Newspaper Page Text
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
THE COMPROMISE BILL. Thursday, June 27, 1850. kThe Sent* proceeded to the consideration ef the bill for tbe admiaaion of California aa a State into the Union, to establish Territout 1 Governments for Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the establishment of her western and northern boundaries. Tbe pending question was on the amendment of Mr. Soolx, as follows : After the word ?? Government," in the title of the bJll, in sert the words " Sooth California/' and strike out the first, as ootid, and third sections ot the bill, and insert the following: "Beit enacted, !Jc, That as soou as California skull have passed in convention an ordinance providing? "That relinquishes all title or claim to tax, dispose of, or in any way to interfere with the primary disposal by the United States of the public domain within her limits; " That she will not interpose her authority and power so as to disturb or impede any oontrol which the United States n>%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 cession of , California to the,United States; "That the htndr^bf the non-residents shall never be taxed higher than those of residents; M That the vnvigabk waters*shall be open and free to ail ?citizens of the United States, those of California included; "That the southern limits shall be restricted to the Mis souri compromise line, (36 deg. 30 min. north latitude;) " And as soon as Ae shall have produced to the President of the United States satisfactory and authentic evidence that the terras here set forth have been fully and exactly complied wi(H, the President of the Unfted States be and he is hereby authorized and requested, without a*y further action oa the Kt of Congress, to issue "his proclamation declaring that ifornia is, andthat she str&ll thereupon be admitted into the Unioo upon an equal footing with <iie original States tin all respects whatsoever. " Sec. 3. Beit enacted, -Z4c. That such portion of the reve nue collected in the ports of California as may remain unex pended at the time of the issuing of the President's proclama tion as aforesaid, shall he paid ov?r to the -said State of Ca lifornia. " Sec. 3. Be it enacted, lie. That the Senators and Repre sentatives elect now before Congress for the said Stale of Ca lifornia shall be entitled to receive, and shall receive the mileage and the per diem pay allowed to the Delegate from the Territory of Oregon, from the day that the message of the President transmitting the coa?itution of California was re ? -ceived by Corgresa. " Sec. 4. Be it enae:ed, fife. That the country lying be tween the 30 deg. 30 min. of north latitude, and the boundary line between Mexico and the United Staths established by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and extending from the Pacific to the Sierra Nevada, shall constitute a Territory under the nsme ofthe Territery ofSouth California, and shall be organ ized as such under the provisions ot this bill applying* te the Territory of Utah, .(changing names where the* ought to be changed ) in all respects whatsoever, and shall^ when rsady, able, and-willing to become a State, aed desiring to be such, tie admitted into the Union, with or without alavery, as the people thereof may desire -and make known through their constitution." Mr- WEB8TOR. Mr. President, tbe amendment of the honoaable member-from Louisiana (Mr. Soulc) respects that part of tbe present bill which proposes the immediate admis sion of California into the Union as a State ; and the amend ment is opposed to that iarmediate 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 constitution of California shall be proposed to them, and that, if tbe people of California in convention -^hall have acceded lo such renditions and modification*, then the Presi dent of the United States shall issue his proclamation, an nouncing that fact, and thereupon California shall be admitted iota the'Union ac a State. Tbe question therefore is, whether, upon the whole, it would be more advisable: under all the circumstances of the case, to admit California now, or to send her constitution back again, and postpone to aome future and indefinite period her admission into the Union ? In my opinion, sir, it is highly expedient to admit California now. In my opinion it is highly expedient to ?ive her now a proper position in the Union, and to give her such powers as shall enable her to revolve among the other orbs of our system ; and I really be lieve-that that is the settled judgment of a gTeat majority of ' tbe people of this country. If there be any question growing out of these territorial acquisitions on which there seems to be a general, Lwill not say a unanimous public opinion, it is that, under the circumstances, itisexpedientand proper to admit California into the Union without further delay. She presents herself kere with a sufficient population. She presents a con stitution to which, in a .general aapect, as a republican constitu tion, we can make no objection. The case is urgent and pressing. No new Slate has ever appeared asking for admis sion in la the Union under circumstances so extraordinary and so striking ; nor have tbe oldest of us seen a case presented with aueh peculiarities and singularities. There is in the history of mankind, within my knowledge, no instance of such an extraordinary rush of people for private enterprise to one point on the earth's surfcee. It has keen represented heretofose that there were 150,?Op people in California. It would seem that on this very day there ara fifty or sixty thousand persons traversing the great plains between Mis souri and the Rocky Moutaine, all boairf to California. Other thousands are passing round Cape Horn ; other thou sands again crowd, prec?, fill up, and more<4han fill, up every conveyance that will take them to and frnmKhe Isthmus. So that it may be aaid, and truly said, that this very year will add a hundred thousand persons tirthe population of California. It is the moAt staking occurrence within oor generation, or any generation, as far as respects any private enterprise, and the extraordinary rush of people to a given paint upon the earth s surface. The capital of the Territory is supposed to contain thirty or forty thousand people; L.