Newspaper Page Text
In advance, per year,$2 00 Not paid in advance, 2 00 Not paid until six months have expir ed, 300 Not paid till the year has expired, 350 No subscription received I- t . - - ior a less time man a year, unless the price be paid in advance. twc SIT WM. H. BAXWE. CHARACTER IS AS IMPORTANT TO STATES AS IT IS TO 1XDIVIDU ' AM) TUP nnnv - lDIVIDLALS, AND TI1E GLORY OF THE STATE IS THE COMMON PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS." TERMS Of AD VSRTXSXZCG : Onesauareoftwentv-or e '.lines or less, lor one inscr- ftion, 60 cents ; every sub -j'sequent insertion, 30 cents f.except it remaininfor s-v-;' eral mouths, when it will charged v7c fci r two . - j(55lO for twelvemonths. NORTH CAROLINIAN. Wjhi II. Baynei Editor and Proprietor. PAYETTEVILLE, JT. C. AUGUST 10, 1850. 03- The Mechanics of Washington, N. C, have formed an association, and published resolutions declaring that hereafter they will not give em ployment to any negro mechanic, or learn any negro boy a trade. They condemn the practice of masters letting slaves hire their own time. They refer to the influx of free negroes from Virginia, driven out by the laws of that State ; and they express a determination to petition the Legislature of North Carolina to pass a similar act, or tax the free negroes to r;ise a fund to send them to Africa. SMALL DIFFERENCE. We were a little surprised at the very small difference between the poll for Governor in Wilmington and in Fay etteville. Wilmington claiming twice the nnm ber of inhabitants, has only polled 84 votes more than Fayetteville. W: 591 F: 512. Beat JS"cw Hanover 100 even.' gave Reid an increased majority Cumberland gave him 203 ! New Hanover of 163, while WEST POTNT. The Board appointed to visit West Point Academy, and superintend the ex amination of Cadets, recommend that the Span ish language be also taught; also the evidences of natural and revealed religion; an increased at tention to international and constitutional law; and that the Cadets be required to study an ad ditional year. They also recommend that the number ap pointed from each State be increased. The pay of the Cadet is $24 per month, which the committee think is not enough, and recom mend that it be increased to $23. Every thing in the way of expense to the government, tends to increase. Probably the next committee will think $23 is not enough. custom parts of KEEP CP THE FJ RES. It is : nmong the farmers and others in many the country, to have fires at night, either in the dwelling or in the yard. It is a practice whic h should be universal. They are well known to be great safeguards against all sorts of diseases, by purifying the atmosphere. The theory is based upon philosophical principles, and well supported by experience. Cases are known as far hack as two centuries ago, when the use of fires was rather the result of accident than a general knowledge of the benefit of the practice. SPEECH OF IIOX. W3I. S. ASHE, On the question of the admission of the dele gates from Utah and New Aexico, deliv ered in the House of Jleprcsentatives, July 1 67, 1850. Mr Ashe being; entitled to the floor, said: Mr Chairman, the excessive and almost insufferable warmth of the weather must be taken as my apology tor the few and in coherent remarks which I will o flier to the House on the matter now pending before it. As one of the Committee on Elections, 1 can now say that this application from New Mexico received at their hands a most seduliuus examination. I agree entirely with the majority in the report and the ac companying resolutions submitted by them, and will" further say, that any other con clusion on their part would not only have been incompatible with the usages and practices of Congress, but in direct antag onism with the Constitution of the United States. In making this broad declaration, I intend to cast no censure on the minority who made a contrary report. We have all to abide the workings of our respective judgments. The minority thought in one way, reasoned in one way, and concluded in that way. The majoiity, actuated by a desire no less fervent to discharge their duty properly and correctly, from the same facts deduced opposite and contrary con clusions. As the chairman, in his speech antl report, has most ably argued the mer its of the case, I think it is idle for me to make any extended remarks. I will, therefore, be brief. In order to determine correctly the relation which New Mexico bears to the Union, we should previously examine the relation which sub sisted between New Mexico and Old Mex ico previous to our taking possession of it. We have good and indisputable authority for the position that there were nineteen States composing the Mexican confederacy anterior to the separation of Texas from