The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-04-06

sprung up in the Senate between MIR. Calhoun and Mr..
Webster. on Mr.. Walkers amendment In the course
of that debate the Massachusetts senator held this Ian
guage
Let only say, sir. that in general sense there is
no such thing extending the of the United
States territory. The constitution of the IJnited
States established over the United States and over moth
ing else IL can be established over nothing else than the
existing states and over new States that shall come in he
aer' "hen they do come in they then come under the
constitution There is confusion of IDEAS sir in this
respect which is quite rkabe among Intelligent gen
tie men, and especially among professional and judicial
characters 1t seems to be taken for granted that the
rght oil trial by jury of habsas corpus and everything In
the constitution OF the United States designed to protect
personal liberty by force Of the constitution extended
over all acquired territory That cannot maintained
that proposition cannot be maintained ALL How you
arrive at III Why sir, by the loosest of all possible
feences 1t is asked is it possible OF our fellow
citizens not entitled the of habeas corpus
iria by jury! Yes, sir, it very possible very
is exactly So until the legislation OF Congress gives
form OF governme mt that takes with and
general principles of public liberty"
This extract gives fair and impartial view of the
sentiments entertained by Mr.. Webster and his follow
ers He denies that the constitution is in force in New
Mexico and California; and he contends that it cannot
be extended to those territories while in their territorial
condition With these views he draughted his amendment
As slightly modified by the Committee of Ways and
Means, 1t passed the House under the auspices of Mr.
Seward, and il was sent to the Senate When it reached
that body it was violently opposed. Mr. Seward
insisted upon that or nothing AT this stage of the pro-
ceedngs Mr. Hunter of Virginia came forward in spirit
OF compromise But he could not entertain the idea that
our territories on the Pacific were to be denied the
protection OF constitution and be debared the en-
Joymen of our institutions. The session was about to
ciose and he desired to ascertain whether an amend
meh extending the existing laws only far as may be
consistent Nth the constitution of the United States
would be acceptable to Mr. Webster and his supporters
We quote Mr. Hunters words He said
u rise to suggest an amendment, which perhaps may
enable us to compromise. IT. sir in the second section
they will adopt the words after the existing laws thereof
50 far as may be consistent with the constitution of the
United States so as to enact the existing laws only that
extent, think it probable SIR that all will be relieved
Now, sir, II understand it, the from Massachu
ses and others here wish compromise upon the prn
cipe OF leaving the question undecided leaving
the people themselves to determine this question"
Even this amendment, which proposed to give TO the
people of New Mexico and California only such of the
laws OF Mexico as were consistent with the constitution
OF the United States not acceptable to Mr.. Webster
He contended that those territories beyond the ope-
ration OF the constitution. and that the constitution could
notbe extended TO them in their territorial condition As
natural consequence of this doctrine, Mr. Webster's
amendment would have extended all the laws of Mexico
in force on the ID day of February ls4s when New
Mexico and California coded to the United States
to these territories, unnuenced by the provisions of our
constitution and unaffected by the of our insttu-
tons. Our citizens the Pacific to be subjected to
the operation Of the laws of Mexico pure and unaoyed
all their force and vigor. What, every will ask
was the object of this movement? Why it that
Congress wishes to refuse the benefit of laws to our
people, Why is that the laws of Mexico are to be
extended them Why it that those laws not
be modified by the constitution of our country? We will
answer all these questions. decree of Mexican
President years ago had abolished slavery in that
country This is the that Daniel Webster and
William II. Seward struggled to subject territory
the Mexican code. To obtain that single edict they
willing to sacrifice any and every thing. They
were willing take the whole Mexican code in force
on the 81 day of February 1885, and they refused every
thing else AS they insisted upon Constituting Mr. Web
sters amendment, they would have accomplished this
end, had that amendment become law But this is not
tuition and laws of Mexico Church and State there
united and religious freedsm not tolerated by Mexican
statutes If Mr. Seward had succeeded in his designs,
found themselves branded herecs in that land They
would have found too, system of slavery established
by law infinitely than the slavery of southern
States infinitely than the slavery acknowledged in
any country in Christendom. By the laws of Mexiro
the creditor has lien the body of his debtor He
take that debtor to his own slave Consequent
y great portion of the people of Mexico are in state
OF hopeless bonage and they have been SO for genera
tons past. This system of white slavery is recognised
by Mexican laws 1t is not called slavery, but peonage
1t prevails nowhere else but in Russia and even that
government has been forced by considerations of human
ity TO modify and mitigate its rigors But in Mexico it
fourishes in all its vgor, unmodfed and unmitgated
and had Mr.. Websters amendment, insisted on by Mr.
Seward become the law of the land it would have -four
shed portion of territories by the act of our gov
ernment deriving its authority only from the constitution
of the United States Such would have been the prac
teal operation of Mr. Webster's amendment
The Thirty -hrxt Congress.
The New York Journal of Commerce says, that "n-
GLIDING the members from Connecticut and New Hamp
SHIRE there have been elected TO the Congress IS
wings and 81 democrats If the remaining IS members