-00 vessels have a (ready keen sent thither^ 350 or 400 ships have been found riding in tbe harbor of San Francisco at the-same time. San Francisco, the capital, as I have already stated, contains a population of thirty or forty thousand people. California looks out upon India, and China, and Polynesia to the West, as we look out upan Europe to the East. Now the question is, what is to be dene with California 5 8ir, five years ago it happened to me ta say, in a public discussion, that perhaps the time was not fat distant when there woald be established beyond the Rocky Mountains, and on the shore of the sea, a great Pacific Republic, of which Saa Francisco would be the capital. I am overwhelmed by tbe appearance of the possible fulfilment of that prophecy so suddenly. And, sir, that w the alternative, in nu/judgment. I do not think it safe Ion. gar to delay tbe bringing of California into this Union, unless gentlemen are willing to contemplate that alternative. Other gentlemen have as good means of information of the state of opinion in California as I have; perhaps more. My infor mation is such, at sny rate, that 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 tbat which is absolutely accessary for tbe 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; thst is, that it is expedient, if there are no insurmountable obstacle*, t to bring California into the Union at once; and I do not un derstand the intention of the author of ibis amendment other wise than that, - if it were not for objections which he has pro pounded to the Senate, he should be willing to admit Califor nia at once/ And now the question if, whether tho* objec tors are insurmountable or not > If they are, California must be kept out of the Union, let the conaequences be what they Ik**' w u"' 'f ,liey are Dot in?u"?ount?ble, then I think, though things msy exist which we might wish hsd been other wise, yet it is a caws of so much exigency and emergency , * ??*ht 10 ?d'nit California. Let us come then st once to that point, and see what these objections are which have been suggested by the honorable member from Louiaiana. 1 bey divide themselves into two claases. He sayr, in the tb* <x*wiH?U<*i of Californis, and by h ill unamended, there is no sufficient security that tbe LnitedStatesw.il possess, enjoy, control, or have the right to dispose of the pu' lie domain or unappropriated lands in California. That is the first objection. The second relates to tbe boundaries of California, which be aaya are extrava gantly large, in the first place; in tbe second place, unnatu xal^ and in the third, impolitic and unfit to be made. Now sir, he proposes to remedy what he conaiders the first great deficiency of the bill, by sending back this constitution to California, and obtaining from a Convention of that Stale an agreement, compact, or consent, to theefTect 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 tax them while held by the United States; nor shall tax nan-resident proprietors higher thsn resident proprietors of the lands in that State shall be taxed. These are provisions which are, all of them, in this bill; but then the honorable member's argument is, that, as tbey are conditions which, trom th" nature of the case, can never receive the assent of, because they can never be pre*ente 1 to, the people of the State of California, unless tbe constitution is sent bsck, they are void, and that the assent or consent of California to thoae conJitioni is necessary to make them valid and binding. W ell, sir, hit argument proceeded upon this iJ?a: that with < u* some such stipulation or compact on the part of the State, the creation of a Territory into a Stale?a political, and, so lo say, sovereign community?does necessarily establish, in that sovereign community, a control ovr the public domain ; that when California becomes a State, t'rtm facto, she will hold, P'**?, enjoy, and control the public i'ands ; and this result he derivea trom an argument founded u[.on the nature of the sovereignty ; bccau-e, he says, it is the rssence of sovereign power to control the public domain. Sir, we mislead our helves ollen by usin^r terms wi hout *ut c en' sccuricy, or t< rrns not cu.-torcariiy found in the constitution and law*. That tbe "utesare covere'jrn in many respects n l,*)y do.b'* ; the' thry .re so*,reign i. all re nobody contends. The term ?' sovereign" or ?? saver cigoty" does not occur in the Conatftutiou of the United State*. The Constitution doe* not apeak of the State* a* "sovereign State*.*' It doe* not rpeak of thi* Government aaa "sovereign government." It avoid* *tud>ou*ly the ap plication of term* that might admit of different views, and the true idea of the Constitution of the United State*, and alao of the constitution of e*. ery State in the Union, i*, that power* are conferred on the Legislature, not by general vague de?icripuon, but hy enumeration. The Government of the United Slates holds no power which it doe* not hold as an enumerated power, under (he constitution, or a power necessarily implied; and the same may be said of every State in (he Union. The constitution of each State prescribe* de finitely the power* that ahall belong to the Government of the State. But if thia were a true aource of argument in tbia case, the honorable member would find that thi* implication, arising from sovereignty, :woulJ just as naturally adhere to the Government of the United States as to that of the State. Certainly, many higher branches of sovereignty are in the Government ef the United States. The United States Gov ernment ma it us war, raises armies, maintain* navies, enters into alliances, makes treaties and coins money ; none of which exercises of sovereignty a State Government perform*. Nevertheless, there are aovereign powers which the State Governments do perform. They punish crimes, impose pen alties, regulate the tenure of land, and exerciae a municipal sovereignty over the land. Let me remark that thi* question j is not new here. I met it in the Senate the first session that ( took my 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 year*. The idea that the sovereignty of a Slate necessarily carries with it the ownership of the pub lic