that confederacy. New Mexico was not recognized as one of these nineteen States, but, on the contrary, was considered as a territory attached to Coahuila and Texas. Its settlement was, indeed, much anterior in time to either of them, but it never pos sessed the capacity to emerge from a ter ritorial condition. This fact is not at all impugned by the consideration that this territory was possessed of a Provincial Council, invested with legislative powers; for its legislation merely extended to municipal regulations. V e should bear in mind that Coahuila and Texas formed one of the Mexican States; the first-named lying on the west of the Rio Grande: the last, Texas, lying on the east of that river. As early as the year 1827, there was an attempt made to establish a separate and independent Republic, called Fredonia, composed of Coahuila and Texas. If that attempt had been successful, would not New Mexico, as attached territory, have followed in the wake? I am clearly of that opinion. But should New Mexico, in the event of the Texan revolution, be con sidered as an incident of Coahuila on the west, or of Texas on the east of the Rio Grande? (I of course refer only to that portion of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande.) The last is her true posi tion. The diplomatic history of the U States will throw considerable'light on this point. By the treaty of 1303, by which we acquired from France, Louisiana, it was carefully stipulated that all the rights in their fullest extent resulting to France from the treaty of IUlefonso, made between France and Soain. should accrue? to the U. States, and under that provision our Government did not hesitate to claim all the country lying east of the Rio Grande. This was certainly the opinion not only of Mr Jefferson, but of every other distin guished statesman of that day; and it was in accordance with the correctness of this claim on our part, that, when we conveyed away Texas to Spain, as a part of the con sideration of the purchase of Florida, both of the high contracting parties (Spain and the U. States) adopted and made the Red River as the proper boundary between, the two countries as far west as 100 deg. of longitude west of London, and from thence due north to the Arkansas river, following the course of the Arkansas to its source in 42 deg. of latitude, t hence bv that paral lel of latitude to t!ie South Sea. What country were we engaged in conveying away? Was it not Texas? What coun try, then, did these boundaries circum scribe? Was it not Texas? If this coun try, so described, was not a part of Texas, but a possession of Spain, why the particu larity of this boundary. I apprehend it would have been much more convenient, as well as more consistent with the usages nations, to have established a common line of demarcation until the possession of Spain was arrived at, and from thence to have made the boundary of such posses sions the dividing line between the two countries; and the deviation from that usage in this case, clearly demonstrates that the country so circumscribed and bounded, lying east of the Rio Grande, was not. m the estimation ot either ot trie contracting parties, actually appurtenant to the Crown of Spain. Then, Mr Speak er, I will submit, that if the l ight of Spain to this country was acquired from the U. Slates bvthp retrocession of Texas, wheth- - - - , - er the onus probandi of a disconnection be ween Texas and New Mexico, by Spanish FAYETTEVILLE, If. C, AUGUST 10, 1850. by other colonies, but by the Mother Coun try. it was solemnly adjudicated in the English Privy Council that her claim was groundless; yet after the severance ol this country from England by the war of the Revolution and the relinquishment by the British Government of her territorial rights to the American Confederacy, did our gov ernment presume to possess and retain this disputed country in opposition to Vir ginia? On the contrary was not our title derived from Virginia by a deed of cession, and was not that cession obtained at our solicitation? The imagination is at fault to conceive the consequen ces which would have befallen our infant Republic it she had made a forcible attempt to wrest this country from Virgin ia. V et in what particular "was the claim of Virginia, beinj; a mere paper title un accompanied with possession, stronger than the claim of Texas to New Mexico? Hut even if there was any force in the argument that the imbecility of Texas to reduce this country into possession amoun ted to a relinquishment of her title, I main tain that our Government is estopped by its own acts and declarations from setting up any title antagonistical to the claim of Texas. By the treaty of annexation, the United States became trustee for Texas, to arrange and settle her boundary; and, forsooth! it strikes me as a novel doctrine to be mooted in a court ot good conscience in a court of equity that in making a bargain affecting the right of a cestui que trust, the trustee can be justified, upheld, and sustained in circumscribing those rignis ior nis own Denent. 