New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-27


" the Texas boundny-a question out Of which
must say there ia imminent danger sprngiog, IL
i be not adjusted during the present Session Of
II not two civil wns-the civil war
between the people ofNew Mexico inresistance 70
The authority OF Texas, TO which they are utterly
avcrse, and the civil war lighted up upon the Upper
Rio GTaDde, which may la time extend itseu 70
the Potomac. All, therefore, must aeree-all have
Senator who hes expressed his opinion
upon this subject during the progress OF this de-
bate hes avowed his conviction Of the necessity oil
an adjustment, compromise, settlement OF this
bCundtfy
Ii hes been objected against the measure that It
is a Compromise. 1t has been said that 1t IS
compromise Of principle, or Of principle. Mr..
President What is a COMPROMISED Ii Is a work
Of RITUAL concession-an agreement in which there
are reciprocal stipulations-a work in which, Tor
the sake Of peace and concord, one party ahaes ht
extreme demands 10 consequence Of an abate ment
Of extreme demands by the other party. IL IS 4
measure Of mutual CONCESSIONS measure OF mu'
tsal sacrifice. Undoubtedly, in all such measures
Of compromise, one party would be very glad 70
get what he wants and reject what he does not de-
sire, but what the other party wants. But whsa
Re comes 20 reflect that from the nature OF tue
Government and its operation, II IS necessary on
his part in order 10 what be wants 10 gram
something 10 the other side, be should De recon
ciled TO the concession he has made In consequence
OF the concession WDCn ne Is 10 tcCciNt-h eHSiD
ia no great principle involved, such as VIOLATION
of the Consultation of the United States. admit
that such Compromise as that ought never TO be
sanctioned or adopted Bot, now call upon any
Senator in his place 10 point out from I've begin
ming to the end from California 10 New'Mt xlce, a
solitary provision in this bin which is in violation
Of the Constitution Of the United States Sir. al
justment in the shape Of compromise may be
made without producing any such consequences rs
have been spprehended. There may be mutual
fofbesrance You forbesr upon your side, to insist
upon the application Of the restriction demon haEed
the Wilmot Proviso. IL there any violation OF prn
ciple there7 The most that can be said-even as
suming- the power TO pass the WImot froVl'o,
which is denied-is that there IS foroearHRces 20
fyc,ctse not a vtoL7fi0n of the power to pass the
Proviso. So, upon the Other hand, II tnere was d
mower in the u. 3 Constitution aothorHins gu es
tsblishment Of Slavery in any OF the ~.
power however, which is controverted oy alaI5c
nortion of the senate,--if there was power undcr
The Constitution to establish Slavery, the iorosar
spce 10 exercise that power Is no VIOLATION OF tne
Constitution, any more than the Consttnlon Is
violated by a forbeerance 70 exercise numerous
powers that might be specified, that are granted
in the Constitution, and that remain dormant until
tbey come to be exercised by the proper legisla
tive authorities 1t ia said that the bill presents
The state Of coercion-that members are coefced
in order to get what they want, to vote for that
which they diGapprove. Why, Sir, what coercion
is therel Ia there any coercion in the numerous
treaties made by the United States The treaty
in settling tire Maine boundary-the treaty in com
ing from 81 so down to 40 10 Oregon! All trea
ties which have been made upon commerce, upon
boundaries and other questions from time to time
by the United States, upon the prncipalof mutual
and reciprocal concession upon the part OF those
who made them2 Is there any more coercion Ia
this case than in the passage of q bill conta ming
q variety of provisions, some Of which you aP
oaEar Of htoL Ntaop
II be said upon the part Of our Northern friends
because they have not got the Wilmot PIoviso ia
corporaed into the territorial part of the bill, that
they are coerced-wantiDg California as much as
they doto vote for the BILL II they do not vote for
III Sir, they might have initiated the nobls ex
ample of my friend (Mr. Cooperl from that State
upon whose devotion TO the Union | place one OF
my greatest feliances for its preservation. What
was the course ofmy friend upon this subject Of the
Wilmot Provisol He voted for It, and he could
60 back and say to his constituents as all Of you
could 60 back aud say to your constituents, II you
chose to do SOW wanted the Wilmot Provso
in the BILL tried TO get il in. but the majority OF
the Senate was against it The question then
came up whether we should lose California which
has sot interdiction in her Constitution, which In
point OF value and duration is worth q thousand
Wilmots Provisos-we were induced, as my hoa.
orable friend would say, 10 take the bill and the
whole Of it together, although we were dissppoint
ed in votes with respect to the Wilnot Pro.
viso, to take whatever Of objectionable matter il
may have in il. on account Of the superior amount
OF good it obtains"
Its said Mr. President, that this " O mnibas as
it is called, contains too much. thank, from the
bottom Of my heart the enemy Of the bill who ave
il that denomination The Omnibus is the vehicle
OF the people, and this bill deserves the name for
another resson that with the exception Of two bills
which TO follow, 1t contains all that is necessary
TO give peace and quiet TO this country Ii is said
lie ihrof hac
vily freighted, and that it contains incongtuous
matter. shall not repeat the arguments which |
have addressed toyou heretofore showing tn at &C.
cordipg even to the Bntish Parliamentary law, but
especially according to the Congressional law. this
bill 10 in conformity with practice In innumerable
Instances But the osteDsible objection that IL con-
teins 100 much matter is no. the real one. Do you
believe that the Senator who sits before me nr
Baldwin, and other Senators in this neghborhood if
you would attach to the Territorial Bill the WmDt
Provso, would have seen the incongruty Would
not the Senator, even, from Massachusetts Mr..
Davis have voted for the whole Of this homogeneous
bill with pleasure if it had only contained the Will
mot PrOvisol 1t is not that the bill has too much
il it has too little according to the wishes of its
opponents; and am very sorry that the Omnibus
cannot contain Mr. Wilmot whose weight would
break it down. ] am afraid. il he were put here.
(aughter) This incongruous MEASURE, which has
already too much in it, has not enough for the Sen
ator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell. He wants to put
into ii two or three or more States from Texas,
upon the event Of their becoming ap-
plicants for admission into the Union. No, Sir it
Is not the variety Of the matter il is not the incon
gruity the incompatibility Of the measures of the
bill, but it is because the bill does not contain
enough TO satisfy those who want the "Wimot,'
as it has been properly called placed in the Omni-
bus
Why, Mr.. President incongruous as it may be
supposed, this has not half the incong-ui
OF the elemehts OF opposition to this bill. While
upon this part of my subject. allow me to answer
an argument delivered with oil the triumph OF
conscious victory by the Hon. Senator near me
lMr. Hale) the other day. He said he had gone
into certain apartment in this Capital and there
he had found my honorable friend from Michigan
(hr Casa and myself in close conversation; and
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr Footel in con.
sutation with Senator now no longer ia this
place. but Senator called by a grateful country to
a more responsible station and who has left US only