lands within it* limit*, waa here twenty years ago. It wa* discussed, considered, debated, exploded. It went oflj and here k is back again, with exactly the same aspect in the hea vens that attended it then. 8|t, in the year 1828 or 9?in 1828 I think it was?the Legislature of Indiana took up tbia subject, passed these reso lutions, and instructed her members of Congress to support tbsm : " Retohed, Uc. That this State, being a sovereign, free, ?nd independent State, has the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands within her acknowledged boundaries; which riAt waa reserved for her by the State of Virginia, in the deed of cession of the 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 Senatera in Congress be instructed, and our j Representatives requested, to use ever)' exertion in their power, by reason and argument, to induce the United States to acknowledge this vested right of the State, and to plaee her uponaaeqoal 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 aa an amendment to one of the graduation bills, introduced by the honorable meaner from Missouri (Mr. Bkkton) to that effect : "Mr. Hendmcks, in presenting these resolutions, said it had become his duty to present to the Senate resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, on the subject of the public landa within the limits of that State. These re solutions, said he, are similar in character to those of the State of Louisiana, a few days ago presented by a Senator from that State. They are also, in some degree, similar to the spirit of 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 lands within her acknowledged boundaries, and that this right was reserved to her by the State of Virginia in the deed ofcession 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 Representa tives of that magnanimous State." ? ? ? * ? " It is believed that the compact not to interfere with the primary diaposee of ?he soil, and uot 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 Stale was admitted into the Union; and its irrevocable character, as well as the perpetual obliga tion which it attempts U> 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 individual may hold ; for it is by no means in that character she does hold. She holds as a sovereign, and subjects the soil of the Stale to the uncontrollable action of her legislative power." Proceeding upon the ground that the public lands were the property of the State, he proposed to acknowledge that fact by ihia aection in the graduation bill then before the Senate : "Sec. 6._ Und be it Jiiri/ier enacted, That the public and unappropriated lands within the limits of the new States shall 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 *upport of the same proportion by a gentleman now holding an eminent station on the bench of the national judi ciary, who wa* 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 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." 8 The honorable member from Louisiana was only following these precedent*. The argument of his able and learned speech wa* 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 land* it in ? !r* '* natura,ly con,,ected 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 owned, or living in a country that is under another Government, establish a political community, it follows of course that by no act of their'a 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 Lnited Statea. Now, if people owning those part* of the country appropriated heretofore to individual uses by the King of Spain, or, if people resident there without title establish a political community, by what proceaa can it be made out that they become entitled to the whole country > The doc trine of \ attel, as I have shown, is only applicable to a case where a nation enters into a country vacant of ownership; and if the gentleman who*e 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, exacUy the proper distinction. But he left off in the middle of a paragraph of \ attel. It goes on thus : "The general domain of the nation over the lands the in habits is naturally connected with the empire ; for, in estab lishing herself in a vacant country, 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 f Thus we have al ready observed that, iu taking possession of a country, the na tion is presumed to take possession of its government at the same time.- SVe shall here proceed further, and show the natural connexion of these two rights in an independent nation. How could she 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 f Another's sovereign ty, and the right it comprehends, must deprive her of the free disposal of that place. Add to this the eminent do main, which constitutes v part of the sovereignty, and ynu 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 if, is every where consid- red as inseparable from the sovereignty. The utefui domain, or the domain confined to the rights that may belong to an individaal in the State, may be separated from the sovereignty, and noihine prevents the possibility of its belonging to a nation in places lliat are not under her jurisdiction. Thus many sovereigns have fiefs and other possessions in the territories of another prince : in these cases they possess them in the manner of priviite i mil vidua! i. , ' The sovereignty, united to the domain, establishes ihe jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country rhat belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sove r'lgo, to exercise justice in all the p aces under Iter iuriidic ' lion?to take cognizance of the crimes committed, and the dif ferences that arise in the country." Now. that i? preci-ely thin case. The government of brd, in all that belong* to it* title, tranamiwioo, inheritance, and alienation, belongs to the municipal authority within whow I limit* it lias. Thai is unquestionable. Bat than there is nothing to prevent another sovereign from possssung the do I minium u/?7e, the useful domain, or any portion of it. No thing st all. This Government may as well hold the lands in California as any individual in the United 8tates. The ' only difference is this : that the Government of the United I States holds the land only for one greet purpose?that is, to | sell. It holds it in trust to sell for the benefit of the Govern J ment and people of the United States ; and every acre, as won ss 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 8tatee, that ia established by law which, in regard to individuals, might be established by contract; 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 far excluded from the municipal sovereign ty under which tbey sre placed aa that they ahatl not be sub ect to taxation, or, being owned by non-residents, they shall not be taied higher than if owned by rasidenta. That i? the only exception ; and it is as competent to be made between an individual and the State where the |?nd liM| as it is to be imposed by act of Congreas. Sir, there are many inatancea 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 Jersey 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 weatern part of New ^ ork. 1 hey were sold to Measrs. Gorham and Phelps, and they sold to the Holland Land Company ; and thus near one third of her State, perhaps, 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 domain, ia 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 fully 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 8tate, that her admission as a Slate has no effect at all on the property of the United States lying within its limits. But, sir, it is 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, precissly and explicitly. I he case will be found in 3d- 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 1848, say this, ex eluding all idea that the title to the lands depends on any con~ tract made with the new State : "We, therefore, think the United States hold the public lands within the new States by force ol the deeds of cession and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess, 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 counsel for the plaintiffs, that the agreement of the people inhabiting the new States ?that theyforever 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 1 to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other of the Umted States.' This authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the United States to the public lands, and to provide lor their sale, and to pro tect them from taxation. " And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in tee 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 of 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 ot 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 exactly overrules all that, as any honorable member will see. If it had 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 an- i thority of the Lnited States does so far extend aa, by force of itself, propria vigore, to exempt the public lands from taxa Hon, whon new States are created over the territory in which the lands lie. Then, sir, what haa become of all this danger to the public lands ? A compact would make our title no better. It is good enough without it, and I want no compact. The language of the decision is explicit; and therefore I think the member from Illinois was entirely rieht when he proposed the law which he did?the act for the ad mission of 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 whiclrl 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 has any intention of claim ing the ownership of the public lands, as a consequence of her i State sovereignty > Why, so far from that, the constitution of' California acknowledges the right of this 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 disposed of and taken care ol by her Legislature. Is not Hat an express sdmission 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 bis 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 !i i1?*?8 ^Utes now iD lhe Union?if any thing is set tled by the solemn decision of the court of highest judicature i in he country, it is that no such thing as an impliaation of control over the public lands of the United States arises torn the creation of a State, founded on any idea that the public domain necessarily adheres to State sovereignty. Such a notion has never prevailed in the councils of the eountry. iNow, 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 si er whether it is worth his while to stand on technicalities, and whether it is not rather bis duty to conform to the usages and pracucesofthe laws and judicature ofihe country ? The honor able 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, be will arrive at a more important exigency in the afftirs of the country than is now before us. He has taken an important part, and a suc lesslul part, m some amendments to the bill. He has ac somplwhed that which be and his friends thinks Important in respect to the terntonal governments. Will he not help us now ?o accomplish his own and a higher work? Will he not re minder his objections to the adm<asion of California, so far is those objections arise to which I have adverted? This ia a :ommon case, an ordinary case ; every doubt about it is ehut up and concluded by solemn decisions, so far as this objection joes, and ought to be withheld from opposition to the admis sion ot California. arie?aere He ,h" bound uZ X"'^-"'"ordinarily large, unnatural, and iropo wndina uTon'lL rrC ^UfBtion8 in a measure d? | pending upon the peculiar circumstances of the case ??d the situation, soil, surface, and climate of the coun'ry At an "Id7 E ,?f?he6thinS,?w 1 ^re"etl 3n ?pini0n' which 1 noiu, tbat if lhe thing were before us now, we could not make -f&zT - f pszsr.s ">? w.?, "s-r.; know that it has more than three tim?*? m.L *" inaccessible and rocky hill,, and sandy wasteIyth1.nU"t,,n"' ?