The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-05

W
the parent country for the trouble and expense Of esab
fishing and protecting them. Washington born and
grew up to manhood under that union He acquired his
TO believe that he deyoiedly attached to il But his
devotion Was rational one. He was attached, not as
an end, bat as means 10 an end Whenn Jailed 20 Iun'
aus end, and, instead OF aordng protection was CONVERT
ed into the means Of depressing the colonies he did not
hesitate 10 draw his sword and head The great
by which that union was forever his a was The
great and browning glory Of his life, which mas spread
his fame over the whole globe. and will transmit 10
Nor can The plan proposed by the distinguished senator
from Kentucky, that OF the administration save tne
Union shall pass by without sarv II s he pan
ration OF that OF the administration. however, assure
The disng uished and able senator that in taking this
no disrespect whatever Is intended 10 him his
Man have adopted il, because many senators OF
distinguished abilities, who present when he de-
yered his Speech and explained his PLAN and who were
fully capable 10 do justice TO the side they support have
The plan Of the administration cannot save the Unon
because ii have effect whatever towards satisfy
ing the States composing the southern section OF the
Union that they consistently with safety and honor
remain in the Union II is in fact but modification of
ss hs b.
the Mexican treaty Il is well known that the South is
united against the Wmot Proviso, and has committed
itself by solemn resolutions to resist should il be adopt
ed Its opposition is NOT to the name but that which
proposes to effect That the southern States hold to be
unconstitutional, UNJUST inconsistent with their equality
stroy rretrevably the equilibrium between the two
tons These objections equally apply TO what for brew
lily, will call the executive provso There is no differ,
ence between il and the Wmot except in the mode OF
eecng the object; and in that respect must say that
the latter is much the least Objectionable Il goes to its
object openly boldly and distinctly II claims for Con-
to assert it the Territories acquired from Mexico by
positive prohibition of slavery Not the executive
proviso 1t takes indirect course; and in order 10
elude the Wimot Proviso, and thereby avoid encounter
ing the united aud determined resistance OF the South
dcnies by implication the authority OF Congress to egs-
late for the Territories, and claims the right belonging
exclusively to the inhabitants OF the Territories But to
effect the object of excluding the South it takes in
the mean time, let in emgrans freely from the north
which takes special to exclude BY holding up to
them the danger of having their slaves liberated under the
Mexican laws The necessary consequence is TO exclude
the South from the territory just as eectually would
the Wilmot Provso The only difference in this respect
is that what one proposes to effect directly and openly
the other proposes to effect indirectly and covery
But the executive provso is more objectionable than
the Wlmot in another and more important particular
The latter TO effect its object nfcts dangerous wound
upon the constitution, by depving the southern States
joint partners and owners OF the Territories OF their
rights them but it inicts greater wound than is
absolutely necessary effect its object The former,
the contrary, while it nhlcts the same wound infcls
others equally great and, if possible, greater as shall
next proceed to explain.
Congress, TO egsate for the Territories, in the
tive provso, that the sovereignty the
tbs ansaue used Il resolution by one Of the
senators from Texas, General HoUsroN,] absent,
they have "the inherent right Of selfgoyenment
the people in the States" The assumption is utterly
unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, and con-
trary to the entire practice OF the government, from its
commencement to the present time. as shall proceed to
show.
The recent movement of individuals in California to
form constitution and State government, and to APP
point senators and the first fruit OF this
movement had gone into California adventures, and
IT, SUCH they had conquered the territory and estab
lished their independence the sovereignty OF the country
would have been vested in them as separate and indie
pendent community. In that case they would have had
the right to form constitutions and to establish govern
ment for themselves; and If afterwards they thought
proper 10 apply to Congress for admission the Union
sovereign and independent State, all this would have
been regular and according 10 established principles But
such is not the II the United States who
quered California, and finally acquired il by treaty The
sovereignty OF course is invested in them and not in the
and Stale without their consent All this is clear be-
yond controversy, unless be shown that they have
since lost or been Invested OF their sovereignty.
Nor is il less clear that the power of egsatng over
the acquired territory vested in Congress- and not as is
assumed, IN the inhabitants OF the Territories None
deny that the government OF the United States have the
power to acquire Territories, either by treaty
but II the power to acquire exists belongs Congress
TO carry into execution On this point there can be no
doubt Tor the constitution expressly provides that Con-
shall ba necessary and proper carry into execution the
foregoing powers" Chose vested in Congress,) "and
other powers vested by this constitution in he pouern
eat Of the United States OF in any department or office
thereof" IL matters not then, where the power is vest
ed for ii vested al all in the government of the United
States any OF its departments officers the power OF
carrying II into execution clearly vested in Congress
But this important provision, while gives Congress
the power OF legisatng over Territories imposes i'm
portant restrictions its exercise by restricting Con
gess to passing laws necessary and proper for carrying
the power into execution. The prohibition extends not
only to all laws not suitable appropriate 10 the object
OF the power, but also 10 all that unjust, unequal or
unfair for all such laws would be unnecessary and i'm
proper, and therefore unconstitutional
Having established, beyond controversy that the
sovereignty the Territories is vested in ihe United
States-that is, in the several States composing the
Union--and that the power OF legslang over them
expressly vested in Congress, follows that the ndvid.
uais IN California who have undertaken 10 form
stution and State. and 10 exercise the power of egs
latng without the consent OF Congress- have usuped
the sovereignty OF the State and the authority of Con.
gress, and have acted in open defiance OF both In other
WORDS what they have done is revolutionary and rebel
ous IN its character, anarchca in its tendency and cal.
cuated TO lead TO the most dangerous consequences
Had they acted from generalization and design, Il would
have been, in fact actual rebellion but such is not the
case The blame lies much less upon them than upon
those who have induced them To take course so uncon
stutiona and dangerous They have been led into il by
language held here and the course pursued BY the exec
u,ive branch OF the government
e have not the answer OF the Executive 10 The
calls made by the houses of Congress for infoma.
on the which II took, the part which il
acted, in reference TO what done in California
understand the have not yet been printed But
there IL enough known 10 justify the assertion that those
who profess TO represent and under the authority of
movement, which terminated in forming what they call
ems ttfuo nd yha esael