Newspaper Page Text
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
THE COMPROMISE BILL. Thursday, June 27, 1850. kTbe Senate proceeded to the consideration ef the bill for the admission of California as ? State into the Union, to i establish Territoiial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the establishment of her western and northern boundaries. The pending queation was on the amendment of Mr. Sor li, as follows : After the word " Government," in the title of the bJll, in sert ths words " South California,'' and strike out the first, second, and third sections ot the bill, and insert the following: " lie it enacted, iJc. That as soou as California shall lutve passed in convention an ordinance providing? '?That shy relinquishes all title or claim to tax, dispose of, or in any way to interfere with the prinaary disposal by the United States of the public domain within her lineits; " That she will not interpose her authority and power so aatodislarb or impt*le any oonirol which the United States ni%y deem advisable to exercise over such districts in the mining regions, either now discovered or to be discovered hereafter, as may be included in any lawful grant made to private individuals or to corporations prior to the cection of California to the,United States; " That the landrW the non-residents shall never be taxed higher than those of wsidents; M That the navigable watersjshall be anen and free to ail citizens of the Unitwd States, those of California included; " That the southern limits shall be restricted to the Mis souri compreruise line, (36 deg. 30 min. north latitude;) " And ars soon as she shall have produced to the President of the United States satisfactory and authentic evidence that the terms here set forth have been fully and exactly complied with, the President of the Unfced States be and he is hereby authorized and requested, without a?y further action on the part of Congress, to issue 'his proclamation declaring that California is, andthat she shall thereupon be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with 4iie original States ?in all respects whatsoever. " Sec. 3. Be it enacted,^Jc. That such portion of the reve nue collected in the ports of California as may remain unex pended at the ticne of the issuing of the President's proclama tion as aforesaid, shall he paid over to tho caid State of Ca lifornia. ?? See. 3. JBt it enacted, ISc. That the Senators and Hepre- | sentatives elee: now before Congress for the said State of Cn- i lifuraia shall be entitled to receive, and shall reccive the I mllwjje' and the per <tiem pay allowed to tiie Delegate from the Territory of Oregon, trom the day that the message of the President transmitting the conoitution of California was re ?* ?ceived by Congress. "Sec. 4. Be it enacted, &c. That the country lying be tween the 30 deg. 3? min. of north latitude, and the boundary line between Mexieo and the United Staths established by (he treaty ofGoadalupe Hidalgo, and extending from the Paeific to the Sierra Nevada, shall constitute a Territory under the name of the Territory of "South California, and shall be organ ized as ?reh under the provisions ol this bill applying te the Territory of Utah, (changing names where the*' ought to be changed,)in all respects whatsoever, and shall,' when ready, able, and-willing to become a State, ard desiriag to be such, be admitted into the Unioa, with or without-slavery, as the people thereof may desire and make known through their constitution." Mr. WEBSTflE. Mr. President, the amendment of the honotable member.from Louisiana (Mr. Souw) respects that part of the present bill which propow;? the immediate ad mis sion of California into the Union as a State; and the amend ment is opposed to that immediate-admission. It proposes, on the contrary, that the subject shall be referred back to the people of California ; that certain conditions and modifications in the constitutior. of California shall be proposed to them, and that, if the people of California in convention -shall have acceded to such renditions and modifications, then the Presi dent of the United States shall iesue his proclamation, an nouncing that faet, and thereupon California shall be admitted into the Union at a State. The question therefore is, whether, upon the whole, it would be more advisable under all the circumstances of the esse, to admit California now, or to send her constitution baok again, and postpone to some future and indefinite period her admission into the Union ? In my opinion, sir, it is highly expfdient to admit California now. -In my opinion it is highly expedient to five her now a proper position in the Union, and to give her such powers as shall enable her to levolvs among the other orbs of cur system ; and I really be lieve-that that is the settled judgment of a great majority of the people of th? country. If there be any question growing out of these territorial acquisitions on which there seems to be a general, I will not say a unanimous public opinion, it is that, under the circumstances, it ie expedientand proper to admit California into the Union without further delay. She presents herself Jiere with a sufficient population. She presents a con atituiion ta which, in a .general aspect, asa republican constitu tion, we can make no objection. The case is urgent and pressing. No new State has ever appeared asking for admis sion into the Union under circumstances so extraordinary and so_ ?triking ; nor have the oldest of us seen a case presented with such peculiarities and singularities. There is in the history mankind, within my knowledge," no instance of such an extraordinary rush of people for private enterprise to one point on the earth's surface. It has keen represented heretofore that there were 150,900 people in California. It would seem that on this very day there era fifty or sixty thousand persons traversing the great plains between Mis souri and the Rocky Moutaine, all bounfl to California. Other thousinds are passing round Cape Horn ; other thou eands again crowd, press, fill up, and more >lhan fill, up every conveyance that will take them to and from it he Isihmus. So that it may be ?aid, and truly said, that this very year will add a hundred thousand persons to the population of California. It is the roost staking occurrence within oot generation, or any generation, as far as respects any private enterprise, and the extraordinary ruah of people to a given point upon the earth g surface. The capital of the Territory is supposed to contain thirty or forty thousand people ; 1,200 vessels have ahrady been sent thither; 350 or 400 ships have been found riding in the hartar of San Francisco at the same time. San Francisco, the capital, as I have already slated, containa a population of thirty or forty thousand people. California looks out upon India, and China, and Polynesia to the West as we look out upon Europe to the Eaat. Now the question is, what is to be dene with California ' Sir, five years ago it happened to me to say, in a public discussion, that perhaps the time was not (at distant when there worid be established beyond the Bocky Mountains, and on the shore of the sea, a great Pacific Republic, of which San Francisco would be the capital. I am overwhelmed by the appearance of the possible fulfilment of that prophecy so suddenly. And, sir, thai it the alternative, in myjudgnent. I do not think it safe Ion. ger to delay the bringing of California into this Union, unless gentlemen are willing to contemplate that alternative. Other ge ride men have as good means of information of the state of opinion in California as I have; perhaps more. My infor mation is such, at any rate, tnat I do not think it safe, if we intend to bring her into the Union at all, to defer that measure to another session of Congress, or to any time beyond that which is absolutely/necessary for the dispatch of the business of her admission. Then, I suppose, that that being the general sentiment of the country, it would also be the genersl sentiment of this and the other house of Congress; that is, that it is expedient, if there are no insurmountable obstacle', r to bring California into the Union at once ; and I do not un derstand the intention of the author of this amendment other wise than that, if it were not for objections which be has pro pounded to the Senate, he should foe willing to admit Califor nia at once/ And now the question is, whether those objec tions are insurmountable or not ' If they are, California must be kept out of the Union, let the consequences be what they may. But if they are not insurmountable, then I think, though things may exist which we might wish had been other wise, yet it is a case of so much exigency snd emergency tha we ought to admit California. Let us come then st onee to that point, and see what these objections sre which bava been suggested by the honorable memb?r from Louisiana. 