The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-28


cisco would be the capital am overwhelmed, sir, BY
the appearance OF the u6lment Of that prophecy so sud-
denly Is the alternative IA my Judgment 90 not
think safe longer 10 delay the bringing OF California
into this circle OF States, unless gentlemen are willing to
contemplate that alternative. Other gentlemen have
much means Of information upon the state Of things in
California as have, and perhaps more. My lnforma-
tion such that do not think safe, we intend to
bring her into the Union at all defer that to
another session q Congress or TO any time beyond that
properly Then, sir suppose that if i is the general SEN
ument Of the country, will be also the general senh-
of this and of the other House OF Congress- that it
expedent il there be no insurmountabIs objections, to
bring California into the Union at do not un-
dersand the honorable gentleman, the author OF this
amendment, otherwise than that ii it were not for obj
ons which he has popounded to the Senate he should
be willing to admit California into the Union.
Now, the question is whether these objections are in
surmounabe. Ii they are, then California must be
kept out OF the Union let what will be the consequences
But If they not insurmountable, though they may
stand in the category OF obieconsthough things may
II is OF so much exigency and emergency, that 1t
seems to me to be the duty Of Congress to admit Caor
MIA, unless, as have already repeatedly sad the obec
tons nsurmountable Then lei at once to
that point and what the objections suggested by
the honorable senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SoULE.]
They divide themselves into two classes In the first
place he says that by the constitution oil California, and
by the bill unamended before the Senate there is suf
fcent security that the United States will possess,
enjoy, or have the right 70 dispose Of the public domain
or the unapproprated lands in California That 10 his
first objection The second relates to the boundaries OF
California which he says are exavaganty large in the
first place; which in the second place are unnatualy ar
ranged; and in the third place, impotc, and unto
be maintained. N
He proposes to remedy what he considers the first great
deicencyOf the bill by sending back this constitution
to California to obtain from convention Of that State
an agreemen compact, consent, to the effect that the
State Of California shall interfere with the public
lands in the State, with the primary disposal OF them;
shall tax them while held by the United States;
shall tax nonresident proprietors higher than resi-
dent proprietors are taxed These are the provisions
which in this bill. But then the honorable MEM
bers argument is, that they conditions which, from
the nature OF the case, receive the consent Of
because they be presented to, the people OF
they void and that the assent or consent
oil California to these conditions Is necessary make
them valid and binding, His argument proceeds upon
this idea that, without some such stipulation compact
upon the part OF the State, the creation OF Territory into
State-a POLITICAL be says, sovereign commune
ydoes necessarily establish in that sovereign commune
MIA becomes State, tpso Jaeo, she holds possesses,
enjoys, and controls the public lands And this result
he veries from argument founded upon the nature
OF sovereignty because he that 1t Is the essence OF
sovereign power to control the public domain.
Sir,w mslead ourselves often by using terms without
much accuracy or terms not customary found in our
constitution and laws. That the States sovereign IN
many respects, nobody doubs that they sovereign In
all respects, nobody contends The term sovereign" or
sovereignty does not occur In the constitution oi the
United States The constitution does not speak OF States
as sovereign Satesdoes not speak of this government
as sovereign government II avoids apparently sedu
ously the application of terms that might admit OF dis
States, and also of the constitution OF every State OF the
Union 49, that powers conferred upon the legislature
not by general description, but BY enumeration; The
government of the United States holds power which II
does not hold by the enumeration of the power in the
constitution OF the United States and the may be
said OF the government OF every State The constitution
OF every State prescrbes definitely the powers which
shall belong TO the State and 10 each OF its branches But
II this were true OF argument in this case the
honorable member wond find that this implication arising
from sovereignty would Just truly adhere TO the gov
ernment OF the United States 10 the States Certainly
the more eminent branches of sovereignty in the
government OF the United States The United States
government makes war; raises armies, maintains nayes
enters into alliances, makes treaties, coins money-none
of which exercises Of sovereignty the State government
possesses Nevertheless, there sovereign authorities
which the State governments do perform. They punish
crime, mprson for feony they regulate the tenure OF
lands; they exercise municipal sovereignty every
IL, then, this power over the public domain were to
TO the government that possesses the sovereignty by
Implication TO which government would IL belong
Why, clearly to this government and not 10 the govern
ment of the State
But sir. the question does not in my judgment come
up upon any such point Let remark that this ques
ton is not met II here the first session that
took my seat in the Senate. These notions, OF
them run in periodical orbit. They come back upon
US every fifteen or twenty years. This notion that the
sovereignty OF the Stale necessarily carries with the
ownership OF public lands within its limits, fifteen or
twenty years ago was brought forward. Il was dis
cussed II exploded, went off, and was forgotten. II Is
now here back again, exactly with the same aspect in
all respects, that attended Il then.
Sir in the year 1928 or 1s29 the legislature OF Indi
took up this subject and passed resolutions and in
struced her members OF Congress 10 support them by
gument. The resolutions were as follows:
Rssoired, Sc, That this State being a sovereign Free
and independent State has the exclusive right the soil
and inen domain Of all the pproprated lands with
in her acknowledged boundaries; which right was re-
served her by the Sa,e OF Vuinia In the deed OF
OF the Northwestern Territory the United States be-
ing confirmed and established by the articles fconiedeacy
and The constitution o. Of the the Unl,ed dI States
resenatives requested 10 every exerton In their pow
er, by and argument, induce tho United States
acknowledge this vested light Of the STATE and place
her upon equal footing with the original States Ia every
respect whetsoever, well In fact as in name.
They did so One OF the gentlemen who represented
Indiana at that time in the Senate. recently deceased
took the position, stated in the following extract from
report OF the proceedings OF the Senate
Mr. HrspRcKs presenting these resolutions said had
become his duty present Senate resolutions OF the
general by OF the State Of Indiana the subject of
the public lands within the limits OF that State These
(ad he) similar in character those oil
State Of Louisiana few days ago presented BY senator
the spirit memorial Of the State Of Illinois, recently
presented the Senate by from that State. In
resolutions, the legislature OF Indiana has soemny
declared that the state being free, and nde
domain OF MI the unappropriaed lands within her
knowledged boundaries and that this right reserved 10
her by the State OF Virginia In The deed Of cesson OF the
Northwestern Territory the United Ststes-grounds
which, tenabie, as verify believe they strongly APP
peal the Justice and the pride OF the and rep
fesen,stives Of that ,uagnanimou. State.
1t believed that the com pact not interfere with the
primary disposee Of the soil, and not TO tax the lands for
specified PERIOD confer power federal govern
fnen fo n 0f