The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-02
CITY OF WASHINGTON, SUNDAY MORNING, JUNE 2, 1850.

nothing. and leaving all n doubt as to what the commi,
Tee deemed expedieni TO be done or let alone
what have we Ia this compromise Little indeed yer
ue so e that hardly dare to touch il, lest shou
than mlne have found. or thought they found In thi
project protection 10 southern interests which all III
magnfyng powers Of their coquence have failed TO brn
been insisted upon by the honorable senator from Ken
lucky, and afterwards by my honorable colleague tha
the South gained q great deal by the compromise, a
OF the original resolutions touchng the present exstec,
OF the Mexican slavery law in the ceded Territories
had been exrpated from the proje, and were nowhere
ingalted or to be found among the provisions Of the bill
readily admit that these postulaes were the most oh
Iectionabe features IN the original scheme; but is it u,
that they have been Topped away from the bill. and ma,
no even now De lurking IN some OF the folds OF lis mu
Hilarious clauses
Mr.. DOWNS. my honorable colleague viii permit
me, will say TO him that do not consider that il was
tne province OF the committee 10 Judge of the constu.
honay Of any measure. think itis sufficient decis
the Winot Proyiso thatt was not sanctioned by
Inc committee 4 ny honorable colleague wants
presson against the Proviso there distinct expression
the report that It is rejected read yesterday the
SENATE. This committee was not appointed as Judges
but to report something that would be satisfactory the
whole country certainly never understood them as
having 70 decide the whole question to The const-
tionalty Of the Provso II that was to be the course,
there is no settlement Of the question
the COMMITTEES not bound to adjudicate the matters
which have alluded to- they had been raised only for
.ns purpose q protecting compromise that they were
not 70 Judge oil such difficulties, but to report back TO
the Senate something that would be satisfactory TO all
would ask him how could compromise be effected at
ALL unless the matiers to be adjusted nteIlgbly
Or two other members OF this house to decide dispute
between private individuals. would my colleague con-
slider the arbitrament effected and conclusive II il were
couched in terms equivoca to be wholly ncompre.
tn tho ard 70 rha.
asked what 1t decides, he could say no more nor other.
wise than that the arbators disagreed as 10 the
import and meaning OF the terms Of the award which
hey had made? Sir, settlement extraordinary as
ms would De without parallel, and undeservng Of
hame It would unsettle everything and open up affesh
=. ihs issues q the cones,aton said such settlement
would be without parallel; too FAST sir: the
'aaie stands revealed and surpassed in the provisions
Q be found among the bills, as will be more and more
boWNSs S + 81 ssss,o4 @esa S .oo
ilar provision Of the compromise that the committee do
rot understand, and understand alike, or anything
hat ne does not understand, | shall be much Obliged
ntee, that there several things in that report that
10 not approve Of; but think understand them, and
ne committee understand them. think there is no am
'guiy In them Besides, my colleague has PROFOUND
d the question, Twill answer and think il is no uncom
non thing to settle disputes in this way-a thing recog
used by laws OF our own State and have what are
oints Of the law strictly but decide what is fair Just
md equitable, honorable TO all Such, consider, was
he duty Of the committee which reported this bill
MIR, SOULE. Truly so. The laws OF Louisiana, and
oubtess of other States also recognise amicabe com
ounders and am willing that the committee for the
AXE OF the argument be viewed in the light Of anicable
ompounders but then, amicable compounders always
ecide something, while the committee leave everything
Hassdss S nad lRat olfea sh r6fS
MIR. FooTE viii my friend bear with me while
SIX single question, having been interested in the mat
sr When he voted raise this committee, did he sup
ose il would be the duty Of the committee TO decide the
onstiluonay OF the Wmot Proviso, or TO endeavor 10
ct on foot some plan Of adjustment that avoiding the
ecison OF disputed points would yet settle all matters OF
t6culty upon terms OF honorable and raiern forbear
nee OF the various sections of the Union
MIR SOULE. ! will answer the question promptly.
Vhen | voted in favor Of the resolution raising The
ommitiee, did not expect that the Wilmot Proviso
would be acted upon by the committee IN such manner
Is TO come back TO with an express declaration
Of its constiiutonaty or unconsttutionaiy yet did
expect that some measure would be reported TO the SEN
e intimatng the 0f the committee, and bringing
ProvIso ITSELF in its practical bearing, 10 test that
would have enabled the country TO know whether or not
But resuming the observations OF my colleague, Mr:
Downs j Why does he suppose that ever thought OF
inspecting that the members OF the comnittee did not
understand the meaning OF the bills reported inma-
ed nothing OF the kind and my colleague has strangely
me. Ii would have been highly discour
eous in treat thus slighngy, not only him, but
he other members oil the committee.
said truly that they could agree TO the legal
consequences of the reported but though the
parliamentary courtesy OF debate forced the concession
rom me that the committee understood The true import
II their own measure yet had control that lib
.riy OF speech OF the honorable members OF the commit
ee through which they convinced me las they must
nave convinced every member OF the SeDate) that,
hough all the members may have understood the true
import OF their bill, II not 10 be doubted that
,hey understood a IN a different tcay. What could
be said, siri There stood the honorable chairman OF
he committee insisting most earnestly and resoutey that
had ne doubted all that the Mexican law prohibiting
slavery was in force in the Territories, he would have
utterly opposed the whole section under discussion !;
a,or from Kentucky never speaks without meaning0
that such conuncture, he would have imposed no re-
stran either upon the local legislatures upon Con-
gress, in enacung a revival OF that Mexican law, or
(what il precisely the same thng) the enactment
Of me uery Wamef Prouiso IrsELF, determined he
in some form other, should be applied to these Terri
tories On the other hand there stands my distinguish
ed friend from mississippi (Mr. FooTE,l who honored
me with the high praise (which shoule be proud Of
OF declaring that be regarded my humble argument upon
this point infinitely superior TO that OF the senator from
Kentucky, and that he fully concurred with In the
conclusion il had brought me tolcavng the inference
irresistible that he would not have voted for the bill with
out the section nor the secon but Tor the construction
can slavery restriction law. II Uas there, and OF
il out well all other anti slavery restrictions,
il was II there differences OF views
between the friends OF the n would not
have been at all surprising as had occasion to- remark
in the course OF what said the other day Such things
happen sometimes Statesmen concurring IN measures
passed SUB sfnffo and whoutan consultation with each
Other found thereafter putting and oppo-
site constructions upon the clauses o the same stat
ute present cashings OF opinion by without
ample But instances OF statesmen OF high intellectual
powers alter carefully and thoroughly weighing the in
erences and reasons of each other and finding them