1 bey divide themselves into two classes. He says, in the .k ' T4*' lh" of California, and by the bill unamendrd, there is no sufficient security that the L nited . tates will p asess, enjoy, control, or have the right to dispose of the pu' lie domain or unappropriated lands in i ,I4'h,e fir,t Action; The second relates to the boundaries of California, which be say. are extrava gantly large, in the first place; in the second place, unnatu raJ; and in the third, impolitic and unfit to be made. Now si^he proposes to remedy what he considers the first great decency of the bill, by sending back this constitution to California, and obtaining from a Convention of that State an agreement, compact, or consent, to the effect that the State of California shall never interfere with the public lands within the State, or with the primary disposal of them ; nor shall ever tar tbem while held by -he United States; nor shall tat non-resident proprietors higher than resideat proprietors of the Isnds in that State shall b* taxed. These are provisions which are, all of tbem, in this bill ; but then the honorable member's argument is, that, as they arc conditions which, ?rom th" nature of the case, can never receiv*the assent of| because they can never be presented to, \be people of the State of California, unless the constitution is sent back, they are void, and that the assent or consent of California to those conditions is necessary to make them valid and binding. Well, sir, his argument proceeded upon this id?a. that with < u' some such stipulation or compact on the part of the State, the creation of a Territory into fl State?a political, and, so to say, sovereign community?does neceaaarily establish, in that sovereign community, a control ov*r the public domain ; that when California becomes a State, iV/#o facto, she will hold, P"S*sr, enjoy, and control the public ,'ands ; and thisicsulthe derives Irom an argument founded uj_on the nature of the ?*overeignty ; bcc?u-e, he says, it is the essence of sovereign power to control the public domain Sir, we mislead our6elves o;t?n by usinfr terms wihout ' sunici< n'. accuracy, or t? rrns not cu.-tomariiy found in the < 'nsMuti n and laws. That the *t,?tes are sovereign in many aspects n ,|, ,Jy Jo;b-s . th y ire >or,rei*n all re fill- i .TOt''xij contends 1'ae terra " sovereign" or " so*er tignty" does not occur in the Conatriuiion of the United States. The Conatitution does not apeak ot the ?tate? as "sovereign States." It doee not r peak of this Government as . ? sovereign government." It .void, studmusly the ap plication of terms that might admit of the true idea of the Constitute on of the United States, and alao of the constitution of e*.ery State in the Union, is, that powers are conferred oo the LegiaUture, not ^ genera vague dercription, but by enumejaUou- he of the United States holds no power which it doea not hold as an enumerated power, under .he constitution or a power necessarily implied; and the same may J* taI^ 0 every , in the Union. The constitution of each State prescribes de finitely the powers that shall belong to the Government of the State. But if this were a true source of argument in this ewe, the honorable member would find that thia implication, arising from sovereignty, 'wouldI ju.l M the Government of the United States as to that of the State. Certainly, many higher branches of sovereignty are in the Government of the United Statea. The United Statea Gov eminent makoa war, raises armies, maintains navies, enters into alliances, makes treaties and coins money ; none of which exercises of sovereignty a State Government Nevertheless, there are sovereign powers which the State Governments do perform. They punish crimes, impose pen alties, regulate the tenure of land, and exercise a municipal sovereignty over the land. Let me remark that this question is not new here. I met it in the Senate the first session that I i took iny seat here. These notions, or some of them, run in a sort of periodical orbit. They come back upon us once in fifteen or twenty years. The idea that the sovereign y of a State necessarily carries with it the ownership of the pub lic lands within its limits, was here twenty years ago. It was discussed, considered, debated, exploded. It went on, a here it is back again, with exactly the same aspect in the hea vens that attended it then. ...... .u Sir, in the year 1828 or 9?in 1828 I think it was?the Legislature of Indiana took up this subject, passed these reso lutions, and instructed her members of Congress to support them : " Resolved, lie. That this State, being a sovereign, free, and independent State, has the exclusive right to the ?>1 and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands w thin her acknowledged boundaries; which right.was reserved for^hei by the State of Virginia, in the deed of cession of die North western Territory to the United States, being confirmed and established by the articles of confederacy and the constitution of the United States. . , , "That our Senaters in Congress be jnstruotea. aao our Representatives requested, to use every e**rUon power, by reason and argument, to induce the United1 States to acknowledge this vested right of the State, and to place her upon an-equal footing with the original States in every respect whatsoever, as well in fact as in name." One of the gentlemen who represented Indiana at that time in the Senate, and who has recently deceased, performed the duty imposed on him by the instructions of the Legisla ture, and brought forward a section as an amendment to one of the graduation bills, introduced by the honorable member from Missouri (Mr. Bbwtoh) to that effect ; " Mr. Hknducks, in presenting these resolutions, said it had become his duly to present to the Senate resolutions o the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, on the subject of the public lands within the limits of that State. rnese solutions, said he, are similar in character to those of the a at of Louisiana, a few days ago presented by a Senator from t a State. They are also, in some degree, similar to the spirit ot a memorial of the State of Illinois, recently presented to the Senate by a Senator from that State. In these resolutions, the Legislature of Indiana has solemnly declared that the State, being sovereign, free, and independent, has the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the 'unappropriated lan s within her acknowledged boundaries, and that this right was reserved to her by the State of Virginia in the deed of cession of the Northwestern Territory to the United States?grounds which, if tenable, as I verily believe they are, strongly appeal to the justice and to the pride of the Senators and Represen ac tives of that magnanimous State." * . " It is believed that the compact not to interfere with the primary disposee of ?he soil, and not to tax the lands for a specified period, cannot confer power on the Federal Govern ment to hold the soil of that State for any other purposes than those pointed out by the constitution, even if that com pact had emanated from authority, unquestionably competent to make it, and had been based on policy as unquestionable. There is no disposition to interfere with this compact as long as it has the form of existence in the statute book But its validity is questioned, having been made by the people of the Territory before the State was admitted into, the Union; and its irrevocable character, as well as the perpetual obliga tion which it attempts to impose on the people of the State, is believed to be a dereliction of a fundamental principle of our institutions, which asserts the right of every free people to change their constitutions and laws, from time to time, as their wisdom and experience may direct. Nor does it seem to strengthen the pretension of right, to assert that the General Government may hold the soil of the State as an '"dividual may hold ; for it is by no meant in that character she does hold. She holds as a sovereign, and subjects the soil of the State to the uncontrollable action of her legislative power." Proceeding upon the ground that the public lands w*re the property of the State, he proposed to acknowledge