Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-15
Mr.. Seldom and the Missouri Compromise

"A
subjoined report fr m the Duly Globe, of certain
remarks made by him on Tuesday, under the five
minutes rule, explaining his views respecting the
consttutionality of the Missouri Compromise. 1t
is due to Mr.. S. that this explanation should 60 be-
fore our readers, who may remember, that on Sa-
turday last, we argued that consistency required
him to oppose the Missouri Compromise, no less
than the plan of the Senate, because we under
stood him to take the ground that the South was
solemnly pledged to resist any exclusion of her
citizens, with their property, by whatever instru-
mentality, from the Territories. 1t will now be
seen that Mr.. Seddon's position is that the North
ern and Southern States are entitled to the public
domain in joint tenancy, but that an equitable par
tlon of it between them is in conformity with the
spirit of the constitution which guarantees them
equal rights in the common property. In this ge-
neral principle we fully concur, and, therefore,
we have never admitted the force of the argu-
ment usually urged against the constituonality
of the Missouri Compromise by Mr. Calhoun,
Gov. Tazewell and other eminent men of their
political school, We agree with Mr.. Seldom, in
the doctrine, that where the States, as joint own
ers of the public territory find it impossible to
agree as to the mode of its enjoyment, it is per-
fectly legitimate and intrinsically right to divide
it between them.
But whilst we concede that the Missouri Com
promise is unobiectionable in principle, we are
not convinced that it is preferable, the score of
either principle or expediency to the plan of the
Committee of Thirteen. The Missouri Compro-
mise, does, indeed, propose to divide the Terri
tories between the North and the South, but it d.
vides them unequally The Senate plan, on the
other hand, remoueS the disagreement beta0een The
joint oaoners, and for all the territory acquired from
Mexico which retains the Territorial condition.
acknowledges the claim of the South that Con-
gress should not interpose a restriction against
slavery. By both plans, the South loses all the
valuable part of California. The Missouri Com
promise throws open to Southern emigration
strip of territory about three and half degrees in
width from the Rio Grande to the Pacific. The
Senate plan throws open the whole of the i'm
mense domain acquired from Mexico, Extending
over nine degrees of lattute, between 33 deg. and
AZ deg) except California, with the boundaries
proposed in her constitution, (Which are, on the
North, the AID degree of latitude the East, the
l20th degree of West longitude, from the 42d to
the 39th degree of latitude, thence diagonal line
to the point where the 35th degree of latitude
crosses the Rio Colorado, and thence down the
Colorado to the mouth of the ella on the South,
the boundary line established between Mexico and
the United States by the treaty Of Guadalupe
Hidalgo.) Regarding the principle of partition
in one plan, and of harmonious Joint tenancy in
the other, being equally acceptable, the practi-
| cal question in our view is simply question Of
expedency, whether it is better for the South to
assent to the Senate plan or to stand upon the
Missouri Compromise. Were the choice between
the two schemes submitted entirely to our own
decision, we should hesitate to take the Missouri
| Compromise; for we should greatly doubt whe-
Their access to the Pacific through the inhospita-
BILE region back of San Diego and Santa Barbara,
were more desirable than access to the valley of
the Colorado, from the AID degree of latitude to
| the mouth of the ella. But presented as the
question is at this uncture, with the leading friends
of the Union and the Constitution rallied upon the
plan of the Committee of Thirteen, we cannot ap-
prove the course of those who would defeat that
measure, and keep alive the existing agitation, for
the sake fthe very questionable advantages to be
gained by the adoption of the Missouri Compro-
mise.
We should heartily second the stoutest opposi-
ton to the proposed boundaries of California, but
for the apprehension that the South would only
gain loss by securing their curtailment. He
must blind his eyes to the current of events who
does not perceive the tendency of Northern senti-
ment to settle upon the policy of converting the
Territories rapidly as possible into States, for
the purpose of increasing Free Soil preponderance
in Congress. Toorganize the Territory of South
California might be only to add two Free Soil votes
to the majority which the admission of California
in some FORM will soon secure to the North
Nevertheless, if Southern gentlemen in Congress
stand with any thing like untedness upon this
point, we should willingly see California limited
on the South by $780, An arrangement more
consistent with the geography of the country
would be to make the Eastern boundary of Cali
fornia follow the Sierra Nevada from the point
where it intersects the l20th degree of longitude,
to its junction with the Coast Range, and thence,
ny " Hooi'y rosl iiio " NaPe CoIicePlion,d Pro-
minent point on the Pacific coast in about "a 80
North latitude, which marks an important division
in the coasting trade and shipping interests OF
Upper California. This line would make the
State of California homogeneous, and would leave
South of it the ports of Santa Barbara and San
Diego. Such a departure, however, from the
Missouri line, ought not to be accepted without a
full concession of the prncipleeof non-interven-
ton in all the Territories
Mr.. Seldom moved to amend the amendment Of Mr.
lowing, viz:
Making practically partition between the slave
holding and savehoding States, as 10 the priv-
iege OF settlement"