The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-28

A. -
Mr.. D6TY, who offered the following for the
consideration Of the committee, viz
Whereas, the people OF California have formed
for themselves constitution and State government
and applied for admission into the UNION as State;
and Whereas the said constitution has been offici-
ally communicated TO Congress, and is republican;
therefore,
Be Il enacted by the Senate and House Of Repesea-
tafirss of The United States Of Amsrica ia Congress
assembled, That the State of California, with the
boundaries described in said constitution, shall be
one, Is hereby declared TO be one OF the United
States Of America, and admitted into the Union ON
an equal footing with the original States in all
spects whatsoever.
SEC. q That the said State of California is never
10 interfere with the pre- emptory disposition of the
soil within the same by the United States, nor with
any regulation Congress may make for securing
the title in the soil to bona tide purchasers thereof
and no tax shall be imposed on lands the property
OF the United States; which said provisions de-
ciared to be the fundamental conditions upon which
the said State is admitted into the Union.
Mr.. GREEN asked permission of the gentleman
to submit an amendment
Mr.. TOOMBS begged the gentleman to post
pone ii.
Mr.. GREEN said that he wished to introduce an
amendment establishing the Missouri boundary
line, that it might be considered. However, he
would submit the proposition at the proper time.
DIR. TOOMBS then proceeded 10 address the
committee, and alluded to the fact that fifteen
of the States were disconnected. II was almost i'm.
possible in free Government for any large portion
OF the people to become dissatisfied, unless there
was solid foundation for the complaint As the
Of portion of the people who are dis
contented, IL was his purpose to examine the ground
Of complaint, and, fthc grievance is we'll founded,
10 insist that it be removed The South believe that
II ID in contemplation by the majority to deprive
them Of their Just equality in the Government, and
exclude them from participation in the Territories,
and put them in collision with sixteen hundred
millions of their property. The South believe that
they have constitutional guarantees. If they have
not, they desire TO know H., and they demand new
safeguards for their future security. They sup
posed that when they came into the Confcdera-
ton they had them. When the Constitution was
formed, there was opposition TO slavery, and this
came near frustrating the attempt to create the
scented to a common government, they demanded
common securities Our ancestors yielded the
slave trade for limited time. They demanded
representation il slave property; and this was
yielded They asked for the extradition clause,
by which slaves escaping beyond the limits of
the slave States should Be restored to their own.
ers; and this was granted. This latter was carried
out for the 1rst thirty years, but now the North
withheld it. And there was another security--good
faith. Gentlemen claim, by implication, the right
to abolish slavery and to restrain it. The South and
the country understand this
But wherever our flag waves, they are faithless
to the Constitution who do not give to the slave the
same protection a. u extended TO other property
From the first Congress, in 1880, up to 1890, tie
power to legslate for the Territories the subject
OF slavery has not been exercised, with the excep-
ton Of the Northwest Territory. All the precedents
are uniform as to the protection of slaves proper
ty This has never been denied, and he challenged
proof to the contrary. In 1920, however on the
Missouri question, the right was asserted Massa-
chusctts may send Abolitonists here, land she has
largely awaited herself Of the opportunity and
Pennsylvania and other States may do the same
To this he could not objects but he demanded that
they shall not engra their opinions the national
legislation, and violate the compact formed by
shareholders and observation-disclosures for the protec-
ton OF both is not true that shareholders cannot
go to the Territories with their property because
as II is said, there 10 no law affirming slavery It
has existed from the day of creation and can go
wherever II ia NOT prohibited by express law. The
South are content with their institutions. They do
not ask the North to adopt them. They claim, as
equal freedom, the right to determine for them
selves what shall be the character of their insttu-
tons, and they intend to maintain it. The gentle
man from Massachusetts (Mr. MANN need not
make his calculations about three millions Of host
ages, or allies, in the South. You may march your
regiments Of Illinois, az distinguished militia
colonel (Mr. BIssELL) said you may march them
there; but as to whether they shall march back,
was for the South TO decide. He repeated, il was
floats to protect the property of all the people, that
what Is to be property shall be determined by the
people; that the Territory being the common
property Of the people Of the different States, per-
bons nave the right 70 migrate tnltDer WIN tnelr
property, and it is the duty of the Government to
ctitagainst domestic violence Then, it was for
the State TO determine the character of her instu
tons. 1t was the duty of the people every where
TO defend these rights; they should be defended
here. When this failed, IL was their duty to ap-
peal to the violated compact; and, in conclusion,
he said, when the Constitution fails to protect
you, stand To your arms.
Mr.. BAKER, Of Illinois, after few preliminary
glad to say that, very soon, the flag
he fh.G fsto ofN re-,
orna, to reflect the spendor and glory of the Union
orever and forever There not foot of slave |
territory acquired that was intcrfercd with. The |
North let ii 30 remain.
Mr.. MCLEAN inquired whether the Louisiana |
purchase was not divided by the Missouri compro- |
mise liner
Mr.. BAKER replied that that was northwest-not
'outh.
part of the Louisiana purchase, and slavery had
been excluded from that territory.
Mr.. BAKER said, No.
Mr.. CONRAD observed that a large portion of
The province Of Louisiana, large enough for several
States, had slavery therein when acquired from
France, and it was excluded by the Missouri COM
promise
Mr.. MCLEAN. That's what I said.
Mr. BAKER. My remark was literally true for
all purposes. So far as the climate allowed slavery
10 go, we let II 60. IL therc was legislation in
Iowa, II was because no SLAVES within her bor
ters, or in Oregon. The act of 1857 was never ex-
tended TO Iowa. And he denied that the North
have ever interfered with any bodys rights as TO the
rule Of property. Did not Congress pass the VIII
mot proviso in the Oregon bill and Missouri COM
promise, and did not the people acquiesce, Is there
any difference between what il il now proposed 10
DO, and what has been done? No man can point
put any reason why, If Congress can prohibit sla-
very north Of line, they cannot prohibit IL south
Of IT.. mr.. BAKER was frequently interrupted by
several gentlemen, but could not hear with dis
Iinctncss what they said.l Did gentlemen mean
10 say that IL the Wlmot proviso shall be passed
they will dissolve the Union, You are going 70
dissolve the Union for what your fathers have done,
and what the Congress which passed the Oregon
bill and the President who approved il, did. Ifso,
how viii you do III He should be alarmed IL he
thought that the Union was in danger. How do
you imagine that the Union in 10 be Dissolved
Mr.. O'CLOCK Tin consequence Of a remark Of
the gentleman) said that, II the Wilmot proviso in
any FORM or the abolition Of slavery in the District
Of Columbia, should pass he woulI introduce a re-
solution declaring that the Union ought TO be dis
solved
Mr. BAKER. Would you say it shall be dissolved,
or IL dissolved.
Mr.. CoLCOCK. will even take that form. Il
would, in effect, be expulsion Of the South, and
in effect dissolution Of the Union.
Mr. BAKER. II lie the opinion Of my friend that
Il the Wimot proviso be passed the Union will be |
dfoQolved ~ he