The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-19
The genatorial BILL

Upon our first reading OF the measures proposed
by the Committee of Thirteen, for the organiza-
ton OF territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico, we were disposed to approve them, but
a subsequent examination, with the aid Of the de-
bates in the Senate, has developed most important
objection; AN objection which the amendment Of
fered by Mr.. Davis, Of Mississippi, was intended,
in part, TO obviate. The bill provides, in sub
stance that the territorial legislatures shall have
power to legislate in regard to all subjects of pro-
perty, but they can pass no law TO prohibit or es-
tabIish slavery in the territories. This we CON
slider too indefinite for the protection Of southern
rights. 1t leaves a latitude for discrimination in
the breasts of the Legislative bodies, dangerous TO
the rights of every STAKEHOLDER who may go there
with his property. The territorial legislatures
may consider The African held in bondage by the
white man as no property, and therefore refuse to
pass such laws as might be necessary to protect
the rights of the owner to such property; and this
organized under the influences at present existing
there, they would he very apt to do. Or they
might, with the powers of discrimination with
which they are clothed, consider slaves as proper
ty, and impose the burdens of their municipal GO
vernment upon them, We know that such a
course would be grossly unjust, and contrary to
the very spirit and letter of the Federal Constitu-
tuition, but certainly not more so than the Wilmot
Proviso. AS unjust and unconstitutional as it
may be, who cannot foresee that it would meet
the approval of Congress, composed, as 1t has
been for some years past, of q majority who Ell
ther openly favor the Wilmot Proviso, or have
no scruples as to its constituhonality and expe-
diency? Then, so far as the practical result of
this bill is concerned there is virtual difference
between it and the. Wilmot Proyiso,
1t is sometimes said, in reply to this objection,
that our appeal might be to the judiciary. So
might the stakeholder, who would carry his slaves
to the territory west of Missouri and north of 36
degrees 80 minutes, appeal to the Judiciary but
the impediments that would be there thrown
- .>F
lation, as well as the yexntion and delay that
would attend it, would almost highten any man
from undertaking it. This objection may rest
upon very slender hypothesis, but il is, togeth-
er with the importance of the subject lnvol-
ysl, sufficient to call for the united efforts Of the
South to obtain the proper amendments. Our
convictions to the views he presented We're
strengthened by the rejection Of Mr.. Davis
amendment. The objections which we have adj
yanced to the proposed compromise measures may
be summed up briefly as follows:
L. That so far as the practical result of the ter
rtorial bill is concerned there is but little differ
ence between it and the Wilnlot Proviso.
l. The bill for the admission of California fails
to provide for reducing the boundaries Of that
fornia to show by her population that she is en-
titled admission.
g. The proposition to Texas requires that
State TO cede to the United States large amount
of Territory (at least $1,000 square miles) not in
voved in the dispute and thereby to increase the
Indebtedness of the United States very improper
ly and unnecessarily.
A. The amendment proposed to the fugitive
slave bill requires the owner, upon the apprehen-
sion of his slave in free State, to give bond
10 return him TO the county whence he hed and
there give TO him a trial by jury, provided the
slave. when he is apprehended, claims to be
free.
let these objections be removed, and we give
the proposed scheme Of adjustment our hearty
and cordial support. In advancing these object
tons we are but consistent with the course hereto
fore pursued by us. Upon examining the Vir-
GINA resolutions the subject of slavery we find
that we do not quite come up.to them; but there
were one or two points tn the first series of
lutions that did not meet our entire appreciation.
We have been willing in Difference to others, and
for the sake of quoting matters, to abate in some
light degree our demands, but how any man in
Virginia who voted for either set of resolutions
or who approved them can hesitate to sustain us
in our objections to the proposed compromise, is
to us a perfect mystery. For him not to do so is
very like doing what Mr.. Webster says he never
does, s.tread his steps back,cords." We wish our
readers to compare our present course with the
resolutions of the General Assembly of Vir-
| ginia, of the winter Of 4S-'49, and see whether
tency on the subject under consideration, towhich
those who disapprove our objections can lay no
| claim. We ask this, not on our own account,
for what we believe we never fear TO utter, if the
OCCASION be proper one. spirit Of Jefferson. y