The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-04

70 lake the compromise hne ~ the southern boundary OF
Cacrnis-thai s 10 say. to run il through Utah and
M MASON. lin his seat And no further
mf SLan Certainly not with regard 10 California
s'on, which issr. may arise from some remarfs which
ish from me senator from Virginia in regard 10 the
noe % a.E 70 mia ! think that stranger. who had
not read the resolution OF The annexation OF Texas would
understand, he had listened that senator that this line
was actually applied the State Of Texas SO under.
Stood nun Now reference TO the resolution Of
~ no line applied 10 Texas and the constitution OF
Texas toleraies slavery ALL carries IL 10 It's re-
hottest boundary the sad degree! There is not syllable
mat there any restriction OF slavery in any part OF IT,
Inc provision -, that whenever Texas consents TO cut
herself up into new States. those which shall hereafter
shall not have slavery That i the whole restriction
There 10 none until Texas OF her accord. consents
% divide her own territory There was compromise
80 deg 30 min, any other liDe-by which slavery
was excluded from one inch OF territory which sbe
extended or claimed jurisdiction make these remarks.
not because suppose that the from Virginia has
fallen into any mistake such have referred 10, but
because thought from the tenor of his remarks that
there was some restriction on slavery In Texas. There
is none.
Mr. MASON merely wish to say that every gentle.
man determine for himself how far the Missouri
compromise line Of 80 deg 80 min. affects the State Of
Texas All that is written down in round text in the
resolution by which Texas annexed, apprehend,
10 SO plain that "he who runs may read" and will admit
Of no misconstruction.
W.T. rOOlE mere maue some remarks, WHICH, having
been withheld for revision, are omitted.
Mr.. MASON One word, sir The issue which the
honorable senator has made Certainly did not make W
regard the resolutions adopted by The general
bly, OF Virginia depends upon this: whether the terms
n any interfering with the rights of the slave
holders in the District" and the terms aboishing the
slave trade within the District 10 be taken import
ing the same meaning Now, sir. do not think that the
meaning given 10 text by some OF those who made II,
still less By those who subsequently, give testimony,
should be invoked in any way TO ascertain what the
meaning OF il is when the text itself is before am
very much at loss to any difference between inter-
erng with the slave trade in the District Of Columbia.
and interfering with the rights OF shareholders in the
District OF Columba for Of the rights OF shareholders
is the trade in slaves.
MIR. CASS. Mr.. President. there is one point upon
which do not understand the honorable senator from
Virginia. [Mr MAsoNl in the explanation he gave to the
ling to accept the Missouri compromise line, without the
recognition establishment of slavery by Congress south
OF that line can understand that, BY applying that line
to California and stopping her boundary there the country
to the south Of it would again open to the action Of the
people, and would be either forever admit exclude
slavery. | say. can understand this. But | cannot
Of California and Texas. Itwould divide nothing The
Missouri compromise line said nothing the subject OF
slavery south OF 80 deg 80 min II left the people to in
troduce or exclude there while prohibited existence
north OF that line. This bill leaves The whole territory,
north and SOUTH precisely the Missouri compromise
line left the country to the South That non action
BY Congress south of the line, but action north; while
this is action both north and SOUTH and gives to the
people the right TO settle the question for themselves
viding something, while this would divide nothing at all
These bills create territorial governments without touch
ing the question Of slavery Is the honorable senator
from Virginia willing should not be touched Ii he s
he has only TO- vote for them and his object is
pshed But this is compromise line il is inter-
venlion. fairly carried out | repeat, what do we want
with such line 1t divides nothing, unless, indeed you
make il divide the Territories forming two north
or south. But what would be gained by that for the
question we are now discussing The people in each
haua
and il would not exist in than in The other,
less by their action repeat, we should have line
dividing RohI1g 50 taI h as this matter j. Concerned
swer to the inquiry OF the senator from Michigan very
obvious The line proposed by the from Virginia
would take of "A degrees from the proposed State Of Cal
forna, IN which slavery is now inhibited, ii effect be
given TO her constitution, and would thus bring that por
ton oil the Territory within the provisions Of this bill, as
applicable to the Territories which il creates would
therefore, leave II optional with the people who may here
after form State there whether slavery should should
not exist within those degrees Of the proposed State OF
oIna Y ,s rs 5 now !, Inhibited That i The
Pacific, il will cut of a deg from the proposed State
OF California in which slavery is inhibited, il effect
~, % ns ~ ,Sa AM will optional
Territory when they 10 form State OF southern
California, to say whether slavery shall shall exs,
there
Mr. CASS must have been very unfortunate in the
remarks made very imperecy heard by the honor
able senator from Georgia, or certainly he would not
understand the matter precisely he does in relation to
California. see the effect OF division Of that State by
an east and west line, and that while slavery would be
excluded TO the morrill, il would be again open for the &C
ton OF the people south Ii 10 line running east OF
California that my difficulties apply. cannot possibly
see what any one would gain by such line.
Mr.. BERRlEN. Most certainly il will produce no
change 10 the country east OF California, but will pro-
duce an immediate change in the southern portion Of
Cailiornia The proposition OF the senaiogFom Vr-
gina is not therefore, unmeaning II was represent
ed 10 be.
Mr. CASS | will merely remark Mr. President, that
the question put TO the senator from Virginia related
solely TO line running upon parallel oil latitude east OF
California, through Utah, New Mexico and Texas and
TO the advantage would be the South the present
BILL unless there was recognition OF slavery by Congress
south Of that line.
Mr. BERRlEN. BY running the line Of 30 deg 30
portion OF the proposed State OF California from the
operation OF the constitution OF California which nhibs
slavery That portion, being taken from the State
leved from the constitutional inhibition imposed by the
people OF the State The southern portion OF California
is in my opinion, much important than the Terrific
ries east OF California
Mr. MASON Mr.. President, my remarks were more
particularly addressed 10 the senator from Kentucky who
introduced this till as scheme OF compromise and ad
ustmen Imean distinctly TO declare TO him. and the
Senate, that. 90 far my opinions went should with
desire TO adjust this controversy agree TO the running OF
the Missouri compromise line through Texas to the Pa
chic What advantages disadvantages would result
10 the parties who might agree this adjustment would
be for them respectively 10 determine apprehend that
we shoad gain not liltle by cutting of from California
that portion OF her Pacific border south OF 80 deg 30 min
in which slavery is inhibited by her constitution.
spprehend that will gain something in relation to the
RI kxt -.