that fact by this section in the graduation bill then before the Senate : "Seci 6. And be it Juriher enacted, That the public and unappropriated lands within the limits of Iks new States be, and the same are hereby, ceded and relinquished in full property to the several States in which the same may be, on condition that such State shall not, at any time hereafter, put such lands into market at a lower minimum price than shall be established by law for the sale of public lands in the Terri tories ; and on condition that the Indian title to lands within the limits of any State shall hereafter be extinguished at the expense of such State." On that occasion, sir, the Senate was addressed much at length in support of the same proposition by a gentleman now holding an eminent station on the bench of the national judi ciary, who was then a member of Congress from Alabama. He maintained the^ame general idea. He said : " I have long entertained the opinion that the United States cannot hold'land in any State of the Union, except for the purposes enumerated in the constitution ; and whatever right they had to the soil, while the country remained under Terri torial Governments, passed to the States formed over the same territory, on their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the old States." The honorable member from Louisiana was only following these precedents. The argument of his able and learned speech was founded on the same general idea. Both gentle men, on that occasion, and the honorable member frem Louisi ana on this, rest their argument on the same supposed maxim of national law, or public law. On that occasion the gentle men quoted from Vattel exactly what the member from Lou isiana quotes now: "The general domain of the nation over the lands it in habits is naturally connected with the empire, for, establishing itself in a vacant country, the nation certainly did not pretend to have the least dependence there on any other power. And how should an independent nation avoid having authority at home ? How should it govern itself at its pleasure in the country it inhabits, it it cannot truly and absolutely dispose of it ? And how should it have the full and absolute domain of the place in which it has no command ? Another's sovereignty, and the right it comprehends, must take away its freedom of disposal." Nothing is more just than that doctrine of Vattel pro perly understood. If a nation establishes itself in a coun try existing without an ownership, why, then, the vacant lands become its own. But, if a number of persons, occupying land that is owped, or living in a country that is under another Government, establish a political community, it follows of course that by no act of their's can they divest the original ownership. The United States own this terri tory. The land is theirs?theirs by acquisition. It belongs to the Government of the United States and the people of the United States. Now, if people owning those parts of the country appropriated heretofore to individual uses by the King of 8pain, or, if people resident there without title establish a political community, by what process can it be made out that they become entitled to the whole country ' The doc trine of Vattel, as I have shown, is only applicable to a case where a nation enters into a country vacant of ownership; and if the gentleman whose words I have read had been kind enough to have read the whole of the authority from which he quoted, he would have found, I think, exactly the proper distinction. But he left oflf in the middle of a paragraph of Vattel. It goes on thus : "The general domain of the nation over the lands she in habits is naturally connected with the empire ; for, in estab lishing herself in a vacant county, the nation certainly does not intend Jo possess it in subjection to any other power And can we suppose an independent nation not vested with the ab solute command in her domestic concerns ? Thus we have al ready observed that, in taking possession of a country, the na tion is presumed to take possession of its government at the same time. We shall here proceed further, and show the natural connexion of these two rights in an independent nation. How could ahe govern herself at her own pleasure in the coun try she inhabits, if she cannot truly and absolutely dispose of it > And how could she have the full and absolute domain of a place where she has not the command ' Another's sovereign tyf and the right it comprehends, mutt deprive her of the free disposal of that place. Add to this the eminent do main, which constitutes vr part of the sovereignty, and you will the better perceive the intimate connexion existing be tween the domain and the sovereignty of the nation. And, accordingly, what is called the high domain, which is nothing but the domain of the body of the nation, or of the sovereign who represents it, is every where consid> red as inseparable from ihe sovereignty. The useful domain, or J he domain confined to the rights that may belong to an individaal in the State, may be separated from the sovereignty, and nothing prevents the possibility of its belonging to a nation in places tliat are not under her jurisdiction. Thus many sovereigns, huve fiefs and other possessions in the territories of another prince : in these cases they possess them in the manner ot private individuals. ' The sovereignty, united to the domain, establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sove r'it^n, to exercise justice in all the paces under her jurisdic tion?to take cognizance of the crimes committed, and the dif ferences that arise in the country." Now. that i? preci-ely this case. The government of Urd, in all that belongs to its title, transmission, inheritance, and alienation, belongs to the municipal authority within whose limit* it lies. Thalia unquestionable. Bat than there is nothing to prevent another sovereign from poeeeaeing the do minium utile, the useful domain, or any portion of it No thing at all. This Government may as well hold the lends in California as any individual in the United 8tates. The only difference is this : that the Government of the United States holds the land only for one great parpoee?that is, to sell. It holds it in trust to sell for the benefit of the Govern ment and people of the United States; and every acre, as soon as sold, falls under the dominion of the municipal sove reign, and is subject to all the rules and regulations prescribed by the local government. The only exception is this : that, in regard to the lands of the United 8tatea, that is established by law which, in regard to individuals, might be established by eontrsct; and that is, that up to a certain period, or for a certain time, those lands, thus the property of the United States, shall be so iar excluded from the municipal sovereign ty under which they are placed as that they shall not be sub ect to taxation, or, being owned by non-residents, they shall not be taxed higher than if owned by residents. That is the only exception ; and it is as competent to be made between an individual and the State where the land lies, as it is to be imposed by act of Congress. Sir, there are many instances of States holding lands within the sphere of their own government, and without the sphere of their own government. I think I understand that, with all her sovereignty, the State of New JeraeJr never pos sessed any public domain, nor authority over ungranted lands. All fell, in that State, I believe, into the possession of the original proprietors ; and so it happened in a great portion of New York. Massachusetts claimed, and her title was ac knowledged to, a great portion of the western part of New York. They were sold to Messrs. Gorham and Phelps, and they sold to the Holland Land Company ; and thus near one third of her State, perhapa, was held by individuals or corpo rations. That was never supposed to be any infringement on the rights of sovereignty of New Yoik. The same thing happened in other States. Now, the question of sovereignty in this case, or its effects, by implication, on the 'public dqmaln, is one that has been thoroughly considered, and clearly and fully decided. The history of the laws and usages of the country in this particu lar have been folly developed by the honorable member from Illinois; and I will not go over the track he has trodden. He has shown the precedents taken together to he all one way. There may be exceptions here and there ; but the general idea has been, in the creation of a State, that her admission as a State has no