The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-16

| psesloasy beeaGna . AsEle.s ate"H'h ~ II. 4.
lie pgeseas sfeaiF shall ~ sss eosnas wees hsy aes
.se. s.aess ss nsas = 1Ls A'as.a -. .ssss y
neuea a.Pas.az uasssss aad heanssias ~ ps.e.ed
~hs.sss, a.s rs.ss .ss. .. ss.ss =
Tao.s -so .as pss e 'sass . = ~ a ,s'.s ~.
asns. o. aegasa ihcss 81 sssas u iss unsa ass 10
they shall BE- under me eaEson y snske iheh ssset
Of dts sss, ana shs.- ~ae .ha sssls "a 90 sd rss
ores seT the ssFinsn oi saaa year. thoai sssinx 20
sha u hsss ssc.sa bssos elnasa. hs
United siaies =. . !. IL ar,,,.
aforesaid, shall re-, v eha.ae.st q ssen. q hs
Mexican republic, coator.nably with what y saasd e
of The United s,atss aud lie sdmlisd she proper is
Ito be judged of ~ the Congress q he Unrd otas-sl
States, according principles ol ip constitution and
in the mean shall nsntalned and asciec.ed II .hs
the Tree exercise of their gi,n whaus issrieton
The commissioners of Mexico had no idea that they
were, By teaty transferring their Law apoilsh'nx ase
were to be bound BY the edcf and statutes Of Mexico
And certainly II such IN deahad been entertained " the
Senate, il could not have been sanctioned BY thirds
OF them But This u not LETT updeclded OF 70 mere spec.
erected 10 the then Secretary OF State. tthe Hon James
uaton This question was brought up IN the discussion
between the commissioners and will ee iound ~ letter
Buchanar.) by agent Mr. TrIst. dated NJ TaenbayA
February 4, ls4T. that the Mexican commissioners
pressed this point the continuation OF their law, Tor the
exclusion OF slavery upon M Inst ~ me earnest an
S~"~e~' s'~f"'
they say.
Amoag the points which came under discussion the
exclusion of slavery Gon oil -fn.oy which snoaa pa.'
ec was told that " IL were propo ed % the peope of th
order har H. iag4,.iioa should bs III rein
proposal could stronger feelings OF abhotfrncs
odac.oa Of slavery ia any ,sr.ory parted BY her,
Onf conversation on ts oc was psrircy frank ana no
asn,ch a. was enallsd 20 say w,ih perfect security.
although their impressions r.-pecnY tue piaccas ac' o.
doubt entirely yer there probably mo- d,er-
between my individual views aud sentiments o.
tanned
But the senator did not read all that Mr. Trsi said 10
reply to the Mexican commissioners. believe appear.
~ his revised speech. After telling then thai suca
p proposition cuud not be entertained. he sass:
II adsd w assarnS tie q tia s,s oase msst.o~ o
ihe sa CT IN any treaty 10 ~ach the UIiied Sss wris
srty absolue mpossbiiiy tnat no esident oi
the Unlpd Stales would dare 70 present any such il.ay 2
he and that u were la their p,wer 10 o-r ins
who. err,lory described In pr jet Increased TEN
old value, aud IN addition 70 IN IT. cosesd tot ihL Az
over wh pure gold upon iha sngs eoaai,,on una, s,asr
nio,nen th,nk even o coinun'ca ns q 70 WASH
ngton The matter ended - tne,r bsns fully .a.sn1a @
topic % be ouche and II Was droprei'
win sood ieel ny on boh stie-
Then, sir the people Of Mexico cannot expec, that
their Law shall be recognised by our government
Zoe commissioner the United States rejected the propo-
siton one which could not be entertained =.
With this state fact, the Senate have ratified the
treaty Under the belief that the constitution oi the
United States all the territory which belongs to
the Sta,es under the conviction thai the Supreme Court
of the United States, sitting in judgment under The con
slitulon, would sustain us ~ sucn rlgh's we nave
seJ TO organize territorial governments we have tried
TO transfer this question from Congress TO me supreme
Court of the United States we have asked for the es-
o. d,sne, courts 70 a Sa,e oa me
ed that coantTyin Order 10 wiring from those VINO
opposed rights under opportunity to test them
legally After all this and when congressional agitation
has prevailed to even, the STAKEHOLDER from migrating
with his property, and sharing in the determination the
fundamental law we are now told, with paironnins an,
thai accept such terms as the inhabitants oil
the Territory possessing il, under such circumstances,
shall think it 10 dictate 10 US.
Why sir what choice is there between this and the
Wilmot Provsoi /. for one, would prefer the Wiimot
Proviso demur, sir, after the House had Killed the
Wiimot Proyso, against any claim to dukedom ior hm
who brings the liteless corps into the Senate wont
az rec 10 grant it, under the threat oil being lett 10
kill all future Percys, without the aid OF the knight who
found The body by the waysde; AMI least u all have
any thanks TO return 10 ,he senator from Illinois ior Tue
ground whca be sslys he has his consttu
ents in opposng the Wilmot Proriso It had no ap-
plication because slavery being aeaiy excluded IRON
the Territories, was wholly unnecessary to pronoit II
Sir prefer the Wilmot Provso 10 that position pre-
fer il because the advocate oil the Wimo Pfovso at
that bv The admission. i requires legislation to deprive
me oi them. The other denies their existence
Mr. DOUGLAS, Unierposing) Mr. President | do
no, Know wy wha Ia .nse,b = ns an no., az
Mr. DAVIS. | alluded to the position which you as.
sumed in debate yesterday for the purpose oil answer
ing it,
aud as state now, that am opposed to the Wimot Fro
viso, because. my Judgment i violates fundamental
principle OF free government that all people have the
right derived from God himself, TO regulate their own
Institutions as they see HI.
Mr. DAVIS. III the senator had been understood by
me on that occasion, as understand him now-hai he
was opposed 10 the Wlmot Provso because Il violated
fundamental principle OF our government-l should not
have alluded 10 hum.
Mr.. DOUGLAS You will find il so reported in both
the journals which report officially for the Senate
Mr. DAVIS did not mean to doubt 1t, sir; am al
WAYS prepared TO admit that mistaken. when SEN
ator correcis me, in quoting from what he has said
always permit him any other gentleman 10 correct me,
when am s'atng what his position issor what had
supposed il 10 be. should as soon think OF disputng
with him upon the pronunciation oil his own name i
presume, of course, that he is right and am wrong.
And even il he has presented the subject Think and
meant to Say anything else, his explanation good with
me- And l. perhaps, readily understood the SEN
from Isos because such positions had been taken
BY the senator from Kentucky think that his earnest
Provso rested solely upon the ground that there was
no necessity for it, the exclusion being already complete
Ii our rights TO be taken away from II slavery ls
10 be excluded from the Terrores-and the Wilmot
provso is only intended TO exclude slavery do think
that the honorable from Kentucky presented 10
the North quite sufficient argument Tor not pessing
that tie asks the for the sake OF concord and
harmony Tor the sake OF preserving the Union TO forbear
from passing law object and upon subj 'ct which
eecual tor the purpose that which he asks
them TO abandon Tnty must be very unreasonable il
they persist under such circumstances, i~ course oi
teuIsiaun peroue anl so unnecessary and think