The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-19

Continued from FIRST page.)
people toyour foreg6ne conclusion to excluded
Suppose by your legislation you forced all
citizens who emigrated TO the territories to
takes slaves and hold them there, would you
not efectually secure and compel the adop-
lion Of constitutions recognising and estab-
fishing slavery So, with no less certainty,
when you undertake to exclude shareholders
and slaves, and to admit only citizens with
out slaves, by your legislation, by your inv-
dious action, you have assured and compelled
the adoption Of constitutions containing the
interdct Of slavery. Nothing could more
clearly demonstrate the injustice and uncon-
stitutionality, on your own data, Of the Will
mot Proviso and all kindred measures Of ex-
clusion. as applied to the Territories. / am
amazed at the inconsistency and inadequate
conception Of their position displayed by the
honorable gentleman from New Hampshire
Mr.. HIBBARD and others, who acknowl-
edged the obligation to admit new States,
whether slave or free, and to secure to the
people alone entire freedom Of choice as to
the, institutions, and yet at the same time are
in favor of, and ready to entct, the Wilmot
Proviso. Why, sir, it is palpable. mockery,
which covers both wrong and an Insult to
the South, to avow that the right Of deciding
on their institutions belongs alone to the peo-
pie, when called on to form States, and at
the same time, by express legislation, to ex-
cluae the property to be recognised, and to
admit to settlement only those who are with
out and hostile to Il.
The gentleman from Ohio Mr.. ScHENcK
complementary asserts that the opposition Of
Southern members to the admission Of Cali
fornia, is solely because her people, in their
constitution have excluded slavery; and he
challenges contradiction or denial For one,
j am free to answer the gentleman without
disguise or hesitation.
There are, sir, independent Of the inter-
dict of slavery, very grave impedimeats to
the admission of California as she presents
herself; but the, most conclusive. objection
with me is that her people have not had the
opportunity Of fairly determining as to the
institution Of slavery, and its adaptation to.
their circumstances and necessities, and Of
unchecked election to adopt or reject it, but
have been, in effect, so dealt with and con-
strained as to have no option but to exclude
it. In violation of your own alleged princi-
PIE OF non-interference, and of allowance to
the people who might en.igrate there freely
to determine their own institutions, you have
refused to give them territorial govern
ment without the odious proviso You have
refused even to assent to the formation by
them, freely and without bias, Of State GO
vernment. You have held constantly i'm
pending over them positive prohibition of
Shareholders with their slaves. You have in;
cessantly clamored about the existence of
Mexican laws to exclude them. You have
refused to extend over them the Constitution
and laws Of the Uuited States, and have
withheld even the privilege Of asserting, by
appeal to the courts of the Union, the inva-
lidity of alleging Instructions, whether those
of Mexican law or of your own creation.
Having thus efectually debarred the
slaveholding citizens of the Union with their
property, and invoked all possible influences
to assure the nterdict Of slavery, you now
turn round, and cry out for the right Of a
people, regu arly organized and authorized
to form State, which we have always ac-
knowledged, to determine their own institu-
tons, and demand that we should recognise
as legitimate and conclusive the constrained
and unauthorized action OF the hordes Of adj.
venturers and gold hunters Of California,
whom you dignity with the name and rights
Of the sovereign people. The whole thing
is barefaced, shallow trickery; and though
you may not scorn to offer it, ysu would de-
spise our Stiffness if we accepted IT, No,
nentlamon. if you o,r rood faith ;nyoko
and rest on this right Of the people, first re-
mand California to her legitimate condition
Of territorial dependence--organize and es-
tablsh a proper territorial government with
out the proviso--give, as the Constitution
entities, to the citizens Of all the States the
privileges Of migration and settlement with
their property; and then, when sufficiently
settled and authorized to constitute States,
let the people freely decide, and | guaranty
the cheerful acquiescence of the South in
their decision, whether it be favorable or adj
verse to their institutions.
He withdrew the amendment.
Mr.. TOOMBS renewed the amendment, and |
said the gentleman from Ohio had just charged !
thatthe opposition to California with her present
Constitution by the South was founded upon the I
anti-slavery clause in her Constitution, and there
fore, in the denial of this right OF people form
ing a State Constitution, to admit or exclude
slavery, Mr.. t. denied the fact, and demanded
the proof. On the contrary, he asserted that the
South had uniformly held and maintained this
right. That in 1920, on the Missouri question,
the North denied it, but the South unanimously
affirmed 1t. From that day till this, the South,
through all her authorized opponents of her opin-
ions, has affirmed this doctrine; her legislatures,
her governors of States, her members upon this
floor; and even her primary assemblies, have all
affirmed it, and the gentleman from Ohio cannot
point to single particle Of evidence to support
his unfounded charge The South can proudly |
point to her whole political history for its repu-
tation. But how stands the case with the North
She denied the truth of this great principle Of con-
stitutional right in 1920, acquiesced in the COM
promise then made long as it was to her
interest, and then repudiated the compromise and
reassered her right to dictate constitutions
ritores seeking admission into the Union. She
put her anti-slavery proviso upon Oregon, and at
the last session Of Congress-, when the present
Secretary Of the Navy introduced bill to au-