effect at all on the property of the United States lying within its limits. But, aii^ it ia hardly worth while for me, in this state of the atmosphere, to argue this point much at length, as it is settled and decided by the high est judicial authority of the country, preciaely and explicitly. The case will be found in 3<fr Howard. The judgment in that case was pronounced by one of the gentlemen to whom I referred as having given an opinion quite the other way when he was a member of Congress. Now, sir, the Su preme Court of the United 8tates, in 1846, say this, ex cluding all idea that the title to the lands depends on any con tract made with the new 8tate : " We, therefore, think the United States hold the public lands within the new States by force ot the deeds of cession, and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they posses*, or have reserved by compact with the new States, for that particular purpose. The provision of the constitution above referred to shows that no such power can be exercised by the United States within a State. Such a power is not only repugnant to the constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and in tention of the deeds of cession. The argument so much re lied on by the counse| for the plaintiffs, that the agreement of the people inhabiting the new States ' that they forever dis claim all right and title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States,' cannot operate as a contract between the parties, but is bind ing as a law. Full power is given to Congress ?to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States.' This authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the Unitea States to the public lands, and to provide tor their sale, and to pro tect them from taxation. " And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in the new States and the old ones, whether they consent to be bound by them or not. Every constitutional act of Congress is passed by the will ot the people of the United States, ex pressed through their representatives on the subject-matter of the enactment; and when so passed it becomes the supreme law of the land, and operates by its own force on the subject-mat ter, in whatever State or Territory it may happen to be. The proposition, therefore, that such a law cannot operate upon the subject-matter of its enactment, without the express consent of the people of the new State where it may happen to be, contains its own refutation, and requires no further exami nation." Therefore, sir, while that decision of the 8upreme Court stands, the authority of the United States over the lands ly ing in the States is based on the law of Congress. Now, the argument of the honorable member from Louisiana is, that, this being a condition, the assent of the other party or side, or the entering into a compact, is indispensable. But this decision of the Supreme Court precisely and ^xactly overrules all that, as any honorable member will see. ' If it hsd happened that the words in this bill were a reservation, or, being understood so, his argument would have lost even its apparent force. But it is enough to say that it has been decided directly and distinctly, at every point, that the au thority of the United States does so far extend aa, by force of itself, propria vigore, to exempt the public lands from taxa tion, when new States are created over the territory in which the lands lie. Then, sir, what has become of all this danger to the public lands ? A compact would make our title no better. It is good enough without it, andl want no compact. The language of the decision is explicit; and therefore I think the member from Illinois was entirely right when he proposed the law which he did?the act for the ad' mission ot California?omitting all reference to the idea of com pact ; and the 3d section of this bill was drafted to satisfy doubts. Exceptions had been taken ; and it was thought this section would satisfy and remove those exceptions. It was introdu ced for that laudable and proper purpose; but it stands, ac cording to the decision to which'I have referred, just as well without the 3d section as with it. What is there to over turn the whole current of our history ? What is there to show, in this case, that California haa any intention of claim ing the ownership of the public lands, aaa consequence of her State sovereignty ? Why, so far from that, the constitution of California acknowledges the right of the United 8tates to those lands. It goes on, in the 9th article, to provide how those lands which may be granted them by the United States shall be dispoeed of and taken care ot by her Legislature. Is not that an express admission that the public lands within her territory belong to the United States ? We must proceed ac cording to, or we must regard, the established precedent in this case; and if any thing be established by law?if any thing be settled by the experience of the Government, in the course of the various admissions of States, nearly half of all the existing States now in the Union?if any thing is set tled by the solemn decision of the court of highest judicature in the country, it is that no such thing as an implisation of control over the public lands of the United States arises from the creation of a State, founded oa any idea that the public domain necessarily adheres to State sovereignty. Such a notion has never prevailed in the councils of the country. Now, sir, I really hope the honorable member from Louisi ana will reconsider the subject; that he will look at what has been decided : that in this important emergency he will con sider whether it is worth his while to stand on technicalities, and whether it is not rather bis duty to conform to the usages and practices of the laws and judicature of the country ? The honor ?ble member is younger than roost of us, but he will allow me to say, that it is very doubtful whether, in his career as a public man, however long it may be, he will arrive at a more important exigency in the afftirs of the country than is now before us. He bss taken an important part, and a suc cessful part, in some amendments to the bill. He has ac complished that which he and his friends thinks important in respect to the territorial governments. Will he not help us now to accomplish bis own and a higher work 1 Will be not re consider his objections to the admission of California, so far is those objections arise to which I have adverted? This ia a common case, an ordinary case ; every doubt about it is shut up and concluded by solemn decisions, so far as this objection goes, and ought to be withheld from opposition to the admis sion of California. Then there is another objection. He says that the bound sries are wrong?extraordinarily large, unnatural, and impo litic.^ Now, sir, these are questions in a great measure de pending upon the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the situation, soil, surface, and climate of the coun'ry. At an early part of the session, I expressed an opinion, which I still hold, that if ihe thing were before us now, we could not make a better boundary for California than is made in her constitu tion. I formed that opinion from my information respecting the formation of the country, snd all' the circumstsnces con nected with it. The Senator says the Territory of California is three times the; amount of the sverage extent of the new 3tates of the Union. Well, sir, suppose it is. We all know that it has more than three times as many mountains, inaccessible and rocky hills, and sandy wastes than is pos sessed by any State of the Union?a great deal more than this indeed. But how much is there of useful land, how much that may be made to contribute to the support ot man and of society > The?j ought to be the questions. Well, with re spect to that, I am sure every body has become satisfied that, slthough California may have a very great seaboard, and a large city orlwo, yet that the agricultural products of the . whole surface now is not, and neVer will be, equal to one half part those of the State of Illinois , no, nor yet a fourth, ?r perhaps a tenth part. In the first place, the entire coun try, on the line starting off" from the eastern bottom of the Sierra Nevada, and running to the Gila, is a desert of sand. That takes off thirty or forty thousand squsre miles of the "'hole territory, and it is a pretty important leduction. Well, then, look again at the mountains. There is undoubt fdly a long valley on 'he Sacramento and 8an Joaquin of to lerably good land, and there -nay be some good land be tween the coast mountain* and the sea ; but, on the whole nobody will ssy that, in quantity of good land, or oftoler ibly good land, :hc/e. is any excess; but, on the contrary, there is fir Iea% vastly less, than belongs to moat of ibe new States. But then there another consideration. With what would you connect South California if you din connect jt fr jid North California } And what is the value of South Cali fornia disconnected from North California } Why, look upor, the map and the question will b$ answered. Sup pose we run the line of 36? 