Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1850-06-27
Mr.. Clay said he asked no protection

did not, the law compelled him to re.
ceive its advantages.
He agreed ,ha, the union of these
measures amounted to a case of compul.
sorry legislation, because it was calcuIa.
ted TO force these who were friends Of
California, either TO vote for this bill or
against her admission. He said that
there were those who were friends of
California, who were opposed to any
territorial bills; others who were for
territorial bills with other appendages;
others who had constitutional scruples
on some ofthe points, and others who
were under instructions; all these were
called upon 10 vote against California,
or vote in violation oflhcir sentiments,
their constitutional scruplcs, and their
instructions. He pronounced it an
open, an avowed case of coercion of
votes, cocrcive legislation. He exam.
ned the equivalents to California,
mentioned in the report of the com.
mittce, and said they were frivolous.
The next load upon California was
the mullifarious question growing out
of the subjec, of Texas and her boun.
dairy, and the points involved Of free ter.
ritory and slave territory. He though,
that if California took all these, she
would be in the condition in which Jo.
nah would have been had he. instead OF
being swallowed by the whale, swal
lowed the whale himself.
He examined the report on the sub
ject Of the proposed boundary of Tex
as, and said that one error of the com
mittee was, that it assumed that there
) was difficulty existing between Texa:
and new Mexico. There was no sucl
thing. New Mexico was no party. =
Her territory was the property of lht
, United States, and was to be settled
I by them. The case was one of whicl
the Supreme Court had original juris
dic,ion, and the United States had tht
) power and the right to bring Texa
, into court, even without her consent.
He urged that the proposed compac
| in the bill TO be made with Texas
8 she consents 10 it, held the fate of Ca
= ifornia in suspense. 1t was part of tn
D compromise that this proposal shouI
be made 10 Texas, and it was 10 b
e passed with the other parts of the CON
v promise. This gave Texas-a singl
: state of the Union--the power to voi
; the admission of California. If nc
|. why was il in the same billl lflh
/. whole was not to stand and fall, sin
e and swim together, why was this il
{ troduced into the bill at all?
n lie then examined the boundary lin
j. proposed by the committee, and sal
that, if it were adopted as the norrher
n boundary of Texas, it would take abo,
d seven hundred thousand square milk
:, from the flank of what was New Me,
J. leo, as laid ancien,ly. lie cited Hun
n boldt and other writers, and also v
s. rious maps, to show the ancient bou
ri daries of New Mexico; also, 10 sho
At that the territory cut off by the liz
proposed by the committee was the a
h cient pasture grounds, and also tn
ID therein was the region whence Il
a inhabitants of New Mexico oblant
v their sa It.
At He then alluded to the subject
of slavery, and said that his early prime
ID pies upon the subject of the necessili
g. of two races dwelling together, al
upon The doctrine of emancipatio
S. were derived from reading Virginia a
ne thority. The principles formed in ca
r. ly life he still maintained. He was o
be posed to inilicling any evil upon al
.h people which could be remedied.
e. He was opposed TO extending slave
Id TO those who have il not.
all He was in favor of giving Terril
ed rial governments to Utah and MexC
he He considered they should have h
he protection long since. The people
n, New Mexico have suffered more frc
ID; want of protection since The time
er the treaty, than they ever did duri
ng any three years under Mexican ru
lid But he considered the committee
lie not advanced The prospect of govel
n ment for them. They clog one Ter