~ed by any State of the Union-. g^J*'" " ST this indeed. But how much is there of u^ul l.nd E?I H thst msy be made to contribute to the Z^0,?7r society > These ought to be the queatioT WeT with ? spect to thst, I am sure every body has become alihougb California may have a very great seaboard .ii large city orlwo, yet that the agricultural producU "th'e whole surfacs now i* not, and never will |J. , b half part those of the State of Illinois , no, nor vJt I f T or perhaps a tenth part. In the first place the J.L try, on the line Parting off from the eastern bottom nfth" Sierra Nevada, and running to the Gila, i. " del, of That take, off thirty or for* thousand Well Z'TZ *0d " h ? PreUy imporlanl 'eduction. Well, hen, look again at (he mountains. There ia undoubt edly a long vsllejr on .he Sacramento and San Joaquin of to lerably good land, and there may be some good land be tween the coast mountains and the sea, but, on the whole, nobody will ?.y that, in quantity of good land, or of toler ably good land, there is any excess; but, oq the conUary, w far less, vaally leas, than belongs to moat of the u"* ?ut ,'*eo re *? Mother consideration, ."i.r J00 connect South California if vou dia Jra ^?th California } And what is the value of South UalrJbmfa disconnected from North California > Why, look upor, the map and the question will be answered, Sup pow we run the line of 36? SO' from the see across to New eiico: what have you ' You have mountains, and you ave l?V T,f' ,tr*?u. land east of the mountains; but, upon the beat information I can obtain, and I have consulted waat 1 suppose every gentleman concedes ia the bear, there cannot 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 apeak now of lands that may be tilled and cultivated. We must, as I have said, look at climate aa well as the surface of tbe land. Gentlemen will pleaae to remem ber that in thia part of California eight months in every year roll on without a drop of rain failing, 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 aupply water for the cultivation of but a very small portion of the land that otherwise might be made tilla ble. Well, what will be the value of this territory > The gentleman from Louisiana contended for the rights of the oouth in regard to it. Where is there any value in it T Is it any thing more than a mere nominal right, if it be that > 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 is 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 tbe Territory the line of 3ttw srr?the bounda ry commonly called the Missouri compromise. Now, is that practicable ' Is it attainable ? Does the gentleman, or do his lriends, 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 thia Southern California is part of California, and within her prescribed boundaries, and next, to the known state of opinion, I have yet to Isarn, (though I have heard it suggested to tbe contrary,) after some dili gent examination of the proceedings of tbe 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 find that a member of the Conven tion?Carrillo, I think, from San Angeles?in the 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, as would appear on the further progresa of affairs, as will be found on page 446 of the debates. And I aeeno evidence from the country to the south of 36? 30' that it is desirous to set up or to have a government for itself, or to be otherwise aasociated 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 aettled for one hundred and 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. 8o far as I see, in the debates in the California, Convention the indi cation 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 this bill ss it stands ? We have determined in regard to the Territories, and, taking this question as it stands under tbe constitution of California, within her borders, and looking to the practical operation, I msy 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 parte of the country as we can make it. I had no hand in introducing these Ter ritories into the I nion ; 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 caae, in our diacussing, 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, such a vote on the proposition of the Senator from Louiaiana as will decide the case, and show that the judgment of the Senate, aa it is of the whole country, is that California ahould 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, thajt 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 decisive, and so far show to the country that, as to this part of the case, it is a determined question. 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 tbe 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 thia branch of the subject. Whilst vindicating my own consistency, if I should inci dentally ahow that certain other gentlemen, now the ardent advocates of the Missouri compromise and the violent oppo ses of this bill, are not altogether as consistent as they would wish to be regarded, I hope to be excused, as it is really not my intention either to perpetrate injustice or to practice dis courtesy. Mr. President, during the summer of 1847 a distinguished Pennsylvania atatesman (Mr. Buchanan) published a letter, which was read by us all at tbe time, aud 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-citixens?I at once declared the high gratifi cation which I felt at tbe publication of the letter, and avowed my desire to see the views contained in it approved by the whole nation. When I took my sest 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 tbe session, as it actually did. But, air, what waa the condition of things which I found here then ? I do not design to use the language of reproat h ; I I shall not utter one word of unkindness ; 1 shall call no man's motives in question ; but, sir, I feel bound to state, di rectly and explicitly, all the facts relating to this somewhat delicate point. The condition of things existing when I took my seat here at the period mentioned was precisely that which I am about to describe. 