80' from the see across to New Mexico; what have you ? You have mountains, and you have those vast tracts of land east of the mountains; but, upon the best information I can obtain, and I have consulted w'oat I suppose every gentleman concede* is the best, there ';annot be at most, within what would constitute the Territo ry of South California, more than five thousand square miles of good land; more than that there is of desert lands and mountains. I speak now of lands that may be tilled and cultivated. WTe must, as I have said, look at climate as well as the surface of the land. Gentlemen will please to remem ber that in this part of California eight months in every year roll on without a drop of rain felling, and there is not within the whole of it any land whatever that can be cultivated without irrigation. And so small are the streams, when you depart from those two rivers?the Sacramento and the San Joaquin? that they do not supply water for the cultivation of but a very small portion of the land that otherwise might be mtde tilla ble. Well, what will be tlx -value of this territory ? The gentleman from Louisiana contended for the rights of the South in regard to it. Where ia there any value in it t la it any thing more than a mere nominal right, if it be that f Can it be of any use whatever * Could the 8outh make any use of that territory if it were now a Territory, and free from any restraint whatever, which they cannot make of it if it were not ' I think, therefore, that is a dispute?a dispute where there ia no substantial value in the matter contested. Mr. President, we ought to look to what is the most practi cable thing we can do. The member from ^oaisiana desires to draw across the Territory the line of 3ttc tr?-?the bounda ry commonly called the Missouri compromise. Now, is that practicable } Is it attainable ? Does the gentleman, or do his friends, suppose that either now or hereafter, by this Con gress or the next, any such thing can be done' Looking at the fact, in, the first place, that this Southern California ia part of California, and within her prescribed boundaries, and next, to the known state of opinion, I have yet to learn, (though I have heard it suggested to the contrary,) after some dili gent examination of the proceedings of the Convention, that there is <ny disposition or wish, on the part of the people, from Monterey down to San Diego, to be by themselves, or be a State by themselves. I tiod that a member of the Conven- i tion?Carrillo, I think, from San Angelcj?in thu early part of | the debate, having got into some excitement of discussion with some northern members, suggested such an idea ; but he took it all back, aa would appear on the further progress of affairs, as will be found on page 446 of the debates. And I see no evidence from the country to the south of 36? 30' that it is desirous to set up or to have a government for itaelf, or to be otherwise associated in government than it is. And it is to be remembered, Mr. President, that this Lower California is the old part of California, and has been settled for one hundred snd fifty to two hundred years. Its habits are fixed, and, although not a subject to dwell on, it may be fit to refer to it. So fkr as I see, in the debates in the California, Convention the indi cations of a fixed purpose to exclude slavery from all parts of California, that sentiment was most strongly expressed by persons, members of the Convention, coming from this old part, this southern part, the lower part of California; and, theiefore, I do not see that there is any human probability of their consenting to its admission. Is it not better, then, to take (his bill as it stands ? We have determined in regard to the Territories, and, taking this question as it stands under the constitution of California, within her borders, and looking to the practical operation, I may say the certain operation, is it not our bounden duty to bring California into the Union ? Mr. President, the idea most urgent and pressing on my mind in all this matter is, that it ia our duty to accomplish something on the subject of these Territories?to accomplish something that will be as satisfactory to all parts of the country as we can make it. I had no hand in introducing these Ter ritories into the Union ; I have no responsibility, therefore, for the evil that springs out of that act. But here they are upon us. I wish to deal with' the subject in the fairest, most expedient, and just manner, and, according to my fixed opinion, there is no application to the case, in our discussing, or applying, or agitating the vexed matter of slavery over any of these Terri tories. I wish for my part, as an American, as one who desires to carry on and maintain this Government, to see a course adopted that will give all the satisfaction we can give, and that will accomplish something towards restoring peace and quiet to the Union. Mr. President, as has already been suggested, and as is known to us all. we have been here six or seven months. We are called upon to make some disposition of these terri tories. I think that before all, in regard to time, is the ques tion of the admission of California; and I hope, therefore, that we shall have to-day, or when the question is taken, | i such a vote on the proposition of the Senator from Louisiana as will decide the case, and show that the judgment of the Senate, as it is of the whole fcountry, is that California should be admitted without further delay than is necessary by the terms of the act. I hope, therefore, without going into an elaborate profes sional argument, thai the member from Louisiana will see that there is nothing to dispute about?will see that, without any act of CoDgress, there is no danger that California will undertake to run away with the public lands, or undertake to tax the public lands or non-residents; and therefore, in re spect to California, that we may have a vote which shall be lecisive, and so far show to the country that, as to this part of the case, it is a determined question. I ( Mr. FOOTE. As my position in regard to this question is very peculiar, I shall endeavor to occupy the attention of the Senate for a short time, for the purpose of explaining cer tain historical facts connected with the Missouri compromise, so far as it has attracted the attention of this body within the ( last three years. It seems to be generally understood that the amendment now under consideration is virtually what is known as the Missouri compromise. As I design to vote for this amend ment, although I feel thoroughly persuaded that it is impos sible it can obtain the sanction of this body or that of the other House of the National Legislature, I feel bound to state my reasons for doing so, and to vindicate my consistency as a public man in regard to this branch of the subject. Whilst vindicating my own consistency, if I should inci dentally show that certain other gentlemen, now the ardent advocates of the Missouri compromise and the violent oppo sers of this bill, are not altogether as consistent as they would wish to be regarded, I hope to be excused, as it is reslly not my intention either to perpetrate injustice or to practice dis courtesy. Mr. President, during the summer of 1847 a distinguished Pennsylvania statesman (Mr. Buchanan) published a letter, which was read by us all at the time, and by me highly ap proved of, declaring it to be his opinion that this vexed question should be settled upon the basis of the Missouri compromise. Although not holding at the time a seat in this body, being in private life, and occupied with duties of a far different cha racter from those in the performance of which I am now en gaged, entertaining a profound respect for this distinguished personage,?a sentiment cherished for him by a large por tion of his fellow-citizens?I at once declared the high gratifi cation which I felt at the publication of the letter, and avowed my desire to see the views contained in it approved by the whole nation. When I took my seat here in the month of December, 1847, I was prepared to offer the Missouri compro mise as an amendment to the Oregon bill, which was expected to come before us for consideration at an early period of the wssion, as it actually did. But, air, what was the condition of things which I found Here then ? I do not design to use the language of reproa< h ; [ shall not utter one word of unkindness ; I shall call no nan's motives in question; but, sir, I feel bound to state, di *ctly and explicitly, all the facts relating to this somewhat lelicate point. The condition of things existing when I took ny seat here at the period mentioned was precisely that which [ am about to deacribe. 