The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-08-17

is in less favor just at this time, than il was al
! the commencement Of the session. This 10 one
of the reasons why the Presidents plan, as ii is
called, for settling this matter, grew in so much
favor with our Northern friends. Now, ifindeed
CONTRARY to my opinion.) any Mexican law does
not give way to the Constitution OF the United
States, and should be believed by any to remain
an obstacle 10 the enjoyment of the just rights
of the South in that Territory, il were but just
that il be removed If VIC are to have race,
clear the track. Then, ii indeed the Territory
was unsuited to slave labor and its productions,
the South would have no reason TO complain,
or resist your injustice in regard to that Terri
tory. Let it not be urged that the doctrine OF
non-interventon applies and prevents justice be-
ing done to the South. The situation in which
we find ourselves and the country in relation to
these Territories, is different from that which
there existed two years ago. AT that time the
Clayton compromise was under consideration
the whole field was then open; the whole terri
tory which we had acquired, was then the sub
iect-matter Of consideration, and the provisions
of the compromise were intended to apply to
all. Is that the case now 1t is not so nor
indeed has the principle of non-intervention been
applied; but on the contrary, there has been
such an Intervention Us ought to bring down
upon those who have acted part in it, the
highest and most emphatic disapprobation OF
the American people.
The doctrine Of non-interventiOn, especially
MS ii was held in the South, would have guaran-
teed to US all our rights in relation to these
Terrtories-that is to say, the right OF going
into and settling there with our property; but
after the compromise of Mr.. Clayton had failed,
and a new Administration had come into power,
they virtually said to the balance of the world,
Stand aside-you must not interfere; you
must take no action and, at the same time,
they themselves nlisappled and perverted the
doctrine of non-interyention and interfered for
purposes of their own, though with what par
ticular object do not undertake to say. 1t has
been alleged that it was for the purpose of dodg-
ing the Wilmot Proviso. The result is to ex-
clude the South from the entire territory OF
California, as her limits have been prescribed
The President of the United States not only
perverted this doctrine to his own purposes, but
assumed, through his agents and instruments, to
settle the whole question. No wonder, Mr.
Chairman, that the Free-Soilers should have
adopted as their policy the Presidents plan, in.
stead of that which they formerly promulgated
1t secured the attainment OF their objects i'll
finitely better, and with much greater certainty
for it brought to their aid the influence of the
!
from the territory as the Wilmot Proviso Itself
could have done. Even the letter Of instruc
tions to my former colleague, THOMAS BUTLER
KIsG-(wh0, to the establishment Of the whole
American people, was sent out as a political
missionary to the people of CaliiOrnia)--is
couched in the most extraordinary language
aYou know sir what are the views of the Presi
dent on this subject" Mr.. Chairman, will not
charge upon the late Executive design to ex
clude slavery from this territory but do charge
| that this was an act upon his part unauthorized
| by tue Constitution, because to the Congress o.
the United States alone belongs the sole anc
exclusive disposition of the common territory
and it was but due to the American people, ant
to all interests concerned, that he should have
withheld the strong arm of the Executive Coy
ernment from any interference with the question
even to the extent of the intinlation OF desire
upon its part that the people of California shoult
form either one kind of government or another
But, Mr.. Chairman the conduct on the par
of the agent who sent to California, deserves
my notice. feel that the South has reason tc
complain of the conduct of the late Admin stra
ton in that respect. That agent was intrusted
with authority to recommend to the people tc
form State constitution, and apply for admis
sion as State into the Union; and it will be
|
to assemble, or was in session and about to form
Constitution and declare their limits as State
| he did not fail to recommend TO member OF that
Convention that they should take the whole
Territory, and leave us nothing to quarrel about
1 can give nv endorsement TO no such conduct
and if the people whom represent choose to
endorse it, it must be their own net aud not mine
Let California, New Mexico and Utah remain il
| the condition in which they were when the Clay
ton compromise was under consideration in this
| House, land their condition is not changed by
any action of this House as vet , bring forward
the Clayton compromise and will pledge my.
self to its support, applicable to the whole
| Territory | would support II to-day. But
| circumstances have changed since that compro
| mise was originally brought forward las every
man who looks into the history Of the matter
well knows Ut is very easy for gentlemen from
the North, who hold this doctrine of non-inter
vention, rs il is now promulgated, after having
appropriated to themselves one-third of the whole
Territory to advocate il in regard TO the balance
| But the doctrine, even then, is to be received
under circumstances very different from those
which existed Mt the time of the passage Of that
bill through the Senate--very different indeed
| 1t has been very surprising TO me that when, by
the report and bills ofthe Committee of Thirteen
| in the Senate, one third of the Territory was
given up to free soil-that is, by the admission
of California with the boundaries she has pre-
scribed for herself, when territorial governments
were to be framed for New Maxico and Utah
upon the principle of non-intervention,-l say II
is surprising to me, that when they came back
to the Rio Grande they had not, in consideration
of the great benefits Of this vast Territory Sc.
cured to the North, been willing to quit the pre-
tended claim of the United States to all the
Territory east Of the Rio Grande. That would
have been manifestng something like the spirit
of compromise That would have been properly
respecting the claim which Texas has always
maintained from period as early as ls36-that
would have been consistent with the position
which our own Government took when she went
to war in defence of the boundary claimed by
Texas.
While am upon this branch of the subject,
Mr. Chairman, wish TO notice position which
is often TAKEN viz: that part of Texas-thnt
part lying on the Upper Rio Grande-was never
reduced to possession by Texas, and conse-
quently that it now properly constitute, part
Of New Mexico. | ask gentlemen who take
this position, what greater reason have you to