Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-19

say that he thought 1t right then so to VOTE and he
| thought so still. He thought it unfortunate tina
the committee rejected the proposition yesterday
for the effect which that result was calculated t.
| have upon the minds of gentlemen here and upoJ
| the feelings of the people of the South as haC
Just been SO strongly and eloquenty stated by the
| gentleman from Illinois, Mr.. Bissel.l He Mr.
Butler, did not feel the force of the objection sta
| ted by some for refusing to vote for the propo
sluon, because they did not wish to embarrass the
Californa bill by adding this as an amendment
why, Sir 1t was offered as an amendment to an
amendment, and would not be attached so as tc
embarrass the bill, unless the amendment itsel
should be adopted; and if that was DONE the pro-
position would not add to the difficulty. He ad.
mited fully the right of the people to form theil
constitution to suit themselves, and when formed
they were entitled to come here and claim admis.
sion as State into the Union; and that there is
pro-slavery clause in their State constitution forms
no insuperable objection with him to such admis
sion, any more than that anti-slavery clause ir
her fundamental law shall form such objection
lie believed such to be the sentiment of his con.
stltuents, and so far his expression of the views
ne entertained may have an influence, he was will.
lngto let 1t go, with the hope and expectation that
IL may be sustained by those who hereafter repre-
sent those constituents on this floor Such States
have right to come in on an equality with the
old States, and TO enjoy all the benefits and be
subject to all the compromises of the Ccnstitu.
ton.
The principle of this amendment is that in
which the admission of California is urged. Her
admission with her anti slavery constitution is adj
Vocated on the ground that the people there are
opposed to slavery, and have done what they had
the right to do--excude it by their own action :;
and yet many of those who thus think, opposed
the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky
yesterday And there is the same inconsistency
on the other side, on the part of those who offer
this proposition, and yet oppose California be-
cause OF the anti-savery clause in her const-
tuition, or who suffer that consideration to infu-
ence their opposition in any degree. He thought
if all parties would lay aside their passions and
preludlces. and give fair and full expression to
their real sentiments, the proposition to permit
state to come into the Union with republican
constitution, the work of her own hands, recog-
nlzlng or excluding slavery as she thought best,
would receive an almost unanimous vote here
This discussion this Giorning has furnished cheer
ing evidence that such would be the result
But whether this would be so or not, Mr. B.
thought there was no use in quarreling about it,
and that nothing was to be gained by refusing to
admit State on this ground Suppose State
should offer herself with constitution containing
clause permitting slavery, and Congress should
strike out the clause and then admit her. could she
not, as soon as she could call convention of her
citizens, alter her constitution, reinstate the pro-
slavery clause, and admit slavery? If she did so.
would she not still be State of the Union, on an
equality with the other States There is no doubt
OF this nor that State California for instance
should be admitted with an anti-slayery clause,
she could Immediately afterwards change her con-
stitution in this respect and become slave State
mot xxTha how 10
NEEDY, even if Ohio, or any other State which came
INTO the Union under the operation of the ordinance
OF 1887, should change her constitution and be-
come slave State. If she did, however, it might
be breach of that compact, her Senators and Re-
personalities would not be turned away from the
doors of the Capitol as intruders, having no right
here. No, sir she would still be State of the
Union, with the rights of a sovereign State. He
would add, 1t is true the admission of slave State
carries with it that feature of the Constitution re-
specting representation which is so Objectionable
10 some. Slaves cannot vote, though three-fifths
OF them are represented this is fixed by the
Constitution under which we all live and how
ever much any gentleman may wish it otherwise
1t is not such an objection as would influence him
to vote against the admission of State
He withdrew the amendment
Mr.. IooMBs renewed the amendment and said
the gentleman from Ohio had just charged that
the opposition to California with her present con-
stltutlon by the South, founded upon the anti
slavery clause in her constitution, and therefore.
in the denial of this right of people forming a
State constitution, to admit or exclude slavery,
Mr.. L. denied the fact, and demanded proof On
the contrary, he asserted that the South had uni
tormy held and maintained this right. That in
1920, on the Missouri question, the North denied
1t, but the South unanimously affirmed it. From
that daV fill fbS tho South Ill Al
rlzed opponents of her opinions, has affirmed this
doctrine; her Legislatures, her Governors of States
her members upon this floor, and even her primary
assemblies, have all affirmed it, and the gentleman
from Ohio cannot point to single particle of evil
dence to support his unfounded charge. The
South can proudly point 10 her whole political his
tory for its reputation. But how stands the case
with the North? She denied the truth of this
great principle of constitutional right in 1920 ac-
guessed in the compromise then made as long as
it was to her interest," and then repudiated the
compromise and reasserted her right to dictate
constitutions to territories seeking admission into
the Union. She put her anti-savery provso up
on Oregon, and at the last session of Congress,
when the present Secretary of the Navy introduce
ed bill to authorize California to form State 90
vernment and come into the Union, leaving her
free to act as she pleased upon the question of
slavery, the North put the anti-slavery proviso
upon this State bill l know of no Northern
Wing who voted against that proviso. few
gentlemen of the Democratic party from the
Northwest my friend from Illinois among them,
Mr. Richardson, boldly and honestly struck for
the right, and opposed it; but they We're powerless
against the torrent of northern opposition. The
evidence is complete; the North repudiated this
princple-and while, for sinister and temporary
purposes, they may pretend to favour the Presi-
dents nlan which atfIrmS thav will ustap
it. They will not find right place to affirm it
until they get California into the Union, and then
they will throw off the mask and trample it under
foot. | intend to drag off the mask before the
consummation of that act. We do not oppose
California on account of the anti-savery clause
in her constitution. 1t was her right, and am
not even prepared to say that she acted unwisely
in its exercise-that is her business but stand
upon the great principle that the South has right
to an equal participation in the territories of the
United States claim the right for her to enter