8ir, I urged upon distinguished Southern men, with whom I was then in close alliance, and whose confidence and friendship I was proud to enjoy, includ ng the distinguished Senstor from South Carolina now no ongcr amongst us, repeatedly, the propriety of bringing for ward the Missouri compromise, at as early a period as pracii :able, for the settlement of the vexed Territorial question hen being fiercely agitated, and likely to be productive of still (renter excitement, in the event of our acquiring additional erritory from the republic of Mexico. I moisted with these gentlemen, more than once, that, inasmuch as the Missouri ampromise had the advantage, in point of precedence, over my new plan of adjustment which could be devised, it was mportant to make an early trial of it in Congress, with a view 0 restoring quiet to the country. But what response did I oceive from more than one distinguished Southern man .* >Vhy. the Missouri compromise wa< denounced, carped at, md openly ridiculed. When I offrred myself to introduce it is an amendment to the Oregon bill, I was told by Mr. Cal loun and others that no Southern man could do so without nvolving himself and the whole South in disgrace ; that such 1 proposition, if brought forward at all, must originate with Northern men. Well, air, I resolved not to desist from my ifforts ; and, feeling not altogether competent, as a young rt nemher of thia body, to cope with the heavy responsibility of tl ntroducing the Missouri compromise, in defiance of the oppo- fr lition threatened by Southern gentlemen, I reaolved to caet ibout and see whether I could not succeed in persuading nc "me Northern Democratic friend to introduce it. I had no h lifTiculty in finding a suitable person in all respects for the di terformar.ee of this task, snd one who needed no cogent per- si ?uasion from myself, or from any other person, to instigate ? lim to the execution of what he had already reaolved to do. si [ am about to narrate several incidents of an interesting char- r< icter, never heretofore divulged ; and what I Khali state can be v< ittested, if necessary, at once by the highest possible evidence, md that too *hieh is now present. tl I chanced to be on a certain morning at the Presidential fi cannon, llien occupied by the lamented Jan es K, Polk. I P found, upon my irnn 1 there, the honorable Senator hoi | Indiana, (Mr. B.ioht,) with whom I waa then, aa now upon intimate term., and with whom I wa* in the habit o | counsel ing freely then, aa now, in regard to mattera affectum the welfare and aefety of the republic. A convention oo curred between Mr. Polk, the Senator from Indiana, and my aelf, upon the Oregon bill, which waa then pending (be re suit of which waa an agreement on the part of my friend froa Indiana to become the introducer of the Miaeouri compromiat aa an amendment. The President immediately turned to i volume upon hie table containing the compromiae ( it waa a. once copied, and the Senator from Indiana and myaelf repair? ed instantly to thia hall, when, in a short time after reaching the Senate, he announced his determination to bring in th< amendment which he had prepared, at the earKeat practicabU period. Well, sir, when the amendment waa afterwarda ac tually introduced, what reception was accorded to it ? Why, it was discussed, and opposed, and denounced. And de nounced by whom ? I speak it with all pouible respect?it waa denounced by the honorable Senator from South Caroli na already referred to. Here ia his apeech ; it waa declared by bim not only to be unconstitutional, but pre-eminently danger oua?aa a thing which had been wrong in ita inception, and infinitely more objectionable then than it had been originally, j Sir, at a subsequent period of the seaaion, when the Misaouri compromise wss again brought before us aa an amendment, did the honorable Senator from South Carolina vote for it ? Yes, ?ir; he did vo:e for it aa an amendment to the Oregon bill, but then refused to vote for the bill on account of the Missouri compromiae being incorporated in it And, sir, let me auk now what on that occasion waa the course of the Senator from Florida, (Mr. Yulee,) who sits furthest over the way, and who haa the honor at the present time, I believe, of being, I will not aay the moet leading and influential supporter of the Miaeouri compromise, but who is well understood to be altogether the moat zealous advocate which it haa at the present time, either here or eleewhere > Sir, he voted against it as an amendment. He expressed the atrongeat opposition to it; and said that, under no circum stances, could he be induced to vote for it. The gentleman'a tone haa not a little changed of late. He ia the champion of the Mieaouri compromise now. Yes, air, ita earneat advo cate, and can conceive of nothing else on the face of the earth which the wit of man could devise half ao well calculated aa this same compromiae for terminating the diatracting scenes through which we are passing. I will now refer to what waa aaid by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, in|the principal apeech which he deliver ed upon the Oregon question during the winter of 1847-8. We will presently see what he thought of the Missouri compromise : " After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question whether Missouri should come into the Union, with or without restrictions prohibiting slavery, a compromise line was adopted bet w sen the North and the South; but it was done under circumstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is true, it was moved by one of her distinguish ed citizens, (Mr. Clay,) but it ia equally so, that it was cai^ ried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the South ; and was thus imposed on the latter bjr superior numbers, in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The south has never given her sanction to it, or assented to the power it asserted. She was voted down, and has simply acquiesced in an arrangement which she h*s not had the power to reverse, and which she could not attempt to do without dis turbing the peace and harmony of the Union?to which ahe has ever been adverse. Acting on this principle, she permit- I ted the Territory of Iowa to be formed, and the Sute to be ! admitted into the Union, under the compromise, without ob jection ; and that is now quoted by the Senator from New Vork to prove her surrender of the powir he claims for Con gress. " To add to the strength of this claim, the advocates of the power hold up the name of Jefferson in its favor, and go so far as to call him the author of the so-called Wilmot proviso, which is but a general wxpression of a power of which the Missouri compromise is a case of its application. If we may judge bv his opinion of that case, what his opinion was of the principle, instead of being the author of the proviso, or being in its ravor, no one could be more deadly hostile to it. In a letter addressed to the elder Adams, in 1819, in answer to one from him, he uses these remarkable expressions in reference to the Missouri question : "' The banks, bankrupt law, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are occurrences which, like waves in a 1 storm, will pass under the ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by re ' volt, and what more, God only knows.' " To understand the full foroe of these expressions, it must je borne in niind, that the questions enumerated were the jreat and exciting political questions of the day on which par ies divided. The banks and bankrupt law bad long been so. Manufactures (or what has since been called the protective ariff) was at the time a subject of great excitement, as was the >pamsh treaty ; that is, the treaty by which Florida was ceded .o the Union, and by which the western boundary between Mexico and the United States was settled, from the Gulf of Vlexico to the