The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-06-13
MESSRS. CLAY AND WEBSTER.

MENShN' UbhI hND WEDSiE R'
We ask the attention of our readers to the
course of Messrs Clay and Webster, as indicated
by their votes in our Congressional record
Mr. Clay, since the death of Mr.. Calhoun,
seems to be regarded by the Slayeholding Inter-
est, as its most efficient protector No one can
fail to observe that the tone of his speeches has
undergone change, which adapts them more to
Southern feelings file is less tolerant towards
Northern sentiment, and appears more inclined
to entertain propositions of amendment emanat-
ing from the slaveholding members Thus he
vote2 fer the 1HEs ,aatos ttc> PFi- = Y - - ;
sippi intended rs a recognition by implication Of
slavery in the Territories, and against that of
Mr. Chase, designed to exclude the implication.
lie voted against the application of the Ordinance
of 1887, and for the substitution of the words,
or prohibiting or establishing slavery" for the
words " in respect to slavery because the Pro-
Slavery men insisted that the latter prohibited
police regulations for the system. fIe voted
against the motion of Mr. Hale to insert after
the word prohibiting the word allOpmg "a
motion designed to prevent the Territorial Legis
lature from proceeding on the assumption that
slavery was already in the Territories. He
voted against the motion Of Mr.. Walker TO abol-
ish peon slavery. awe do not know" said he,
its minute operations its relations to society, its
effects upon the Indians, its tendency towards
their civilizationw Recollect, peon slavery is
slavery for debt, which by the miserable contri-
vanccs of law is made virtually perpetual and he
redtary. What wonderful civilizer it must
be! He voted, too, against Mr.. Badwin'samend-
ment, declaring the Mexican laws prohibiting
slavery in the Territories still in force IL will
be recollectcd that in the Compromise resolutions
submitted by MIR Clay in the early part of the
session, he affirmed that slavery did not exist in
the Territories, either by law or in fact-in his
speeches in support of them, he repeatedly declar
ed that Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the
Territories were still in force fact which should
induce the North to desist from urging the Will
Gzrr-cpon -tu nsfaE1UM the rr0vfs6
did he not admit this fact. But, this doctrine
was sternly denied by the South, SO that, when
the whole subject was referred to Committee
of Thirteen, il was found convenient to omit any
allusion to it. Since the report of the Committee
has been under discussion, the Southern Senators
have repeatedly and solemnly protested against
the doctrine. Hence, when the time for voting
came, Mr.. Baldwin deemed it necessary to take
the sense of the Senate on the question, to see
whether the North was indeed to receive any
equivalent for the sacrifice of the Proviso, and
he put his amendment in a form embodying the
doctrine in regard to the Mexican law, as promul-
gated by Mr. Clay himself In the 9th section
after the word slavery" in the 9th line, he
moved to add these words--"it being hereby in
tended and declared that the Mexican laws pro-
hibitiug slavery shall be and remain in force in
the said Territories, until altered or repealed by
Congress" In the course of q spirited speech
sustaining his amendment, he said
"The distinguished chairman of the commit
tee who reported this bill has himself declared to
the Senate that such is his understanding of the
law that if We pass this bill, the Mexican law
will remain in force and he has gone 80 far as to
affirm that if it were not So if such were not to
be the law, he would himself be opposed to the bill
for he would never vote for any bill that would have
the effect of extending slavery to Territories
now free My own opinion, sir, is in accordance
with that Of tho distinguished chairman of the
committee that, if we pass this bill, the Mexican
laws will remain in force prohibiting slavery, and
that the Territorial Legislature will not have the
power to repeal or change those laws, by its own
legislation, under the provisions Of this bill But
that is not the opinion of other and distinguished
Senator's who have delivered their sentiments in
the course of this debate. The Senator from
Georgia, MIR. Berrien for example, has, on the
other hand, expressed the opinion that, by the
establishment of Territorial Governments the
Mexican laws upon this subject viii be abrogated,
and that slavery may, under the Constitution and
laws of the United States which will then be In
force there, be carried into those Territories not
withstanding the original prohibition in the Mex
lean laws.
The object Of my amendment is merely to de-
clare what we ourselves intend. We are enact
ing law which we wish the people to under
stand. How can we expect this, when Senators
upon this side of the Chamber understand it in
one sense, and Senators upon the other side of
the Chamber say they understand i, in n differ.
ent sense
Let us, then, not deal with the people 81 aun-
biguous language but let US declare plainly
frankly, what we do mean and when we have
intelligibly expressed what majority of the SEN
ate understand the law to be- il this bill is passed
then the people Of these Territories will know
from us what we intend TO declare the will Of the
American People to be"
Mr.. Clay denounced this motion with great
warmth, as an attempt " to get another form of
the Wimot Proviso INTRODUCED "No sir,n
said Mr.. Baldwin, dit is the aqtu quo which |
PROPOSE
Mr.. Clay Very well what is that statu quo
but the Wimot Proviso2 Is it not equivalent to
the Wilmot Provisol And will not one express
sion of this body satisfy the Senator from Con-
necticut himself without proonging the discus
sion day after day, lacking only little variety of
expression, upon substantially the same PROPOSE
ton ~
Mr. Baldwin did not yield to the ovcrbearing
demeanor of MIR, Clay, but advocated his amend
ment with renewed spirit and vgor Referring
to a remark of Mr., Berricn, one of the Commit.
tee of Thirteen, that ono of the propositions of
the report recognised "Texas as the rghtful pro-
prietor Of the soil which the United States pro-
posed to acquire from that State" he said
Now, sir, il Texas is TO be deemed the right
full proprietor Of the soil and jurisdiction Of the
territory to be ceded to the United States upon
the terms proposed in this bill, what will be
claimed to follow Why, sir, that the law of
Texas, and not the law of Mexico, prevails over
this entire Territory that we receive IL as slave
territory, although, in point OF fact, Texas has
never for one moment exercised jurisdiction over
IL but It has BEEN from the time Of Its first pro-
hibition Of slavery, under the Mexican law, down
to the present time, as much dedicated TO freedom
rs the soil of.any free State In the Union. II