Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-01
Mr.. r. G. Scott on The Compromise.


Mr.. II. G. Scot on The Compromise.
We find upon looking again at Mr.. SCOTS let
ter that we Inexperienced his meaning, in as
cribing to him the declaration that the Compro-
mise bill would, by the proposed change of the
Texas boundary, forever prevent the extension of
slavery beyond the Tooth degree of West longi-
tude. We republsh his exact language, for
the purpose OF adding word or two of commen-
tary:
Iafirm (he says that if these bills pass, slavery
either by the laws of Cod or the enactments of Con-
gress substantially and eectually excluded from every
inch otterory West of the Tooth degree OF latitude and
North OF the Sd OF North latitude in Texas and in all
the newly acquired territories under the Mexican treaty.
whether North South of these lines In other words
by the admission OF California State and the insti
tuition OF Territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico, and the partition OF Texas, the South loses all,
and has nothing of practical, substantial character
gwen her IN return Nay more, the acquisition of ter
rtory from Mexico, will thus have proved deep and
bllghtng curse on the South. From every foot of the
newly acquired territory she is by these bills excluded
and to mock and degrade her yet more, there comes,
with this exclusion, the partition OF the Texan territory
and an appropriation of the half of to the Free Soil
ers OF the North. Give nothing rather than this"
MIR. SCOTS proposition is, that the Compromise
bill and the laws of God, operating together, will
exclude slavery. in the first place, from all the ter
ritory in Texas which lies West of the Tooth de-
gree of longitude and North of the 32d degree of
latitude and secondly, from all the Territory ac-
quired from Mexico.
The branch OF the proposition, relating to Tex
as, is inaccurate in fact and erroneous in law
| AS we explained yesterday, the proposed boundary
does not follow the 32d parallel of latitude but
dIa limo fro.o II n.
Grande situated nearly on the 32d parallel of la
| titude and the l06th degree of longitude, to the
South Western corner of the Indian Territory ST.
tuated on the Tooth degree of longitude and the
34th parallel Of latitude. Mr.. Scott is inaccurate
by the half Of the great parallelogram, of which
these two points are at opposite angles. But he
also certainly abandons Southern ground, in OBJ
ectlng, thatif the South consents to this cession,
slavery will be excluded, by the laws either of
Congress or of God, from the territory ceded by
| Texas. If the apprehension is from the law of
God we have only to say, that that law will be the
| same whether Texas be divided or not. The law
| OF God does not change with territorial metes and
bounds, and if it will prohibit slavery in the coded
territory when made part of New Mexico, it will
equally prohibit it whilst the territory remains
part of Texas. Neither does the COMPROMISE bill
attempt to supply an nterdct which the law of
God may possibly have omitted The Wimot
Proviso is nowhere in the bill. The committees
report declares that designedly left out, and
advises thatit should never be countenanced in the
organization OF any future Territorial government
Not only does the bill refrain from prohibiting the
introduction OF slavery, but it Restraints the Terri
torial Legislatures from prohibiting it, and, as
amended, will probably cnjoin upon them the duty
OF protecting slave property fl can be introduced
"contormably to the constitution and laws of the
United States, and no Southern man doubts that It
can be.
These last remarks apply TO the acquired terri
tory not claimed by Texas or included in Cafor-
MIA. as we'll as TO that which it is proposed to cede
to Texas. In all beside California, the Com
promise bill establishes the principle of non-nter-
terence, for which the South has been contend
ing from the first. But in reference to Mr.. SCOTS
affirmation as to the effect of the BILL united with
the law of God, in excluding slavery from the
region coded by Texas, we wish to make one fur
Their remark He claims, with his party, if we
mistake not that all that part of New Mexico
which lies East of the Rio Grande belongs to
Texas; and many, who believe that Texas never
established her title, regard it as being conclusive
ly confirmed, as against the United States, BY the
war and treaty with Mexico. Now, if the Meri-
can law is what Mr.. Scott refers to, when he
speaks of slavery being excluded from this region
by the laws of God or Congress, he must have
forgotten that the Mexican law has no sort of
force IN IecaS. The cesson of the territory of
Texas cannot revive law that has no existence
Two thirds of the population of New Mexico
dwell East of the Rio Grande Hence, the Com
promise bill, in the view of all who admit the
Texas title, must be regarded as not leaving the
preponderatng part of New Mexico open to any
question about the force of Mexican law. In no
possible aspect of the case, therefore, is Mr..
Scott justified in declaring that the bill prohibits
slavery in that Territory.
In the conclusion o. his letter, Mr. Scott asks
why the South should take step backward from
the concessions of Mr.. Webster, who gave us four
slave States from Texas And this inquiry indi-
Gates the only reason, which can save Mr.. Scott
from the imputat on of inconsistency for it will
be remembered that in city IN etings, he
avowed his readiness to accept Mr.. Webster's
scheme in all respects save that it does not include
provision, in the form of enactment, for the sub
division of Texas into several States. Neither
did Mr.. Webster propose to provide at once for
that subdivision. He did not even see the neces-
sity of recognizing by resolution the obligation of
Congress to consent to it. His language was
(having read the annexation resoution):
"Now what is here stipulated enacted, secured 1t
is that all Texas, south of 36 80 which is nearly the
whole Of it, shall be admitted into the Union as Slave
State-it slave State and therefore came in as
slave State and that States shall be made out OF it.
and that such States formed out of that portion
of Texas lying south OF 36 30 may come in as slave
States to the number OF four, in addition to the State
III av;et ~ ;t,od