The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-03

ia fosce may be wen doubted whether Congress could
sry Was known and established but the boundary
y uneeftao compromise fixing boundary may well DO
20 apply the cedsd Telsoriss Inc eondon conmnsd in
daas Ss and because this NOT
the same tame am free % declare thar ny conviction
s s os ss a ss: G
submit the Supreme Court proposed In the ola "
Is' a. my SpHs % saas 81,
Texas the boundary claimed by her do not think that
doubt ought TO be suffered TO continue TO the right
southern carry slaves into the territory proposed
DO coded by Texas do not concur in the construction
that BY those resolutions the southern people forever
excluded from carrying their slaves north OF 10 deg ~ min
tory and slaves may be carried into any part OF t but e
Texas ever consents the erection OF state north Of 20
deg 80 NM such Stats shall be admitted into the Union
shall BE- very brief in regard the other subjects
r aboshing the slave trade in the District of Columbia
that by this bin Congress claims aad exercises the
this srained and unwaraned construction Of the bill
understand the bill % be copy Of the Maryland law ex
hbiis the Introduction slaves into the District for the pu
Of sale and as penalty for the violation Of the law
the loss Of the value Of the slave by owner
himself becomes free Instead q assessing fne by way
pay the fine BY selling he slave, Il is provided
thai, By me very fact q Violating the aT the e g ne
As an exercise Of the power Of emancipation BY Congress-
Ia he s s S
Of like character Is the objection urged Ia the address
ri ss @ ss Ks .s sys
claims that be Is free man. the owner shall enter into bond
so%s where T os sns freedom may 81
This ssaid in the address 70 be the assumption by Con-
Billy Of any attempt ever being made TO ares, free man,
under presence that ne e slave 50 great that the pro-
letter should therefore have prserrsa that i had been
omitted but at the time Icannot assent 10 the
Sumption p power By Congress over slavery n de SAFES
The constitution expressly confers on Congress the power
70 provide for owners the means OF recapurng their ug
slaves This express grant Of power viii, ii all
the incidental powers necessary and proper the
q evidence on which The recspre may Be made and
to avoid any possible abuse Of the power IN is EXECUTION
making the recapre may be consiutonaly required
try his right oppery in his courts in those
n souSs sns
claim their freedom the question BY jury trial with
fugitive slaves who upon claim that they are not
slaves and am unable 70 see any Just reasons os
These are leading objections to the argument the
address which induced 10 present to the convention
minority report IL will be observed that although the
thor Of the address undertakes discussion Of the matters
omitted alusion to that portion Of the Compromise
Mnlch @ io New Mexico ana
If the argument was ntended.so be FIJI, and fair Why was
been conendins ssnaousy for years @ The doctrine Of
nom intervention as the only true constitutional doctrine
North and South is violence has been saoh as 70
shake the very foundations OF the government But when
milton of the non-inervenOn principle, address from
Southern Convention proposing 70 discuss il makes
dress had directed his this feature Of the Compro
mise bill, he would have discovered the why
the are opposed to IT, This omission, in vew
stamps tho argument as Incomplete and one-sided
Ihsve stated that 10 my judgmen il bad policy 70
Iof plans Of compromise pending in Congress Having
beeh overraed in this oPiaon by the Discrimination o,he
committee 10 recommend the acceptance Of the Missouri
line then insisted !ha, we should also
proposed by the Committees of Thirsen with such mod
cations might be satisfactory southern fends in
10 haye he Of d,a rO
which brought forward and sustained by as
50 wide difference betwis the two plans Of adjust
ment as justify US la recommending the and rudey
now address a few words. What is the real dsresse
between the two plans Of adjustment The this
question brings us to the consideration of practical SUBJ
ject;
As the Texas disputed territory in the view Of the
the address, the result as to the slavery question will be the
same under both plans But to avoid any doabt this
as recognise the Of the Missouri Compro
mise line This being done, the two plans viii be denii
caliy the same In their operation. s..ss
As TO Utah and New Mexico, the Missouri Compro-l
mise will divide the territory making all north of 36 deg
Soii soutn elmer Tree soil
or slave territory the inhabitants choose other words,
Is congressional Intervention side Of the line and
congressional nonntcrvention the other side BY the
plan proposed by the Committee Of Thirteen, the whole
OF Utah and New Mexico 10 be open become free
soil slave territory inhabitants may decide when
they seek admission into the Union other words. II
Intervention in the whole territory The first plan APP
plies the Wot Pfovlso north OF 30 deg 30 mnthe other
excludes tho Wmo Proyiso from the whole Territory If
be said that the Mexican laws will exclude slavery from
Mexican viii the same and under either the ques-
ton Of their existence be determined by the Supreme
Court As
g. As the admission OF California by the Missouri
Conpromise all of California north of % deg 30 min. will
be admitted State with her present consultation, and
all south Of that line will be erected into territorial gov
eInment without any prohibition TO slavery. BY the
other plan California with her present boundaries and
stutIon, will be admitted As TO the surrender OF all OBJ
ecrions her admission, whether based
grounds grounds Of expedency the two plans
the The only substantial difference IT, that plan
makes free Stale Of the territory north Of DO deg 30
min and leaves the territory south OF the line under err
tora government whilst the other makes free State Of
point OF view, what difference does make the Soath
whether the whole admitted free State
part admitted free State, and the residue left for ia
turc admission Staef II we could know that the
would be benefited by admitting the whole once one
STATE, because this would add but free State,
whereas the other would add II must be borne in
mind that the harbo OF San Francisco and the gold mines
the State admitted under the Missouri line IL lie contro
verted fact whether there b any considerable quantity OF
gold south OF the iBe and well known that there
no harbo comparing In importance with that Of San Fran
cisco What, then, the probabilities as TO the inodnc
ton Of slavery south Of the line Of rs deg 80 mini think
the prevailing sentiment Is whilst slavery might be in
troduced north the line OF its value In mining
operations that south Of the line II will prevail What