The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-10-12

ninety Thousand people whe had ahsaay pro-
noupsed against slavery. thai on hes aduissiou
! as State.--whieh tie North rsn accomplish at
any session Of Congress. and win effect in the
aext Congress- 1T all becomes Frcs-soil- .
4 As Tor Mr.. BAvLY's assertion that the Texan
bill converts 1867 square miles Of Frcc-soil
territory into slave territory. IF tho people resi-
dent uponit shall so decide when they form a
constitution" as Suite, it is only amusing
when we know hwo those people are, and indi-
Gates merely the desperation OF the case. But
if anything could add to the too obvious des-
peration of Dir. BAyLy's ease, it is his effort at
this particular place TO show thst this bill is nom
Intervention, and to show that Mess JErYER-
SON, CALHOUN and himself were always for nom
Intervention. What the purchase BY CONGRESS-
from slave holding State and people, Of some
hundred thousand miles of territory, and its
transfer to Free-soil territory and people, nom
intervention! Why Mr.. BAYLy! Mr. BAyLy I!
Dir. BAyLY!!
/
/ But Mr.. BAyLY proceeds and says that, g for
these reasons, am of opinion that the adoption
ofthese measures under consideration was right
| in itsclf'
| Well, but only two days before, Mr.. BAyLY,
and nearly two-thirds Of the Southern deIega-
ton in the House, voted against this very mea-
sure under consideration--yoted against the
Texas bill the very bill he voted for when con-
nected with mere territorial bill for the govern
ment OF New Mexco-and certainly the nom
CALHOUN and BAYLy, was known two days be-
fore with the other of Mese-reasons"
| But these reasons We're not enough, and SO
Mr.. BAYLy finds more. He says:
"But let us look to the alternatives which
We're before us. 1t was well known to Inc that
an influential party in Congress, at the head of
whom, in the House, were Mr. Vinton and Mr.
Schenck, of Ohio, opposed the Texan boundary
bill with the territorial government for New
Mexico, such AZ | have described, with the pur
pose of carrying through the Texan proposal rs
| a separate measure, of defeating the territorial
bills, and bringing in New Mexico as a State,
with her constitution prohibiting African slavery
Their votes on this occasion sufficiently estab-
lish this. The scheme of bringing in New
| Mexico as a State was !, cherished one Of Gen
Taylor and his party. In speech / made on
the 18th of Juiy,a copy Of which will accompany
this expressed my views fully concerning it !;
and wiAnot repeat them here. Although the
present administration preferred the establish
ment of territorial governments to the admission
! of New Mexico as State, vet did not doubt
that, if the Texan and New Mexican bills failed,
all of its power would have been exerted to
carry the Texan bill as separate measure, and
then have admitted New Mexico as a State
There We're elements enough which could have
been combined to effect this purpose and
have no doubt whatever that it would have been
effected in the contingency have mentioned"
! Well, if Aessrs ScHENcK, VISToN s. Co. had
power to admit New Mexico as State last ses-
sion, will there be less power to do it next
And does Mr.. BAYLY fancy that his argument
to show that much of it is still open to slavery,
! is sufficient to induce enough shareholders to
rush in between now and then, to outyote the
present population of New Mexico, and form
slaveholding constitution! IL not, then it may
come in, nay, will come in next session as Free
soil State, with the hundred thousand square
miles of territory and seventy thousand of popu-
lation which Mr.. BAyLY voted it from Texas,
and without them there could have been formed
no such Frec-soil State.
i Messrs. ScuENcK and VNToN could not have
obtained the admission of New Mexico last SEES
sion, for that would have been civil. war between
Texas and the United States, and the North did
!. 1or III %r,,t k,+ ~,
the way MIR. BAYLy's last reason was the fear
Of this civil war. But this reason existed when
he voted against this very Texas bill, two days
before he voted for it.
We have long been curious to see some of
those mysterious reasons that in two days with
out further argument, without any change in
affairs, effected that discreditable endorsement
| in the House Of Representatives, from a vote of
q majority OF forty-six against the Texas bill to
majority of ten in its favor, when connected
with the New Mexican territorial bill. People
who were suspicious pronounced the connection
of the two bills mere pretext for for change
Of vote, as nobody could see any respectable
reason for such change Of opinion as that vote
I indicated.
i When, therefore, we saw that llr. BAYLY's
circular undertook to explain his course in that
question, we looked over it very carefully for
the sudden Developments of those two days
But we have looked in vain. The causes Of the
change must have operated with augmented
intensity the last of the two days. For even
after the bills were united, the day after the de-
feat of the Texas bill, they were defeated by a
majority of eight-the next day they passed by
majority Of ten
But since Mr.. BAYLY gives no account Of the
reasons of the sudden and memorable change
in the vote on the Texas question which oc-
CURED in two days-in one day--and since, if
he cannot or will not, we may despair of getting
them from others-we are left to our own con-
lectures. They shall be charitable Mr.. CLAY