Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-19
INTERESTING DEBATE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SATURDAY, June Is, 1850
The question was on Mr.. Inge's amendment
Prouided That the people ofany portion of said ter
rtory when assembled in convention in pursuance OF
constitutional authority to frame State constitution
nave the right to adopt or exclude African slavery, and
their determination OF this question, by the adoption or
exclusion of African slavery, shall be no obstacle to the
admission of such State into the Union.
We give some of the most important five min
utes speeches:
Mr.. BIssELL renewed the amendment He
said, the proposition submitted by the gentleman
from Alabama Mr.. Inge asserts substantially,
that States hereafter presenting themselves for ad-
mission into the Union ought not to be refused
such admission, the ground that their constitu-
tons prohibit slavery on the one hand or on the
other permit it.
shall vote for that proposition. | shall vote
tor it because, In my judgment, it declares cor
rect principle tits principle, sir, upon which
have always stood, and from which | have no
idea of departing-a principle maintained and
cherished by my constituents, and one which they
will be slowto surrender shall vote for it, sir,
for the further reason, that desire to correct as
far as may be done here, an erroneous and iniuri-
GUS inference deducible from yesterdays vote on
the proposition introduced by the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr.. Stanton, and which was in SUBJ
stance like the one now under consideration
cannot butregard the vote oy which that PROPOSE
ton was defeated as most unfortunate one and
as such, regret it profoundly. Not that its ne
cessary practical results are so much to be depre-
Gated for they, indeed are just nothing at all, but
because the true explanation of that vote will never
be known by one in a hundred of those who will
learn with alarm the simple fact that such pro-
position was voted down by northern members on
this floor
The proposition yesterday voted ON was in SUBJ
stance this: that no State ought to be denied ad-
mission into the Union (when otherwise entitled
to come I'M on the ground that the constitution
that she may have adopted for herself permits
slavery. This proposition was, in my Judgment,
most unwisely voted down.
Now, looking at the naked vote on this ques-
ton, it appears like a solemn declaration by the
northern members of this branch of Congress-.
that no more slave States are ever to be admitted
into the Union--that such is the fixed irrevoca-
bly, settled determination of the people of the
North 1t is in that aspect sir that that vote will
be too generally regarded, especiallyin the South
Thousands there who learn the result of the vote
will regard it as declaration by the North that
only States with constitutions prohibiting slavery
are henceforth to be admitted into the Union.-
Some will honestly suppose, and others will as
sert without caring to inquire whether it be cor
rect or not, that such is the legitimate and fair
Interpretation of that vote. You and |, Mr. Chair
man, and others who witnessed the proceedings
here, know better We know that no such in
ference is fairly deducibe from that vote. We
know that many did not vote upon the proposition
at ALL regarding it as mere declaration of an abb
stract principle, out of place and out of time and
really calling for no vote either for or against it.
And large number of those who voted against
it, did so, as we know, from desire to see the
California bill kept unembarassed by this or any
other amendment. These are the considerations,
as we who are here know, which induced that
vote. But will the explanation travel into all
places side by side with the announcement of the
vote? Know you not, sir, that before yesterdays
sun went down, our telegraphs had conveyed with
lightning speed the result of that vote into every
quarter of our Union, and especially into the
South? And think you that the facts necessary
to its correct understanding went with it? Will
not hundreds learn the result of that vote, and be
startled at it, who will never know its true expla-
nation at all
Look for moment at the inevitable effect of
this in the South. 1t has been declared here by
one or two, or perhaps three northern members,
that it is the fixed determination of the people of
the North to admit no more slavehodng States
into the Union and although it has been denied
again and again that any such determination exists
there, yet we know that these declarations have
been extensively circulated in the South, as nd-
cative of the policy which the North intends to
pursue towards that section of the Union, trust
that few men, even in the South, have placed any
confidence in or attached any consequence to,
these declarations. But sir, with yesterday vote
in seeming confirmation of these declarations, how
will it appear to them then? Will not those who
are disposed to agtate this subectin the South,
and to mislead and excite the people there, point
to this vote and say, "Behold the proof of all we
have told you, as 10 the designs of the North
against us Is NOT here the proof that the ex-
tremest declaration as to the designs of the North
made by the EXTREMIST Abolitionst on the floor of
Congress is true?" Sir, l am opposed to furnish
ing agtators in any quarter with any such mate
rial for their operations. Let those who are dis
posed to make war upon our institutions, or the
Union, furnish their wnammunition.
Sir, maintain that the proposition now under
consideration contains principle correct in itself,
and recognized by the people of the North, and
especially by the Democratic party. Upon the
slavery question they are in favor of noninter-
vention; and when new States shall be formed,
they desire that the people thereof shall be as free
to adopt such constitution as they may choose
Tor themselves, as were or are the people OF Hi
nols, or Massachusetts, or South Carolina, or
Mississippi The proposition now before us as
serts this proposton-no more, no less; and TOR
the reasons have given, am in favor of it.
Mr.. BUTLER, of Pennsylvania, renewed the
amendment, and said, he had voted yesterday tor
the same proposition substantially, when offered