1 have always imagined that all bargains and contracts of this description inured to the benefit of the cestui que trust; and hence, I have conclu- uen, mat as our uovernment undertook, as the friend of Texas, to settle her boun dary, she must, as an honest, as a faithful trustee, impart to that State all the result ing advantages of the bargain. But if the voice of justice should fall upon our ears as "the listless wind," I imagine that there is a povver to be found in the Federal Con stitution which, when exercised, will com pell us to admit, to the fullest extent, the right of Texas to this country of 3G des Known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall ue aaimtted into the Union with or without sla very, as the people of each State asking admis sion may desire. And in such State or States as J e tormed out of the territorv north of the said Missouri line, slaverv or involuntary servi tude, except for crime, shall be prohibited." Now, sir, as all the territory north ot this line,and much south of it, includesN.Mexi co, I will observ e that every word and line in this condition, acknowledge the ,,rht f t l v exas to all the-country lying east of the Rio Grande. It expressly prescribes, that in addition to the present State of Texas, four new States, with the consent of Tex as, may be formed and shall be admitted into our Union. There is something pecu liarly striking in the phraseology of this last clause. Four new States are to be formed out of the territory of Texas. Where is tnat territory to be found? It could not have been the intention of the framers of this resolution to confine the formation of these States exclusively to the territory lying in the southern portion ot Texas, be cause the very next clause of the same condition pi escribes that in the territory lying north of the parallel of latitude 36 cleg. oO minute slavery should be exclu ded. Mow unreasonable this prescription, if the territory in which slavery is prohib iten was not a portion ot Texas. In what a singular, inconsistent attitude does our Constitution place the friends of Free-Soil Z . . Alt i . m m jvoi. 11- 1MO. 598, ; CO- Liberal deduction for large advertisement by the year or six moLtk. So stronir great authority, dnei not devolve nnnii thf- . j , . : shoulders of those who maintain that when we reacquired Texas we lost New Mexi co? Where is the act of Spanish authori ty making this disconnection? 1 have never seen it. It cannot be pretended that the State of Texas, either as a component part ot the Mexican confederacy, or at any time since, ever consented to such a disconnection. On the contrary, Mr Speaker, do we not find her, not only during the misery and trials of her revolution, but after the achievement of her independence, after the lone star'' had assumed her appro priate position in the galaxy of nations, firmly, stoutly, unceasingly maintaining and asserting her right to this countrv? Texas never relinquished her rights, and indeed the supposition that any such re linquishment ever took place is refuted by a succession of legislative acts, all con spiring to reduce into actual possession, this, her territorial dependency. The last resounding echo of the battle of San c? Jacinto hail not yet died upon our ears, when we hear her declaring the extension of her laws and constitution over all the country east of the Rio Grande. But we are told she was unable to reduce it into possession. This was also the case with that now called the Mesopitamia, lying between the Neuces and the Rio Grande, but I suppose that none of us are so covet ous of the distinction of a "straight jacket'' as now to contend that the last named riv er is not the true western boundary of Texas. But what availability is there in the po sition that Texas was not able to reduce New Mexico into possession ! It proves no defect of title, but is, at the best, a mere evidence of natural imbecility. Our do mestic history "affords us examples strictly analogous. The chartered limits of North ism, at that time ot annexation. is the tree-Soil nassion. that a , . national measure is to be defeated, unless slavery, to a certain extent, should prohibited- In order to effect its prohibi- nun, me neutrality ot our country is to be compromised, an aggression upon Mexican territory is to be legitimated. Sir, in my opinion, it w ould be an unjustifiable im peachment of the justice, wisdom, and patriotism of the advocates of Free-Soilism to entertain the