8ir, I urged upon distinguished Southern men, with whom I was then in close alliance, and whose confidence and friendship I waa proud to enjoy, includ ing the distinguished Senator from South Carolina now no longer amongst us, repestedly, the propriety of bringing for ward the Musoun compromise, at as early a period as pracli :able, for the settlement of the vexed Territorial question ihen 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 insisted with these gentlemen, more than once, that, inasmuch as the Missouri :ompromise had the sdvanUge, in point of precedence, over iny new plan of adjustment which could be deviaed, it was mportsnt to make an early trial of it in Congress, with a view :o restoring quiet to tbe country. But wbst response did I ?eceive from more than one distinguished Southern man ? Why, the Missouri compromise wa? denounced, carped at, ind openly ridiculed. When I offered 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 i proposition, if brought forward at all, must originate witb Northern men. Well, sir, I resolved not to desist from my sfforts j and, feeling not altogether competent, as a young nernber of this body, to cope with the heavy responsibility of introducing the Miwouri compromise, in defiance of the oppo ntion threatened by Southern gentlemen, I resolved to cast ibout and see whether I could not succeed in persuading ?ome Northern Democratic friend to introduce it. I had no difficulty in finding a suitable person in all respects for the performance of this task, and one who needed no cogent per suasion from myself, or from any other person, to instigate mm to the execution of what he had already reaolved to do. am about to narrate several incidents of an interesting char acter, never heretofore divulged , and what I ?hall state can be * 'i*.k * ' necf*wry? at once l?y the highest possible evidence, ?nd that too #h.eh ia now present. I chanced to be on a certain morning at the Presidential mansion, llitn occupied by tbe lamented Jan.fa K, Polk. I' found, upon my arrival there, the honorable Senator froiz Indiana, (Mr. Bbiomt,) with whom I waa then, aa now, upon intimate terms, and with whom I waa in the habit oi counselling freely then, aa now, in regard to mattera affecting the welfare and safety 'of the republic. A conversation oc curred between Mr. Polk, the 8enator from Indiana, and my self, upon tbe Oregon bill, which waa then pending, the re sult of which was an agreement on tbe part of my friend from Indiana to become the introducer of the Miaaouri compromiae aa an amendment. The Preaident immediately turned to a volume upon hie table containing the compromiae ; it was at once copied, and the Senator from Indiana and myself repair ed instantly to this hall, when, in a short time after reaching the Senate, be announced his determination to bring in the amendment which he had prepared, at the earliest practicable period. Well, sir, when the amendment was 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 possible respect?it waa denounced by the honorable Senator from South Caroli na already referred to. Here ia his speech ; it was declared by him 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. Sir, at a subsequent period of the session, when the Missouri compromise wss again brought before us as an amendment, did the honorable Senator from South Carolina vote for it ? Yea, air; he did vote 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 a?k now what on that occasion was the course of the Senator from Florida, (Mr. Yulxe,) who sits furthest over the way, and who haa the honor at the present time, I believe, of being, I will not aay the moat leading and influential supporter of the Missouri compromise, but who is well understood to be altogether the most zealous advocate which it haa at the present time, either here or elsewhere ? 8ir, he voted against it as an amendment. He expressed the strongest opposition to it; and said that, under no circum stances, could he be induced to vote for it. The gentleman's tone haa not a little changed of late. He ia the champion of the Missouri compromise now. Yes, sir, its earnest advo cate, and can conceive of noihing else on the face of the earth which the wit of man could devise half so well calculated as this same compromiae for terminating the diatracting scenes through which we are passing. I will now refer to what waa said by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, in|the principal apeech which he deliver ed upon the Oregon question during the winter of 1R47-8. We will presently nee what he thought of the Miasouri 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 betw sen the North and tbe 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 is equally so, that it was car ried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the South ; and was thus imposed on the latter by 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 she has ever been adverse. Acting on this principle, she pennit ted the Territory of Iowa to t>e formed, ana the State to be admitted into the Union, under the compromise, without ob jection ( and that is now quoted by the Senator from New York 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 ot the so-called Wilmot proviso, which is but a general expression of a power of which the Missouri compromise is a case ol its application. If we may judge by 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 ? storm, wjfl 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 be borne in mind, that the questions enumerated were the great and exciting political questions of the day on which par ties divided. The banks and bankrupt law had long been so. Manutactures (or what has since been called the protective tariff) was at the time a subject of great excitement, as was the Spanish treaty ; that is, the treaty by whioh Florida was ceded to the Union, and by which the western boundary between Mexico and the United States was settled, from the Gulf ot Mexico to the Pacific ocean. All these exciting party ques tions of the day Mr. Jefferson regarded <s nothing compared to the Missouri question. He looked on all of them as, in their nature, fugitive ? and, to use his own forcible expres sion, ? would pass off under the ship of state like waves in a storm.' Not so that fatal question. It was a breaker on whioh it was destined to be stranded : and yet, his name is quoted by the incendiaries of the present day in support of, and as the author of, a proviso which would give indefinite and universal extension of this fatal question to all the Territories. It was compromised the next year by the adoption of the line to which I have referred. Mr. Holmes, of Maine, long a mem ber of this body, who voted for the measure, addressed a let ter to Mr. Jefferson, enclosing a copy of his speech on the oc casion. It drew out an answer from him which ought to be treasured Up in the heart of every man who loves the country and its institutions. It is brief: I will send it to the Secretary to be read. The time of the Senate canpot be better occupied than in listening to