The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-26
THE CALIFORNIA AND TERRIToRlA QUESTIONS.
SPEECH OF MR.. M. J. WELLBORN,

TIE CALIFORNIA AND TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS.
SPEECH OF MR.. M. ]. WELLBORN,
OF GEORGIA,
In THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
MONDAY, June 10, 1850,
In Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, on the Presidents Message transmitting
the Constitution of California.
Mr.. WELLBORN said:
MIR. CHAIRMAN: 1t may be remembered that at
an early stage Of this debate submitted to the
committee, as mode of settling the issues in hand,
the revival and extension to the Pacific ocean, ofth
Missouri compromise line, with such modifca-
ton Of its terms would have brought il to bear
the same relation in effect to the subject of slavery
in present territories it bore to it in the ter
ritories of Louisiana and Texas on the several
occasions of its application to them, with the
cepton of that portion of California which lies
north of $50 30. In respect to the latter section,
my proposition was to leave it subject to the
lately adopted constitution of California, with
view TO her admission into the Union. The Lead
ing idea was, the prohibition Of African slavery,
norh and the express recognition of it, south, of
the parallel indicated, to the Pacific. propose to
offer now some arguments additional to those
hitherto urged in behalf of that scheme of adjust
ment.
1t is to me, sir, matter Of regret, that the plan
under notice has not been kept more distinctly in
view during the protraced struggles of the session.
That it has not been more generally urged by rep
resentatives from the slaveholding States has been
owing, as think, to the hope entertained by them
that some other mode might be substituted for it
which would meet with less opposition, and at the
same time prove acceptable to the nation at large.
This motive, then, | submit, but the more strongly
recommends the plan, now that all other methods
proposed have failed to give the desired satisfac-
ton.
AS the constitutional authority Of this Govern
ment to prohibit slavery in the public territories,
involved in the passage Of the Missouri compro-
mise line, has been generally denied by the slave
holding States, and that denial is now~made the
foundation of actual opposition to some extent, a
brief reference to that subject would seem to be de-
manded. In abiding to it, however, propose,
rather to bring forward those aspects of the ques-
ton of jurisdiction in which opposing opinions
have been, on former occasions, blended in legis-
lation founded on the affirmative of it, than TO ex-
tend the vast train of augmentation which has
been drawn out in the effort to reach satisfactory
solution of it.
Two separate sources have been relied on by
those who affirm that the power in view exists. IL
is by many supposed TO rest on the grant to Con-
gress, of the authority "to make all needfu rules
and regulations respecting the territory, or other
public property belonging to the United States. -
1t is sufficient for present purpose to remark
here, that able and well-nformed minds who have
stood for years on this clause as the source Of
penipotent political authority, closer scrutiny
or the context with which the power to pass "rues
and regulations is connected-a more cautious
study Of the probable import of these somewhat
equivocal terms, "rules and regulations" as they
are related in the Constitution, and more compre-
hensiye survey Of the relation Of the States to the
general subject of public or common territory on
the adoption Of the Constitution, hare abandoned IT,
Others see in the power to acquire, hold, and dis
pose Of, the unresrained power of governing.
They see in it that broad authority by which the
Congress may do with their acquisitions as they
,piH: and statesmen are not wanting, who, pursu-
ing, as they suppose, process OF fair reasoning,
reach the conclusion that certain limitations on the
powers Of Congress usually regarded as universal,
such as the disability to establish national rel-
gion, to give out titles of nobility, ETC., have re-
gpect only to tho action Of Congress within the
States and territory on hand when the Constitution
was adopted, and that in respect to subsequently
accruing territorial acquisitions this Government
stands in the relation Of simple desposm. But TO
recur from this extreme of opinion: it is alleged
by more moderate rcasoners, that the power to ac-
quire includes those general powers of government
Of which that to prohibit slavery is but particu-
lar. The reasoning runs somewhat thus;
When this Government became the assignee by
conquest and purchase of California and New
Mexico, what, relative to these provinces it is in
ouired. was embraced in the Transient Did we
receive but the title to the soil, and Mexico retain
in the whole or in part, the right to govern? Are
we not agreed that we acquired these Territories
in all their attributes and susceptbes, political
as we'll as territorial' Does the power of self
government inhere by the law Of nature, or other
wise, in the provinces themselves Ii is deemed
by many sufficient answer to that to say, that
we are discussing political and not natural rights;
We hare conquered and purchased them. But may
not certain oflhe greater proprietary rights, the au
thority, for example, to give them the outlines of
political organization, reside in this Government,
and the right to regulate their more Immediately
nuMcipal affars including the regulation Of labor,
remain in them This interrogatory is replied to
by the inquiry VINO divided the attributes Of gov
eminent between Us and themi In what map Of
political geography shall we trace the boundary
line between our power 70 acquire, hold, and set
tie California or New Mexico, and the power Of
California or New Mexico to dictate to us the
terms and conditions on, and in which, we can
alone acquire, hold, or settle them' Again: the
individual citizens Of the several States cannot
an aggregate mass, govern these Territories. The
States cannot separately, nor IN simple conven-
ior,U m them. e