supposition, that the right of Texas was not, at that time, fully, com pletely, and unreservedly acknowledged. These are the principal considerations which brought my mind to the conclusion, that the territorial claim of Texas was good, was unimpeachable. But before I dismiss the examination ot the ioint reol 11 till 11 flf nnnpvnfinri f linilirc hflW. arrwttwlilln- n.nn. is tins iree-soil Stnte (r K r, i has to be formed with the consent edr of Texas. Has any such The Constitution of the United States and the treaties made in pursuance of that 'would inquire how, according inctru...ot, ..l.. I U.. , ,, n. I II I, IS tills Iw IIPI.VIlll Ktnta law of the land, and 1 would ask, have we not treaty stipulations made with Texas, acknowledging her title to this country and are not those stipulations still binding onus? By reference to a convention con cluded between the United States and Texas, in the year 1838, we distinctly ad mitted our then entire western boundary, now claimed as the eastern boundary of New Mexico, to be the proper boundary between our country and Texas. If we did not at that time consider the claim of Texas as being good, why should we have compro mised our independent position as a neutral Povverin the war then being waged between Mexico and Texas, by the establishment of tins line : and in case or anv aggression ...... .... , ... . 0,------- jusuneu tne step, out, uniortunatel vthev do not. This sime having been made upon our national inter- ut con tamed an express and unequivocal objection waB raised a-ainst the admiS pst in thr countrv circumscribed bv this :knowfec hrmnnr FiK -iu ..r.i.r.i . 1- "IM ine au,n,ssion est in the country circumscribed Dy line, would we have hesitated in demand ing reparation from the government of 1 ex -s . 1 III a a ... I as.-' Audit l exas snouiu nave aiiempien to shield herself under the plea that it was not her territorv, would we have been sat istied with the justification? Or, would up not h.ive insisted uiKin a strict observance of treaty stipulations? A care ful unprejudiced consideration of these dif ferent questions will cause upon our minds the conviction, that by the terms of the convention we admit ami acknowledge the claim of Texas as good to the Rio Grande up to the 42d degree of north latitude. Is not that convention still in force, or has it been abrogated bv the annexation of Texas to this country ? Justice, law, and common sense all combine 1o enforce upon us the conviction, that as there is nothing in that convention regarding title, at all inconsis tent with the present relations of the two countries, the agreement and stipulations are still binding on us, and that we cannot by any act of oar own, absolve ourselves from their observance. But in addition to this treaty, there has been another conven tion between the U. S. and Texas, ulteri or, indeed, in time, but vastly more impor tant in its operations I refer to the agree ments of annexation. It may want the high solemnity attending the execution of a treaty as proscribed by our Constitution, but it can never want its judicial cogency. It will, it must be considered as the supreme law of the land, a law resting un der the aegis ot the Constitution for its pro- tectioft anu union, irrepeaiabie oy any ac knowledgment of the ri..ht nn, till "f nf uiui,,: i : "cau ms!,,V" ,., . x " " V . .u,w " "'uesoia, anu would lIllc ueuei. ca,culat. ave oeen irresistib e. f it h.nl not io satisfy 1 exas, an exnlicif m-.lor f.i- iita i....- . i.. - ... i .. .... vuuaiuciduu i iiiat me Wisconsin UeA,.. -l,he.ni,,,ta,7. commandant on the Territory, existing under a regular 3 i uunue io use ins power to estahlih authorial ...;,..: i d confirm the civil authority of T " ,n ' ' IT- "7. Srnmeni. origin- i , j au , "j ciisicu over a t ie countrv which rather ul even at the present tune has not Texas now composes not only the sa 7of W,s L strict lich ot this rnnnlrv .i ... i ..... . I - . r . .. J 1 Ul S- nciuai posses- cor.sin, Dut the Territory of Minnesota on ? Have not judical districts been and ,t was successfully contended thaV tabhshed under the law of Texas for the when Wisconsin was received n the ' Union spensation ol justice Are not the laws as a State, onlv d constl ution of IVvas now In f.,ii .. TF'"'"" was abrogated as the Carolina extended, between certain given tjon 0f Congress, much less by a mere" res- parallels of latitude, tfrom the Atlantic nftaan n iKa IVTiccicairtni 1 ' 1 . A. a ' 1' utsuu i " . ii toaisai jJfJI. illill porilOll Ul her territory lying west ot the Blue Ridge fell into the poseesion of a set of hardy ad venturers, who not only denied her author ity, but put her laws at defiance, actually formed a State constitution, and demand ed admittance in the old Confederacy as one