it." Notice, sir, that this very letter, which Mr. Calhoun raid ought to be treasured up in the heart of every one who loves his country and its institutions, waa a letter which he understood and pronounced to be a letter denunciatory of the Miasouri ?ompromise. I know that others have understood that letter differently ; but that is unimportant to the point now under conaideration. Let mo read the letter itaelf, that all may duly appreciate ita import: " Monticeixo, Aphil 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 them. I had ? for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any atten ? tion to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and ' content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which ? I 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 onee 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; ? and 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 4 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 emsncipation 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 1 State to another would not make a slave of a single human ' being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over 1 a greater surface would make them individually happier, 1 and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment ot their ? emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of ? 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 1 composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of ' every State, which nothing in the constitution has 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 1 other State ? ** I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the use 1 less sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to ac 1 quire self-government and happiness to their country, ?s to 1 be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy Missions ot their 1 sons, and that my only consolation is to be that 1 live not to 1 weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh t e blessings they will throw away, against an abstract pnncip e, ?more likely to be effected by union than by scission, ? ey 1 would pause before they would perpetrate this act ot ,ul01 1 on themselves, and of treason against tbe hopes of the wor . 1 To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, 1 en ' the offering of my high esteem and respect. ??THOMAS JEFFERSON. But I will further read from the comments of Mr. Cal loun upon this letter : ( I ?? Mark (said he) Mr. Jefferson's prophetic words Mark lis profound reasoning! . ?? ? It [the question] is hushed/or moment. But1 '* _* reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geograp . " inciding with a marked principle, moral an' I ? conceived ami held up to the angry ? ^ he obliterated, and el-cry nrw Irritation will mark it deep* 1 and deeper.' . , ,, ?? Twentv-eieht years have passed since these remarkable rdi were nenned and there is not a thought which time has vordswerepe , to be feared will continue to iot thus far veriie, fuifiUed. Certain it is that he .. .. :T< hat fatal course ot events which his keen sagacity anticipated "rom (he question. It was but a ? reprieve. .?Reprieve only < not a final sentence; and yetgentle nen who profess the moat profound deference f?r Mr. Cal tiouu's opinions, and who seldom when alive ventured to liffer with him at all upon any public queation, are now in Haling that nothing else can be relied upon but the Missouri compromise, for the permanent settlement of the pending ?ectional controversy. Now, sir, I, who entertained a high respect for the opinions of Mr. Calhonn when living, but who did sometimes undertake to contest his views in regard !o great National measures, must be permitted to declare, that I do not entirely concur in all that he said in the apeech from which I am reading, in relation to the Missouri com promise. But to proceed with tbe specch : , "Mark (ttMMr. Cauoob) thadeeply nl?holyimprea* ?ion which it made on Mr. Jefferson's mind: <? "' I regret that I au> to die in th? bcBef (hat the useless ? sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire ' ' self-government and happines'sfor themselves, i* to be thrown ' away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their torn, and ? that my only consolation is to be that t shall live not to weep ? 4 over it.' " Can any one believe, after listening to this letter, that Jef ferson is the author of the so-called Wilmert proviso, or ever lavored it? And yet there are at this time strenuous efforts making in the North to form a purely sectional party on it, and that, too, under the sanction ot those who profess the highest veneration for his character and principles ! But I must speak the truth, while I vindicate the memory of Jeffer sou from so foul a charge. I hold he is not blameless in refe rence to this subject tie 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 firtt 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, with very different feelings 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." Yes, air, he urged that the attempt to bring about the re enactment of the Misaouri compromise was an attempt to form a purely geographical party, and he denounced that attempt in the most unmeasured language. The duty, in part, which I have to perform this day ia to vindicate the great statesman of South Carolina from the unjust accusationa preferred against him by his professed disciples of the present hour. He never was a Missouri compromise msn ; he always scorned the compromise, and spoke of it with contempt. , If I am 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,, or may hereafter assert. I will only read another short extract from the same speech as follows: " I have, I trnst, established beyond eontrovery that neither the ordinance of 1787, nor the Missouri compromise, nor the precedents 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 1 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 bat 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 (he 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 the 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 stand. I am against any compromise line. Yet I would have been willing to acquiesces in a continuance of the Missouri compromise, in order to