the beat land being bought by non-residents for purposes of speculation. These non-residents get the benefit of the labor of the reaidenta who improve the land. The residents improve the land and increase its value. Thus the value of the land of the non-re sident is increased. The Territories have had no remedy by which to force these non-residents to contnbute their propor tion for this. The operation of the provision which I now propose to strike out haa always been to make residents really pay a great deal more than non-re*identa. That has been the practical operation of it, for the resident ia taxed on his labor, while the non-resident has the value of hie lands increased by the labor of the resident. The non-resident gets the benefit of this, without contributing a share of the burden. I have not offered this amendment for the purpose of enter ing into any discussion on it. I offered this same amend ment to the Oregon bill when it was under conaideration. The Senate did not then adopt it. I now offer the amend ment, that we may have a vote of the Senate upon it. Mr. CLAY. I think the amendment, if adopted, would be in violation of the uniform principle and practice of the Gov ernment Aa far aa I recollect, the Government has never made any discrimination, in the imposition of taxes, between the lands of reaidents and of non-residents. It is very true, as stated by the Senator from Wisconiin, that there is some inconvenience, some hardship, on the part of the resi dents. But he ought to recollect, that if the resident citizens bear the principal part of the burden of Government, they derive also the principal benefit of that Government in the protection which it affords. The non-resident only derives incidental advantages from the Government there. There is one sort of taxation to which the non-rerident is subject, and for which he receives no benefit whatever. It is what U called the ?' road-tax." This is a tax which the non resident has to pay, but from which be derives no benefit. The benefit is derived by those who travel over the road. It i* a great inconvenience, to be sure, that large quantisy ot land should remain uncultivated in the hands of persons residing ibroad. If we were to sanction this principle, however, it might finally turn out that non-residents would have to bear the burden of taxation altogether. The advantages which the non-resident derives are alto gether incidental and indirect, and I think he ought not to be taxed for these more than the reaident is for his direct and positive advantages. Upon the whole, therefore, without trefpassing on the time of the Senate, I think that we bad . better adhere to the uniform practice of the Government on the subject. The question then being taken on the amendment, it waa not agreed to. .. . ... . ,, Other amendments were offered and discussed until ha last thiee o'clock ; of which a report will be given hereafter. Several Senators submitted amendments, which they wilt lereafter offer, that they might be printed, which was ordered. The Senate then proceeded to Executive business, and after orne time spent therein the Senate adjourned. EiTfuCHEBoToTT Mixed Dish torn' Embracing Gen. Scott'?? .""WIV Tl1^ D lilife Manners, he. by Riclard McSherrj, m.u. J S N A list of all officers, regular#, and volunteers who ccompanied General Scott is given in the Appendix. , For sale in Wushington^^ k MAURY june Booksellers, near 9lh street