of the States of the Union. Were her delegates received by the Continental Con gress? No, sir they were not: and why? Because the country they would represent, if received, was a dependency of North Carolina, and the inability of that State to reduce it iuto subjection was not a relin quishment ofa title. Her sovereignty btill continued to exist. And again, it is a matter of history that the colony of Virginia claimed as her prop erty the country lying north of the Ohio river. Her claim was disputed, not only olution of this House. Let me call your attention to the second section ot this joint resolution, by the force of which Texas be came re-annexed to our country. This section sets forth three conditions, on the com pliance with which by Texas, she was to be admitted as one of the States of this Union. The first condition relates to the settlement of the boundary of Texas. The second relates to the local and fiscal regu lations, which would necessarily result from annexation. The third condition re lates to the territory of Texas. I will read it: "New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Tex as, and having sufficient population, may here after, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shut! be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution. And such States as may be form ed out of that portion of said territory lying south and it is bootless to inquire whether we can effect under a disguise what we have no right to do openly. The conclusion to whicl I, as one of "the committee, came to, and which I have made known to the House, is stncly the result of this view of the treaty or annexation and of the Con stitution of the United States. I maintain, we are estopped by our own acts and de clarations from dispossessing Texas of her territory. We are estopped by the Con- r.i. it... . . - " "'e united states from dis membering Texas; from violently tearing away from her the richest ami" favorite portion of her soil. But, in addition, 1 would submit, that if it is the iron-handed policy of this Government, in its ruthless assault against the peculiar institution of the South, to disconnect th fas et nefus" from Texas, so as to com plete the cordon of free States around the slaveholding States, it would be at least advisable to invest our .irtinn ;h t). VI IIIV color of a law. to act um!ir th ofa law, and not loosely upon the force of a mere resolution of this House for the accomplishment of such an important pur pose: and this will brino- hih ImLmn. sideratioH of another objection ured bv U ...... i . V - J me cummiiree wny tne llelegate trom New Mexico should not be admitted to a seat on this floor, which is. that it IV mi 111 lit run- -w ------ - w v vb vb i-r X. V- 1 9 trary to the usages and practices of our Government. We have recognized !on- since indeed, wc, under the ordinance ot 178,, fully recognize the riirht in territorial government to send a Delegate to Congress who would be able to attend to territorial business. This right is ofa permitted character; in truth, of a privilege than a riht ; a appertaining to a territorial government a government Drought into existence by the previous action of Congress. This is not the case with New Mexico. The gov ernment under whose auspices Mr Smith the applicant, comes, is not .m pmanntinn vujgie,, was not Drouirnt into exis tence by the act of CnnM-ps. It ;a n,.f - - - "vi. ota civil, but of a military origin ; and as it never has been the usage or practice for Congress to receive a Delegate, pxcpntino- from an organized Territorv, how can we roroit'o liii-.-. 3 1- 1.1 a r nun ; uuiu hot onr rerpniinn m n c.. -.I. -,-v y nil ouiiin as a ueleijate rpnrKcpntm.r an organized Territory, be tantamount to a usuijmuuii or powers ot legislation ? We have no right to enact a law. withnnt concurrence of the Senate and the appro bation of the President ; yet bv a mere resolution we would undertake to"lealize a territorial organization. The honorable gentleman who addressed f (lnSPIlf Iman given ? On the ennfrarv. ho k tcteot Texas, on all occasions, evinced he most livelv i: 1 1 m s v ......... 1 1 -j j " nguiuiiig any nterlerence by this Government with her ight to that countrv r Dmin.r th in war President PoR- f,, 1 - - genueman who addressed yi Mar, i resident 1 oik found it necessary, the committee on yesterday, labored hird s a war measure, to establish n ,;i;0- in n . J' auortu hard , .... j "ncuiui iu assimilate rni anniifi pvernment in this countryTexas im- tion on the part of New Mexico n, that' .ediately remonstrated, and demanded made by the ' Territory of Minnesota a nd ie "quo ,,,," of such a step. The concluded, as the Deflate w r ecdved resident through his Secretary, com- from Minnesota, an uno?"ani2ed terXv lumcated such information of the charac- that we had the power to rece the ore ot the measure as allayed her anxiety, sent applicant, ft facts bore thVtil" nis camnet communication not merely man out. his d eductions uru!fl I w .. .