preserve, under the Ei re sent trying circumstances, the peace of the Union. One of he resolutions in the House, to tliat 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 iaith ; and if the other portions of the Union are willing to stand by it, let us not re fuse 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 gentleman from a non slaveholding State, and again voted down by an overwhelming majority. "I see 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 was 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 lesolved not to give it up entirely, but to hold-it still in reserve as a dernier resort, if other expedients should fail. We, of the Democratic parly, 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 tne Territo ries free and open to the emigration of all the world, so long as 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. If a party cannot safely take this broad and solid position, and successfully maintain it, what other can it take and maintain If it cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the great principles of justice, the constitution, and self-government, to what other, sufficiently strong to uphold them in public opinion, can they appeal ? I greatly mistake the character of the peatole of this Union, it such an appeal would not prove successful, if cither party should liave tne magnanimity to step forward and boldly make it. It would, in my opinion, be received with shouts of approbation by the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter. There is a deep feeling pervading the country that the Union and our political institutions are in danger, which such a course would dispel." Just as we propose in this bill. If our plan had been before him he could not have been more accurate in the description of its general features. Gentlemen now say that this is not latisfactory to them. I know that they want a special recogni tion of the right of slaveholders to go south of the line of 36 degs. 30 mins. with their slaves. Mr. Calhoun repudiated this 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 which I trust the country will approve and act upon. " There is a very striking difference between the po lition in which the slaveholding and non-slaveholdmg States stand in reference to the subject under conside ration. The former desire no action of the Government lemand no law to give them any advantage in the Territory ibout to be established ; are willing to leave it, and other Ter ritories belonging to the United States, open to all their citi zens so long as they continue to be Territories, and when hey'cease to be so, to leave it to their inhabitants to form such, povernments as may suit them, without restriction or condi ion, except that imposed by the constitution, as a prerequisite or admission into the Union. In short, they are willing to. eave the whole subject where the constitution and the great ind fundamental principles of sell'-trovernment place it 0& he contrary, the non-?laveholding States, instead of being wil ing to leave it on this broad and equal foundation, demand he interposition of the Government, and the passage of an ict to exclude the citizens of the slaveholding States from, ?migrating with their property into the Territory, in order to rive their citizens and those they may permit, the exclusive ?ight of settling it, while it remains in that condition, pre taratory to subjecting it to like restrictions and conditions when it becomes a State." I beg of Southern Senators to notice this, and I ask them, whether they sanction it or not ? I tell tbem that I do Banc ion it, and sanction it most heartily ; and if they do not, they ire not as faithful to the memory, and are not so deferential to he admonitions of the illustrious dead as I am, notwithstanding t haf become fashionable of hte to denounce me for a sort of actious disregard of Mr. Calhoun's opinions. 8ee what Mr. Calhoun said in the Southern Address, in egard to the great principle of non-intervention : " What we propose in this connexion is, to mkke a few re narks on wlwt the North alleges, erroneously, to be the issue tetween us and them. "So far from maintaining the doctrine, which the issue im ilies, we hold that the Federal Government has no right to ex end or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or abolish it;, lor has it any right whatever to distinguish between the doraes ic institutions ot one State, or section, and another, in ordei o favor the one and discourage the other. As the Federal re iresentative of each and all the States, it is bound to deal out, rithin the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice and fa? or to all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discriminate be ween the domestic institutions of one and another,would be ta ct in total subversion of the end for which it was established? o be the common protector and guardian of all. Entertaining, hesc opinions,,we ask not, as the North alleges we do, <or the x ten si on of slavery. That would make a discrimination in> lur favor, as unjust and unconstitutional as the discrimination ? Note.?I find, since speaking as above, that a Southern ienstor, (Mr. Westcott,) in debatingthe Oregon question,, is* d the following strong and decided language in opposition* o the Misifouii compromise : '? Mr. President I Oar if I should vote for any such com tromise, with my admitted impregnable convictions astothe laselesscharacter of the claim ot power made for Congress, I hould expose myself to the charge of violating my oath to unport the constitution ; and I now take occasion to declare hat whatever may be the consequences, except to avert a civil rar, I cannot vole for any bill recognising and extending the tne .16 degs. 30 min. to the Pacific as a rightful act. I may insistently vote to .mend a bill constituting such line for a .revision extending the sixth article of the ordinanoe over all hose Territories, as the least of two outrages ; but I cannot hen sustain a bill, even so amended, with iny vote willingly >iven Those who hold different opinions from me on the inestion of power, hsve not the same restraints upon their ac inn. They can waive the exercise of the right without en souutering constitutional difficulties,"