The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-06


itf Does i get Il BY any action Of Congress' Hsavey
be interdicted In California is il done BY Congress- BY
this government No, sir the Introduction is imposed BY
parties, that when State about TO be admitted into the
Union that State has right decide for itself whether
will or will not have within its limits slavery The
great principle sir which in contest upon the mem
oable occasion Of the Introduction Of Missouri into the
Union was whether il was competent or was not COM
petent TO Congress to impose any restriction which
We. who were in favor Of the admission Of Missouri,
contended that no such restriction could be imposed
We contended that, whenever she was once admitted
into the Union she had AL the rights and privileges Of
rights and privileges decide for herself whether
slavery should should exist within her lims that
she had as much right decide upon the Introduction
Of slavery upon its abolition, as New York had
right to decide upon the introduction abolition OF sla
very; and that she stood among her peers equal and
invested with all the privileges that one OF the crig
nal thirteen States and those subsequently admitted
And 50, sir thought that those who have been con-
tending with SO much earnestness and with 80 much
perseverance for the Wmo Proviso, ought to reflect
that they could carry their object and adopt the
Wimot Proviso, It would cease the moment any State
to whose territory was applicable came to be admitted
now--no one believes-that with regard to the north
western States, which the ordinance of 17s7 ap
ped-Oho, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan one now
believes that any Of those States, ii they thought
proper to DO it. has not just much right to Introduce
slavery within her borders Virginia has right 10
maintain the existence Of slavery within hers.
wsss s L: i e s ?s s sa q
has taken place adverse to the wishes OF the southern
States, decision not made by the general govern
%ent; \ i decision respecting which they cannot com
BY California herself, and which California had incon
testably right to make under the constitution OF the
United States There is, then. in that first resolution
according to the. observation which made some time
ago, case where neither party concedes where the
question Of slavery either OF it's Introduction or interdic
ton is silent as respects the action Of this government
and i has been decided i has been decided BY differ
ent body, BY different power by California herself. who
had right 10 make that decision
Mr. President the resolution Of the series which
was aware perfectly aware, Of The perseverance with
which the Wilmot Proviso was insisted upon. ! knew
that every Of the free States of this believe
without exceptionhad by its Legislative bodies, passed
resolutions nstrucng s senators and requesting its rep
resenatives to get that restriction incorporated into any
territorial bill that might be offered under the auspices OF
Congress knew how much-aithough regretted how
much-the free States had-if | may say so-put their
hearts upon the adoption of this In this second
resolution call upon them to waive perssting in j.
e he IL. Uaoa
up, and no longer insist upon ito see as they must
il their eyes are Open the dangers which lie under it,
If they persevere in insisting upon il.
Well sir when called upon them that resolution to
do this, was not bound to offer for the surrender OF that
favorite OF theirs some compensaton-not an
equivalent BY any means, but some compensaton--as
side ought at the time to animate the other side
What is that is offered them II y declaration OF
what characterze and must sye with great defeencs
to all those who entertain the opposite opin0nl will
not say ncontestable bat TO- clear, and think they
ought to be regarded asndsputabe truths. And what
theyl The first 10 that by law slavery no longer
the republic Of Mexico and the other is. that in cur
opinion, according to all the probabilities OF the case,
slavery will be introduced into any portion OF the
Territories so acquired from Mexico.
Now, sir, have heard it said that this declaration OF
what call those two truths s equivalent TO the enact
ment Of the Wilmot Provso have heard this asserted
10 territorial governments established these countries
acquired from Mexico, il would be positive enactment
prohibition, inerdiction as to the introduction OF
slavery within them But with regard to those opinions,
had hoped, and sl indulge the hope that those who
represent the free States will be inclined 10 insist that
shall giveand indeed It would be extremely difficult
@ent had hoped that they would Be satisfied with the
simple expression Of the opinion Of Congress-, leaving II
upon the basis Of that opinion without asking for what
seems 70 me almost impacc.ble Il not impossible
bill by which territorial governments shall be establish
ed can only say that that second resolution, even
without the declaration Of these two truths would Ds
forget that was proposing scheme Of arrangement
and compromise and could not therefore, depart from
the duty which the preparation Of the scheme seemed TO
me TO impose, while we ask upon the one side sur
render Of their favorite measure Of Offering upon the
other side some compensation for that surrender OF sacr
fce.
Mr. President the first Of these truths 10, that by law
slavery does not exist within the Territories ceded 10
us by the republic OF Mexico II s misfor-
tune, sir, in the various weighty and important
topics which are connected with the subject that am
addressing you upon that any ope OF the ve or six
embraced in these resolutions would of itself furnish
theme for heightened speech and am therefore,
duced to the necessity think, at least in this stage of
the discussion OF limiting myself rather to the express
sion OF opinions than to going at any great length into
the discussion Of all these various topics Now, sr with
respect to the opinion here asserted that slavery does not
exist ia the Territories ceded to the United States by Mex
ico can only REFER sir to the fact OF the passage OF
law by the supreme government of Mexico abolishing H.
think in the year is24 and the subsequent passage OF
law by the legislative body Of MexicoI forget in what
Yearly which they proposewhat, s true, they never
yet carried into full eecta compensation to the owners
OF slaves for the properly OF which they were deprived by
the act OF abolition can only refer to the acquescence Of
Mexico in the abolition OF slavery, from the time Of this
extinction down TO the time of the treaty by which we
acquired those countries All Mexico so far as know,
acouiesced in the existence Of slavery Gentlemen
am aware, talk about the inegularty Of the acts by
which slavery was abolished but does II become u.s.
foreign power, to look into the modes by which an
act was accomplished by . foreign power, when she
herself satisfied with what done, and when she, too
s exclusively the judge whether the object, then local.
municipal in Mexico, has or has not been abolished in
conformity with her fundamental law,. Why. sir Mex
co upon this subject, showed to the last moment her
anxiety In the documents which were laid before the
by Mr. Trs you win find this passage contained in one
of his dispatches:
Among the points which came under discussion was