Pacific ocean. All these exciting party ques ions of the day Mr. Jefferson regarded at nothing compared o the Missouri question. He looked on all of them as, in heir nature, fugitive; and, to use his own forcible expres lion,' would pass off under the ship of state like waves in a itorra.' Not so that fatal question. It was a breaker on whioh t was destined to be stranded : and yet, his name is quoted >y the incendiaries of the present day in support of, and as the luthor of, a proviso which would give indefinite and universal sxtension of this fata) question to all the Territories. It was :ompromised the next year by the adoption of the line to vhich I have referred. Mr. Holmes, of Maine, long a mem >er of this body, who voted for the measure, addressed a let er to Mr. Jefferson, enclosing a copy of his speech on the oc casion. It drew out au answer from him which ought to be reasured up in the heart of every man who loves the country ind its institutions. It is brief: 1 will send it to the Secretary 0 be read. The time of the Senate canpot be better occupied han in listening to it." Notice, air, that thia very letter, which Mr. Calhoun said lught to be treasured up in the heart of every one who loves his :ountry and ita institutions, was a letter which he understood ind pronounced to be a letter denunciatory of the Missouri ompromise. I know that others have understood that letter lifferently ; but that is unimportant to the point now under :onaideration. Let mo read the letter itself, that all may luly appreciate ita import: " Mohticeilo, April 22, 1820. ? To John Holmes. "I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Mis souri question. It is a perfect justification to ihem. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any atten tion to public aflairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which 1 am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I con sidered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a mark ed principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; aud every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. 1 can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The ces sion of that kind of property (for so it is misnamed) is a bag atelle, which would not cost me a second thought, it, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be ef fected ; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be._ But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the tree passage of slaves from one State to another wquM not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accompliahment of their I emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of I coadjutors An abstinence, too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men | composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution hits taken from them, and given to the General Government. Could Con gress, for example, say that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other Sute ? 6 " I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the use less sacrifice of themselves bv the generation of 1776, to ac quire self-government and happiness to their country, ia to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, snd that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected by union than by scission, 'hey would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, ss the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender ihe offering of my high esteem and respect. "THOMAS JEFFERSON." But I will further read from Ihe comments of Mr. Cal >un upon thia letter : " Mark (said he) Mr. Jefferson's prophetic words ! Mark s profound reasoning! " ' It [the question] is hushed for the moment. IJut this is a reprieve only, not * final sentence. A geographical line co nciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliteratedt and every new irritation will mark it deeper ind deeper.' " Twenty-eight years have passed since these remarkable ords were penned, and there is not a thought which time has >t thus far verified, and it is to be feared will continue to rify until the whole will be fulfilled. Certain it is that he garded the compromise line as utterly inadequate to arrest at fatal course ot events which his keen sagacity anticipated om the question. It was but a ? reprieve. * " Reprieve only ; not a final sentence ami yet gentle en, who profess the most profound deference for Mr. Cal iuh's opinions, and who seldom when alive ventured to ffer with him at all upon any public question, are now in sting that nothing else can be relied upon but the Missouri >tnpromi?e, for the permanent settlement of the pending ictional controversy. Now, sir, I, who entertained a,high ispect for the opinions of Mr. Calhoun when living, but ho did sometimes undertake to contest hia views in regard ? great National measures, must be permitted to declare, lat I do not entirely concur in all that he aaid in the speech om which I am reading, in relation to the Miteouri com romise. But to proceed with the specch : ? Mark (Mid Mr. CAUMOBtaiM deeply ?>wWpimprea? ?ion which it made on Mr. Jenersou's mind: "'I regret that I a?? to die in ike belief that the useless < wcrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire 1 self-government and happinessfor themaelvee, i* to be thrown * away by the unwiae ana unworthy passions of their >ont, and ? that my only consolation ii to be that I shall live not to weep i over it.' ** Can any one believe, after listening to this letter, that Jef ferson is the author of the so-called Wilmot proviso, or ever tavored it ? And yet there are at this time strenuous efforts making in the North to form a purely seetional party on it, and that, too, under the sanctiou ol those who profess the highest veneration for his character and principles ! But I must speak the truth, while I vindicate the memory of Jeffer son from so foul a charge. I hold he is not blameless in refe rence to this subject He committed a great error in insert ing the provision he did in the plan be reported for the gov ernment of the Territory, as much modified as it was. It was the first blow, the first essay * to draw a geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political.' It originated with him in philanthropic but mistaken views of the most dangerous character, as I shall show in the sequel. Others, wiih very different feeliogs and views, followed, and have given to it a direction and impetus which, if not promptly and efficiently arrested, will end in the dissolution of tne Union and the destruction of our political institutions." \ es, air, he urged (hat the attempt to bring about the re enactment of the Missouri compromise was an attempt to form a purely geographical party, and he denounced that attempt in the moat unmeasured language. The duty, in part, which I have to perform tbis day is to vindicate the great statesman of South Carolina from the unjust accusations preferred against him by his professed disciples of the present hour. He never was a Missouri compromise man ; he always scorned the compromise, and apoke of it with contempt. , If I an* wrong in regard to this matter, I am ready to be set right. I read from the published debates, and there can be no success ful attempt at refutation of any thing which I have asserted,, er may hereafter assert. I will only read another short extract from the same speech as follows: " I have, I trnst, established beyond controvery that neither the ordinance of 1787, nor the Missouri compromise, nor the precedeuts growing out of them, nor the authority of Mr. Jef ferson, furnishes any evidence whatever to prove that Congress possesses the power over the territory claimed by those who advocate the twelfth section ot this bilL But admit, for the sake of argument, that I am mistaken, and that the objections 1 have urged against them are groundless?give them all the ' force which can be claimed for precedents?and they would not have the weight of a feather against the strong presump tion which I, at the outset of my remarks, showed to be op posed to the existence of the power. Precedents, even in a court of justice, can have but little weight, except where the law is doubtful, and should have little in a deliberative body in any case on a constitutional question, and none where the Ewer to which it has been attempted to trace it does not ex , as I have shown, I trust, to be the case in this instance." In (he year 1847 Mr. Calhoun was equally explicit in de claring his opposition to the Missouri compromise. Listen to what he said upon the 19th day of February, of the year mentioned: " Sir, here let me say a word as to the compromise line. I have always considered it as a great error?highly injurious to the South, because it surrendered, for mere temporary pur poses, those high principles of the constitution upon which I think we ought to s'and. I am against any compromise line. Yet I would have been willing to acquiesc^ in a continuance of the Missouri compromise, in order to preserve, under the < Eiresent trying circumstances, the peace of the Union. One of he resolutions in the House, to that effect, was offered at my suggestion. I said to a friend there, ' let us not be disturbers of this Union. Abhorrent to my feelings as is that compro mise line, let it be adhered to in good faith ; and if the other !