- i . ave the reasons wl.irl. ;.-;tt.i i . ' u.. ' . .7 . " boundaries V ----- iwiiaiiiuuuuui 1 ITX us IIOW in III I nrra lrn nno ..:: er the southern portion of the tpmti.i-r had !if -,i - i .i KT ni . '"V l Wlliiin . 1- " u- . .mic, uui mm me power of said tted to a seat on this floor, would reDre- sovernnienr. a f r . h 'r. -V.: r it r lo make a rnnnsp i.t:.ifl,..ot ,.rl rn;t,. .., t - . u-iiu-iiifu, sun continued to s argument, it appears tome th.it Hip ! prist - - . . - y ii. uAciusiveiy uy me action ii i i esoiu lions lor the reannexatinn of ofth . . ... .v.ui,g pun ci lllrtl illl iSlUleV' xas must, ex vi termini, have referred I was anthmiTod t t. . . ...... w.v,.. ic jicsciiL inai j. erriiory tins district ot country : and referrino- as its nprnlJur I0lo0 r. J. ii- . - - .... . i ..ivui. ii i.i iju answer tlllS COUIltrv we are nrohihirl IV..... ! tlvi - - .. -', c .i i . ' ""jn-uuii an uuit-iuiiii which is, in ceetling to the formation ofa territorial mv annrpriatmn Jrr;;!,!.. i... ,-. . . , - j -rr---"', iiiijiauuic hi say inai state Government without the previous the people of New Mexico have a ri'dit to a government ; and as we have neglected to furnish them with one. that, therefor they were justified in establishing one for iscin ui icxas wiucn consent ha never n given. But. Mr Chairman, indepen- it of this prohibition contained in this jt resolution, we have another restraint ur action a restraint which, in Uv. fc days, was supposed to be conclusive, mow me times are so sadly out of joint I what was the meaning of the Consti fcn in other days is to-day miserable, tulous abstraction. This being, in tonception, the peculiar "casoethes" ie times, it is with unaffected diffidence II presume to quote that high and d instrument. But, sir, if the House bear with me I will read the third sec lofthe fourth article, "New States ibe admitted by Congress into this In, but no new State shall be formed fected within the jurisdiction of any c State, nor any State be formed by Junction of two or more States, or jof States, without the consent of the Jlatures of the States concerned as is of Congress " In mv nninion. a may be considered as a political in-0-ation, extending over and controll e territories over which she has either iual or constructive possession A jis a political unit, the integrity of lis guarantied by the article of the Jtutionjust read. That guarantee, fullest extent, is the purport and ipgof this section, aud all interference iie rights of a State for the formation rritorial - government, is as much itedas for the formation of a State itnent. Her inviolability is insurer!. themselves. Without calling into ques tion the right of any people to establish a government fur their own protection, I would remark, that this right must be ex ercised in subordination to our coritrolin", upc, visuiy power. Anu the enjoyment of this right, in its fullest extent, does not impose upon us any obligation to receive their Delegate. Mr Smith was not elected by the people of New Mexico, but by a quasi territorial government ; and if he should be received, who would he repre sent ? Certainly not the people for they had no vote or hand in his election He must necessarily represent the government of few Mexico. And is that government at all known to us ? Has it ever been re cognized by Congress ? No, sir, not at all ; we have no official information of anv government existing in that country, eitheV legal or defucto excepting a purely mili tary government, proceeding Irom Execu tive will and pleasure. And is this the Government from which we are to receive a delegate ? The supposition is monstrous. I can not conceive that this House is prepared to invest every popular commotion with the character of sovereignty; but that will and must be the inevitable conclusion if the Delegate from New Mexico should be received. But, as I at first observed, this case has opened entirely a new phase, in consequence of the formation ofa State government by the people of New Mexico. 1 understand that the information is official, that such step ha9 been taken, audit, of course, works a complete and positive rejection of Mr Smith as a Delegate. If he is now leceived, he must come as the representative of a sovereign people, and not the Delegate ofa dependent subordin ate people. He must be allowed to par ticipate to the fullest extent in all of our legislative functions. This, of course, is impossible, however potent may be the desire in the breast of some tocuibthe. South, even at the sacrifice of all faith and honesty. Yet none but a madman would be willing to admit the Delegate at the present crisis, invested with all of the attributes ot a legal representative. 