The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-24

4 ASusS 49, = ASSsNShs, ASSo iACs ~ Ss~N
80 far as that for an example, in relation to
this matter Of surrender Of right and power
on the part Of the South. AT the COM
mencement Of this session we know that the
Senator from Kentucky Mr.. Clay) intro
duced certain resolutions, and those resolp-
tons upon their appearance were immediate
" and utterly denounced by Southern Sena-
tors They would not even allow a distin-
guished Senator from Kentucky the grace Of
naming day when his resolutions should be
considered and debated; on the contrary,
they were denounced on the spot denoun-
! ced fercely and violently, and, il mistake
not, the Southern press responded to this de-
| nunciation in one voice Of universal accord,
aud yet, in few months after, a select COM
mttee is raised and proposition is reported
which think can show, in whatever re-
spect it differs from those resolutions, to be
worse for the South than the scheme con-
tanned in them. But what is now said Of
the men who oppose scheme wose even
than that which was so much denounced but
a short while ago' Why, sir, they are ac-
cused Of being in favor Of disunion it is
treated almost as evidence of treason that
they should oppose it /; it is cons idered as
giving conclusive testimony Of a disposition
for strife, and desire for agitation, that they
refuse to support scheme worse, think |
shall be able to show, than the resolutions
that were so much denounced. Sir, let US
compare these resolutions with the scheme
Of the committee The resolutions proposed
in the first place, that they would abolish what
is called the slave-trade in the District of CO.
lumbia that slaves should not be brought
into the District for sale, or for transportation
to other markets, and that the depots for that
purpose should be abolished. The scheme
Of the committee proposes not only that you
shall not put slaves in depot here for sale,
but that you shall not deposite them even
for any purposes Of transportation, and, as
understand it, if you have fugitive slave,
bringing him from the State to which he had
fed, you could not deposite him here for safe
keeping, if this proposition should be adopted,
you could not, if travelling through the dis
trict with slaves, moving to some other State,
deposite them here. And yet, sir, the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court is explicit that you
have right to carry slaves and to be pro-
tected in your property through free States,
to some Other slave State. So that, in this
respect, it seems to me clear that the PROPOSE
ton Of the committee is worse than the res
olutons of the Senator from Kentucky
Then, sir, the resolutions of the Senator from
Kentucky promised some e'more efectual"
fugitive slave law, and the inference was that
| it was to be something better than any law
that had ever existed on the subject, or as
yet been proposed. What has been the re-
sult' Why, certain amendments have been
proposed by this committee, and all that can
be said OF them is, that it makes the bill no
worse than it was before, provided you con-
slider one Of its provisions as cumulative. !
mean that in relation to the record but if,
on the contrary, you consider it as making
this evidence necessary, then we all know
and feel that it would be an obstruc-
ton in the way Of the recovery Of fu-
gitive slaves, because before the master could
60 through the tedious process Of obtaining
the record and evidence from the curt, the
slave would have fed beyond the reach Of
his pursuit. In that respect too, then, the
scheme Of the committee is, in my opinion,
worse then the resolutions Of the Senator
from Kentucky.
Mr.. President, l will pass from the
subject which you have decided it to
be out Of order to discuss, although in
discussing it was following an example
set by so many others who have preceded
me, and pursue a line of remark which
believe to be strictly in order. l may
surely compare the bill under considera-
ton with the resolutions of which have
been speaking, in order to show the fearful
procivity with which we are proceeding in
the downward race Of concession and sub
mission. The resolutions of the Senator
from Kentucky proposed to admit California
with suitable Boundaries and thus justi-
| fed hope that the proposed limits for the
new State would be curtailed, if those reso-
lutions were to be taken as the basis Of our
action. But the bill before US gives to Cal
ifornia the whole extent OF territory which
she claims. In this respect, then, the bill
is worse than the resolutions. The latter
proposed to buy only as much from Texas
as she claimed from New Mexico, but this
bill contemplates the purchase not only Of
this, but of much more, which indisputably
belongs to Texas, and thus enlarges the ter
ritory to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction
Of a slave State. In this respect, then, the
scheme Of the bill is worse, and much worse
| than that OF the resolutions. So far as the
Territories Of Utah and New Mexico are
concerned, both the bill and the resolutions
propose to give them governments, and say
nothing Of slavery in the fundamental law
| which establishes them But here prefer
ence is claimed for the bill, over the reso-
lutions, because it does not contain the as
sertion to be found in the resolutions that
slavery does not exist by law, and is not
! likelyt to be introduced into any Of the terri
tory acquired by the United States of Mex
| ico;o but think it can be shown that here
there even is little or nothing to choose be-
tween the two. If the bill contains no such
assertion, the report does contain something
4 -