>ortions of the Union are willing to stand by it, let us not re use to stand by it. It has kept peace for some time, and in the present circumstances perhaps it would be better to be continued as it is.' But it was voted down by an overwhelm ing majority. It was renewed by a gentlemau from a non slaveholding State, and again voted down by an overwhelming majority. "1 aee my way in the constitution. I cannot in a compro mise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the con stitution is stable. It is a rock. On it we can stand. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in oppo sition to fanaticism, than on the shifting sands of compromise. " Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the constitution !" * To return to my own course: the Missouri compromise was not adopted at the session of Congress at which this speech wa? delivered. But I did not yet despair of its ultimate adoption. Knowing well that the people of the State of Mississippi were decidedly in favor of this compromise, and sincerely believing that its adoption by Congress would greatly tend to quiet the country at least for a season, I resolved not to give it up entirely, but to hold it still in reserve as a demier resort, if other expedients should fail. We, of the Democratic party, organized in '48, on the non-intervention platform, some what under Mr. Calhoun's lead ; because, although be did not vote with us in that election, he did to some extent participate in supplying us with the non-intervention plat form. Yes, sir, it was his potential voice that first urged us in this hall not to adopt any mere geographical "line upon which to rally our party forces; but to unite in the as sertion and maintenance of a great constitutional principle, which he predicted would conduct us to victory in the Presi dential contest. These are his words: " But I go further, and hold that justice and the constitution are the easiest and the safest guard on which the question can be settled, regarded in reference to party. It may be settled on that ground simply by non-action?by leaving the Territo ries free and open to the emigration of all the world, so long ss they continue so ; and when they become States, to adopt ? whatever constitution they please, with the single restriction, to be republican, in order to their admission into the Union, [fa party cannot safely take this broad and solid position, and luccesafully maintain it, what other can it take and maintain ?' If it cannot maintain itself by anappeal to the great principles Dfjustice, the constitution, and self-government, to what other, lufficiently strong to uphold them in public opinion, can they ippeal ? I greatly mistake the charaoter of the peohle of this Union, ii such an appeal would not prove successful, if ?ither party should liave the magnanimity to step forward and boldly inake it. It would, in my opinion, be received with shouts of ipprohation by the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter. I here ia a deep feeling pervading the country that the Union ind our political institutions are in danger, which such a' ?.ourse would dispel." Just as we propose in this bill. If oar plan had been before lim ho cduld not have been more accurate in tbe description >f its general features. Gentlemen now say that this is not atisfactory to them. I know that they want a special recogni ion of the right of slaveholders to go south of the line of 10 degs. 30 mins. with their slaves. Mr. Calhoun repudiated his doctrine. I beg to be understood as repeating the lan guage employed by him, and which I am about to read, is part of my own speech ; containing, as it does, views vhich I trust the country will approve and act upon. ? There is a very striking difference between the po ition in which the slaveholding and non-slaveholding Itates stand in reference to the subject under conside ation. The former desire no action of the Government j. lemand no law to give them any advantage in the Territory bout to be established ; are willing to leave it, and other Ter itories belonging to the United States, open to all their citi ens, so long as they continue to be Territories, and when tiey'cease to be so, to leave it to their inhabitants to iorra such overnments as may suit them, without restriction or condi ion, except that imposed by the constitution, as a prerequisite jr admission into the Union. In short, they are willing to? >ave the whole subject where the constitution and the great nd fundamental principles of self-government place it. On tie contrary, the non-slaveholding Suites, instead of being wil ing to leave it on this broad and equal foundation, demand le interposition of the Government, and the paasage of an ct to exclude the citizens of the slaveholding States from' migrating with their property into the Territory, in order to ive their citizens and those they may permit, the exclusive ight of settling it, while it remains in that condition, pre aratory to subjecting it to like restrictions and conditions Then it becomes a State." I beg of Southern Senators to notice this, and I ask them, 'hoi her they sanction it or not ? I tell them that I do aanc on it, and sanction it most heartily ; and if they do not, they re not as faithful to the memory, and are not so deferential to? le admonitions of the illustrious dead as I am, notwithstanding hat become fashionable of Tate to denounce me for a sort of ictious disregard of Mr. Calhoun's opinions. 8ee what Mr. Calhoun said in the Southern Address, in< sgard to the great principle of non-intervention : " What we propose i'i this connexion is, to moke a few re larks on ?Wit the North alleges, erroneously, to be the issue stween us and them. "So far from maintaining the doetrine, which the issue im lies, we hold that the Federal Government has no right to ex :nd or restrict slavery, nc more than to establish,or abolish it; or has it any right whatever to distinguish between the domes c institutions ot one State, or section, and another, in ordei > favor the one and discourage the other. As the Federal re reseptative of each and all the Statea, it is bound to deal out, ithin the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice and fa ir to all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discriminate be reen thedomestio institutions of one and another,would be to st in total subversion of the end for which it was established? i be the common protector and guardian of all. Kntertaining lese opinions, we ask not, as the North alleges we do, tor the (tension of slavery. That would make a discrimination in. ir favor, as unjust and unconstitutional as the discrimination ? Nom.?I finJ, since speaking as above, that a Southern enstor, (Mr. Westcott,) in debatingthe Oregon question,, sfd the following strong and decided language in opposition' i the Mistouii compromise : 14 Mr. President, I fear if I should vote for any such com romise, with my admitted impregnable convictions as to the iseless characier of the claim of power made for Congress, I lould expose myself to the charge of violating my oath to inport the constitution ; and I now take occasion to declare tat whatever may be the consequences, exc-pt to avert a civil ar, I cannot vole for any bill recognising and extending the ne S6 degs. 30 min. to the Pacific as a rightful act. I may insistently vote to amend a bill constituting such line for a revision extending the sixth article of (he ordinanoe over all tose Territories, as the least of two outrages $ but I cannot len suitain a bill, even so amended, with my vote willingly iven. Those who hold different opinions from me on the uest'ion of power, have not the same restraints upon their ae on. They can waive the exercise of the right without en ouutering constitutional difficulties,"