1 would here, Mr Chairman, conclude my remarks ; but the observations inade by the honorable gentleman yesterday do not allow me that privilege- Althjjgli he did not nositivi lv wf.it, tK. ru. . ... !. 1 ---J iuv I., Jtl IIG would, as an inference from w hat he did state, have the world to believe that it was through the medium ofihe pro-slavery influence that this country was left without a government. I cannot conceive that the legislation of the country will support him iu the assumption ; on the contrary, h makes manifest the great truth that the slaverv influence in Congress has always been courted to build up and establish territorial governments, and their votes have never oeen otherwise given, excepting when the anti-slavery influence has so controlled the action of Congress as to incorporate in all bills of this character odious, obnoxious, unconstitutional features features which so changed the character of the bills that no member representing a South ern constituency could support them, unless he would incur the penalty of trea son to his honor. Sir, there is not more truth in the aphorism "that order is Hea ven's first law," than that a slaveholder i ex necessitate, an advocate of hlv ..io and government. This impression, early imbibed from precept, duly fostered hv fh conservative considerations growing out of uie institution ol slavery, always impel us to assist and further the . - viuiiiunuu Ul territorial government. Sir. the ti ue cause why these lately-acquired countries have been lei t without the l lAMullf m-.tr' ... meut, is to be found In Ti feeling of Congress, o A , o y ...... u aiiuu". su powerful, so irresisfihle. tu; r,.?: that it has been intimated hriUnii .".! mai it would be a work of cnnpi'liiimon exertion for a inaioiitir on a - ... r. .. J J mia livui 9U iar to disengage themselves fiom Wc i ....... ,u vviiiiwi as to extend to this Suffering nennle -i per, reasonable, and iust niorertJm. 'n, prejudice against the South is truly omni potent. J But, M:r Chairman, the most prejudiced : "va" c piuon may sometimes toil itself, and we have a full illustration of the fact in the present posture of the affairs of our country. lam disposed to ' tread lightly upon the ashes of the dead," and beg that my remarks will be applied to the policy of the late Administration, and not to the individual President, for whom the country now mourns. The South had no hearing before that Administration, and if . t wiu continued to exist, I must verily believe, that, under the controlling j,n. pulse of Free-Soilism, not anothermoon would have run its course before our coun try would have been illumined by the lurid glare of civil strife, ofa sectional war. I he mandate had gone forth, that me junsuiction of Texas over New Mexi co should be opposed and resisted by the military authority of the United States. I he sword, wielded by the strong arm of this government- win h ,i o " i v maui; llie ur biter ot a civil, a territorial dispute. Sir, my heart recoils from the contem plation of the heavy affliction which was ahout to befall us, and I pray God, that he may so enlighten the minds of those now in power, that the im.o.t o.,.i i .. o l"' ""vi. Heaviest misfortune that could befall the world, "a civil war in America," may be averted. Sir, I am not drawing an imaginary pic ture, but feel most certain that, under the existence of the present generous feelin" between the North and South, the first in timation of a conflict between our troops and those of the Stare of Texas, would be a iar-soundiiig tocsin, declaring, trumpet- . tongued. tlie dissolution of the Union. And on whose head would this heavy respon sibility have devolved? Most preemin ently upon those whose most sedulous care it has been to destroy all good civil and social affinities liMu-n . v .and South. It would be a Free Soil an- UILIIJ. The Mormon settlement on Beaver Island now numbers about one thousand persons, and is rapidly increasing - The colonists have built a small schooner for trade between the several islands, and possess also another vessel, called the "JohnC. Spencer," for the purpose ot trade at various ports on Lake Michigan. Ihe "fepencer," a few dayssince, lfcfthc port of Kacne for Beaver Island, vv I h seventy passengers and full cargo. Amor -the freight was a press and materials for t weekly paper. The Mormons are pottin up i a wooden temple sixty bjr.one hSXd ixtensive Var' -nd 11 is, "W-to teVio? ol S;h m,Dg r8,ett,cnnt in the in terior ol Big Beaver Island, which is thought ; to possess superior agricultural advantages! length, and contains six small Lakes.