The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-06-13
THE NATIONAL ERA.
WASHINGTON, JUNE 10, 1850.
DEBiTE ON THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION AND
NON-lNTERvENTION.

Of Mr. Chase to the amendment Of Mr. Davis Of
Mississippi,
MIR. Douglas said that he was opposed to this
clause of the bill imposing restrictions upon the
Territorial Legislatures in relation to Slavery.
[ am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to
the bill Il am satisfied, even if il did give strength
10 il that il ought not to be there, because it is
violation of principle violation of that princi-
nile upon which we have all rested our defence of
the course we have taken on This question. do
not see how those Of US who have taken the posi-
ton which we have taken, chat of non-interfer-
encel and have argued in favor OF the right OF
the people to legislate for themselves on this
question, can support such provision without
abandoning all the arguments which we urged in
the Presidential campaign in the year ls4S, and
the principles set forth by the honorable Senator
from Michigan in that letter which is known as
the Nicholson letter. We are required to
abandon that platform; we are required to aban-
rs eA-ss 22ic1is ~tTii,is; ,--selves and
TO adopt the opposite doctrine-snd for what
In order to say that the people of the Territories
shall not have such institutions as they shall deem
adapted to their condition and their wants. | do
not see sir, how such provision as that can be
acceptable either to the people of the North or
the South.
Mr. Downs am very sorry, sir, to hear the
honorable Senator from Illinois say that there is
anything in this bill, or in the amendments made
to this section by the Committee, that is in viola
tion of the principle of non-intervention declared
in the Nicholson letter of the honorable Senator
from Michigan | thought, sir, it was the very
thing. The ground it is put upon in the report,
as contended the other day, thought made it
precisely of this construction. ask him if it can
be supposed likely that the South will calmly ac-
quiesce in principle which would certainly ex-
Iat Ioalr IL
strike out this provision, when it is well known
that the feeling of large majority of the people
of New Mexico is in favor of the abolition Of sla-
very, that the South will acquiesce in such
proposition? say for one, sir, if the Wilmot
Proviso is to be preferred, if it is to be imposed,
impose it here, but do not authorize it indirectly
by introducing such sections In that bill without
the amendment of the Committee
Mr. Chase explained his amendment
The bill reported by the Committee contained
an express prohibition of Territorial legislation
in respect to African slavery. 1t so happens that
hardly any two gentlemen who have spoken upon
the subject Of that prohibition have agreed as to
its import; and it was for the purpose, as sup
posed of fixing its construction or at least of sup
costing, and at the same time warranting par
fr s%AT s khs hSaSaS Senator
amendment has been materially modified in the
various stages of the discussion. AS it now stands,
it provides that the Territorial Legislature shall
neither introduce nor exclude slavery, but shall
have power to legslate for the protection Of prop
erty Of every kind which may be introduced into
or held in the Territory, conformably to the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States.
MIR. President, what does this language mean
Shall we advance a single step towards clear
and unambiguous declaration of legislative inten-
ton if we adopt this amendment
Now, sir, desire to have distinct expression
of the sense of the Senate to the import of this
amendment. For this purpose, do not offer the
Wilmot Proviso An honorable Senator, Mr.
Seward, I at an earlier period of this debate, and
during your temporary absence, MIR. President
from the chair, did propose that Proviso as sub
stitute for the amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi, and his motion was declared to be
out of order OF course, do not now undertake
to introduce again that proposition 1t is not the
proper time nor would it serve my purpose. But
do offer an amendment to the amendment OF the
Senator from Mississippi, which meets and mega
tives the proposition, that the right to carry
slaves into the Territory, and hold and dispose
Of them there as property, is covered or secured
by the Senator's amendment, or by the original
clause as reported from the Committee.
Those Senators who think that under the origi-
nal provision of the bill, or under this amend
ment of the Senator slaves may be introduced
into the Territories, or persons held there as
property, and who see nothing undesirable in that
result will of course vote against my restrictive
proposition. But do not see how any senator
refuse to vote for it., who holds the opinion
frequently expressed here, that neither the orig-
nal clause nor the amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi, when rightly construed, will warrant
slavery 10 the Territories, or who is unwilling to
see slavery established there the effect and re-
suit Of legislation here Such vote will only
give expression and effect to the professed wish
aud purpose Of such a Senator. Ii will not be a
vote for the prohibition of Territorial slavery
1t will be vote that slavery shall not be estab-
lished in the Territories by the bill or the amend
ment, under construction which many Senators
insist upon as the true one and which there il
some reason to fear may be held to be the true
one by the Judiciary as at present constituted.
IL was for the purpose of negatving this con
struction--or rather, as said at the first, of ex
Guiding the conclusion of the leading friends o
the amendment--that introduced the pending
amendment 70 it, II that conclusion ought to b
excluded, then the proposition have submitted
ought to be adopted. II that conclusion ough
not to be excluded If the construction the Sena
from Mississippi puts upon his amendment b
the true one and one which Senators desire Il
have carried out into its practical effect, then m,
proposition should be rejected.
have made these remarks, in order that III
amendment have offered TO the amendment o
the Senator from Mississippi may be clearly un
derstood. have nothing further to say.
MIR. Davis of Mississippi, dissented from tn
construction OF Non-Interventicn, given by Nj
Douglas He asserted that the sovereignty owe
the Territories was vested in the United State,
and the people of Territory had no right to dc
eide as TO their institutions until the Unite
States gave them power to organize State Go,
erpment
Mr.. Douglas persisted in his opposition to tn
clause.
! am opposed to any provision in this hin mr.,
hibiting the people Of the Territories from leo;
lating in respect TO African slavery. IvouId 4,
sire to see it stricken out and repeat I 4
not conceive how my friend from Michigan VIII
usually thinks with me, and who acted with m
in the last campaign can 20 for q provision
this kind, without abandoning the position |
then assumed. Upon that point, have the Sel
ator from Mississippi with me. remember tn
early In the session, he made speech here,
which hs declared that he put that constructs
upon the letter of the Senator from Mchigs
and that il made him little lukewarm upon tn
question in relation 10 1t. That was the col
s'raction he put upon it at the time. All the .
guments we used In favor Of popular rights al
IN favor Of the peoples deciding the question 4
themselves, all led TO such construction.
Mr.. Butler ] will not, Mr.. President tai
part In this discussion now, hut will explain fe
words which have been used on a former occ
sion As well ~ ] recollect, they were the wor'
which were introduced into the Clayton COZ
promise, that Territory shall not legslate
respect TO slavery" and ! recollect my frisr