The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-23


principle il understand it. Of what was called the Gay.
ton Compromise bill When the Territories were hrst
acquired and neither section had the start OF the ohef
il proposed 10 establish territorial governments anu
to establish the constitution of the United States by ex-
press eHacnent ia the Territories, IN order to exclude the
idea that The constitution did not 60 there II ana more
the bill required the protection OF properly IN slaves
the courts should decide that it existed Ihs Imp'cauon
think, 10 conclusive and necessary when we lock al
the history OF the legislation upon the Dill AS II came
in originally, II required the territorial government 70 pass
.no law respecting African slavery" That clause was
afterwards stricken out and in its place provision was
a1 they should Rass no Jaw
be drawn from that OF legislation, except that they
to protect property in slaves in The event sne courts
decided that such property existed there Inc very very
course OF legislation relation to i demonstrated lhat
his the Intention of The bill and has been 80 con-
strued lihat bill failed in any respect 70 provide Tor the
social possession Of the country By ai me STATES q inc
n not providing by express declaration that the Mex
law did not exist there u was not asked or because
most southern men believed that the constitution was su
peor to the Mexican law, and repealed and put aside
not asked for, because was supposed lha' she
courts would respect rights but believe that II
had BEEN the demand would have been nothing more
than what is right and Just that is, assuming that all OF
the States tenants in common and each ought 70 ENJOY
all or else have fair division OF the territory II tns De
So then whatever legal obstacles may exist IN relation
to the enjoyment Of this right ought TO be removed
by government. This, however, all depends on the
truth oil the proposition which have stated as 70 70
the right OF the States in this respects bot, II It be
rue The conclusion which have drawn seems TO fol-
low Inevitably la relation to this Clayton Compromise.
think may hazard two and perhaps three proposI'lon
without fear OF contradiction In the first place,
hazard this affirmation that if that bill hal proposed TO
take in all the territory included within the limits o Cat
ornia and apply the Wilmot Proyso to IT, and inca to
extend the Clayton Compromise over the residue, no
southern man would have voted for it. think am not
mistaken in that And will now hazard another prop
osition ii the soathen had beieved that the Mex
law existed in the territory and was not repealed by
the constitution after its acquisition, think that none OF
them would have voted for The bill without provision to
repeal that law, because. if Congress had no rgnt 70 n
erfere by Legislation shut out. would It not be ab-
surd to say that had right TO prevent the laws Of
foreign and conquered nation from excluding US II
am rgh, in this. there is perhaps another proposition
risk Of contradiction We Of the South believe that the
Mexican law was repealed by the acquisition OF the ter
tory but il had believed that the threats and decara
lions o the supremacy OF the Mexican law, made by so
many distinguished juriss, would operate TO prevent the
holders of savesand all property holders are umid-
from going with their property into the newly acquired
Territories under the apprehension IN the unsettled state
OF the question, that they would thereby hazard her
property-I say, il southern men had seen mat sach
would be the effect, am inclined 70 lhink .ney
would certainly have demanded declaraory act
that the Mexican law was not IN force And they would
have done so strictly in accordance with the pfiaclpe OF
intervention, as understand that pnncpie ana IN
the only sense in which accord and acccde to IT.
That doctrine. if understand it. is one which proposes 10
leave the question of slavery slavery 10 the Ier
tories to be determined by soil and clmaie-leavihg 20
Nature while they exist Territories and 10 the people
when they States, TO determine the character
of their institutions this respect That understand to
climate as as to dseas then i follows that Congress
cannot interfere by legislation to establish or pro-
hibit IL Not only the LEGISLATION Of Congress can
not do that but the Mexican legislation cannot do
il, because, il the Mexican law intervened the ques
ton would be determined by it, and not by soil and
climate This the doctrine of non intervention pro-
posed in the Clayton Compromise bill, which neither
established nor prohibited slavery but clearly implied
duty as have endeavored to show on the part OF the
territorial government to protect such property II decided
by the courts to exist know il is said that IN MAIN
tanning the obligation TO- protect property, you admit the
to destroy it, But utterly repudlate and deny such
conclusion On the contrary the establishment OF this
propostOn would lead to the very opposite inference
Who does not see hai if establish the obligation Of the
government, protect my property, deny Its right to
destroy and confscate it So far from admitting the
fs, ssow s obligation 10 e protect L Ny State
eminent bound to protect my liberty; and wnen snow
that do admit that it ensave me without cause
i is bound also to protect my properly and, wnsn snow
er,y without compensation to me TOT III Inc United
States bound to protect the property IN the
slave on the high seas under the United states nag ana
in asserting that duty its part do admit has right
conscae such property at discretion And so, In
my opinion is boupd TO protect II IN the Ierritones as
much as The high seas. shpboard aud under the
American flag But that = sort OF episode, and will
return the first proposition, which IA that by which
propose to Test the bill under consideration
said that, the time the Clayton Compromise bill
proposed, il had provided TO cover an the territory in
cuaed within the proposed limits OF California with the
WImot Proviso, i believed that not a southern man
would have voted for it, But suppose show that. by
the action OF this government direct and ind'rsc this
territory has been placed under the operation OF the anti
slavery proviso do not make on, the caxe in relation TO
this BILL which would have condemned ii in the South
with the sentiments which existed there during the pend
ency OF the Clayton Compromise bill And can not
make good this proposton' | think can show that
this constitution OF California unquestonxbly pro-
dued by the action OF this government IN s various de-
pariments FIRST by the omission OF Congress 70 provide
territorial gov ernnens when IL ought. and which would
have enabled US to Try right TO settle with slaves
the country; and next by the action and positive inter-
ference OF the Executive. We know that Congress re-
fused 10 pass bills which, my opinion, were conces
sons and compromises from the South Congress refused
10 pass the Clayton bill Some few southern men, II "a
true voted against it, but large majority voted of II
Il refused also pass the proposition of the senator
from Wisconsin, lMr. WALKER most of the southern
men voting for It. Thus no territorial governments
were established, threats OF the existence oil the Mex
can law were thrown out, and the STAKEHOLDER was de-
tered from carrying his slaves TO California. But. TO
make the work OF exclusion perfectly certain, the
Executive here ntervened and pursued system OF meas
ures which, however intended had the effect OF shutting
"a ou Of the country entirely Sir, wish and mean
to tread lightly the ashes OF the dead; but sense OF
duty compes here to speak TO point reference to
which necessary for the sake OF historical TRUTH and
shall speak not The spirit OF unlrendly, buf historical
criticism believe the late Executive was governed al
ways by patriotic motives; but he might mr. and in this
instance think he did most grossly and TO the great
injury and loss OF the South lido not impute to him the
design but such were the consequences of his action.
am bound TO refer to them. cannot make good my
position nor vindicate myself, without Looking TO the
course Of action which pursued IN relation to that
Territory say. then, that the Executive also inter-
fered and pursued system OF measures which not only
violated the constitution Of the United States but led in
lI..x- r. e Al 1~l.f .frrH.