The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-06-04

of the Territoryof South California, and shall be |
organized such under the provisions of this bill |
applying to the Territory of Utah, (changing |
names where they ought to be changed) in all re- |
spects whatsoever, and SHALL when ready, able,
and willing to become State, and desiring i
to be such, be admitted into the Union with or
without slavery, as the people thereof may desire
and make known through their constitution.
Mr.. CLAY said he was very happy to perceive a |
disposition the part of those opposed to the bill
to present a contra projet He thought the course
pursued by the honorable Senator from Louisiana
much more consistent with his duty to the Senate /
and the country, than that which assumes that the |
minority is not bound TO offer any proposition. He
was glad TO see that the Senator had taken differ
ent view of the matter, and had presented his
amendment.
Mr.. HALE explained that in the remarks made |
by him the other day, when he expressed himself |
opposed 10 all circunlocutory amendments, and in |
favor of meeting each question openly and dis |
tnctly, he did not mean to imply that he was not
pleased with the amendment submitted by his
friend from Ohio, (Mr. CHASED On the contrary, |
he thought il was emnently necessary to meet the |
amendment of the Senator from Mississippi
Mr.. DOUGLAS opposed both the amendments |
pending, well as the original proposition re-
stricting the Territorial legislatures from legisat
ing in respect to African slavery. The position |
which he had ever taken, and still maintained,
that this, and all other domestic questions and
the policy of the Territories ought to be left to the
decision of the people themselves, and that Con-
gress ought TO be content with whatever decision OF
the question they might choose TO make. He trusted
that the Objectionable clause would be stricken out
of the bill, TO which, he was satisfied it gave no
strength But even if it did, it ought not TO be
there, because il was violation of principle upon
which many Of them had rested defence of the
course which they had taken upon this question.
He did not how those who had supported the
doctrines set forth in the Nicholson letter In lS4S,
could vote Tor provision OF that Kind after having
so long and earnestly contended for the principle
! of non Intervention.
! Mr. DOWNS, in reply, said that the Nicholson
! letter was interpreted very differently in the
| So
ator from Illinois, il would not have satisfied the
! people of that section. He also alluded to Mr.
GRASSES amendment, rs, IN effect the Wilmot pro-
| viso.
| MIR. CHASE explained and defended his amend
ment It not the Wilmot proviso. 1t was in
| tended merely as an explanation of the amendment
/ submitted by the Senator from Missssippi-to rem
der its terms definite, and not liable to different
| constructions in different sections.
| Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, observed, that his
amendment did not imply the existence of slavery
in the Territories the right to carry it there.
There a very great difference between decid-
ing the rights of property, and providing for their
protection when ascertained. He also replied to
| the argument presented by Mr.. DOUGLAS. The
| difference between that Senator and himself
simply as to who constitute the people. The Sena-
tor claimed the inhabitants Of the Territory To be
the people; and if that were true, one man, or ten
men, inha biting territory, could exclude the
whole country. He (Mr. DAvfs) held the inhabt-
ants of territory to be a people, when they
possessed sovereignty, which they did not obtain
Mr.. DOUGLAS, in the course of his reply, said
that the bill under consideration conceded TO the
people the right TO govern themselves; why, then,
reserve from their control single subject of lcgs-
lation--slavery? In conclusion he expressed his
conviction that if the question of slavery
touched at all in the BILL either to restrict control,
protect it, the bill could net pass the Senate.
| After few remarks by Mr.. DAVIS, of Missis-
| sippi, and Mr.. WALKER
Mr.. BUTLER defended the amendment submit
ted by MIR. DAVIS. 1t did not declare that slavery
exists in the Territories, or that it should would
GO there. The Senator from Mississippi had never
himself said. that slavery exists in New Mexico
that it should or would go there. His amendment
simply provided that II slavery shall be found to
exist there, II ii should go there the stakeholder
should be protected in his right to try the validity
of his title TO his property; and have II decided un
der the Constitution and laws of the United States
II some such provision this was not inserted, no
police laws regulating slavery could be passed in
the Territories, and the slave-owner would be sub
/ jected to innumerable annoyances from unprinci-
pied men. In conclusion
Mr.. b. said that he would take another opportu-
nifty to express his views upon the general scheme
of compromise under consideration, and would
then declare explicitly and candidly what he
thought would satisfy him one of the representa-
tives of southern State.
Mr.. KING stated his objections TO both the amend
ments pending, well to the clause in the bill
TO which they apply. He also made some observa-
tions in relation to the remarks submitted by the
Senator from Illinois this morning, designating his
speech, far as the argument went, free-soil
Wilmot proviso speech, in contcnding that Con
G gress has all power the subject of slavery
Mr.. DOUGLAS rejoined with considerable
{ warmth.
Mr.. WEBSTER thought the amendment of the
Senator fpm Mississippi Of very little importance
or effect in any way He doubted whether its adop
ton rejection would have any effect upon the
operation Of the bill. But if he understood the OBJ
ject Of its mover, II could be readily attained by
another mode. He understood that object TO spring
from nothing but disposition TO restrict the terri
torial Legislature from passing any law perpetualy
excluding slavery from those Territories. An
amendment which he saw day or two since in the
hands of the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. WHIT
coMB,) would exactly meet that object. The bill
now restricted the territorial Legislature from
passing any laws respecting African slavery.
The amendment to which he had referred de-
clared that those legislatures shall have au-
thority to pass any law establishing excluding
slavery. That was clearly municipal question,
and there certainly could be no improperly
in passing such provision az he had intimat-
cd. His own opinion that this entire class OF
Y amendments was totally unnecessary, considering
the actual state Of things; bat he objection
q to such amendment, and II IL would satisfy
I. other Senators he would GO for it,
Mr.. HALE was unwilling, even by silence, to
admit that the question before the Senate was one
c Of practical indifference. We had grown up from
thirteen TO thirty States and the experience of the
past was, that in every instance in which new
states had been admitted into the Union without
an express prohibition Of slavery, no matter what
their latitude or longitude, slavery had gone into
| hnu Dctu HTtNOcdDiy thouS Seaec5
On this subject he wanted no other guide than
the light Of the past. This question, then, wal
one OF great practical importance-a question o.
the establishment exclusion Of slavery No ques-
ton had ever been agitated in Congress since the
declaration Of independence, involving 20 import
ant and lasting consequences that now pending
and it libel upon the intelligence Of the free
states 10 tell them that il was question Of indif
ference.
! Mr.. WEBSTER said il was, in his opinion, nc
question at all Of slavery or no slavery. IL was
known 10 be his opinion that there was no rcasona
Die human probability that slavery would go to the
: Territories, and that therefore there was no sub
stantia necessity for doing any thing in establish
ing territorial governments in relation TO its proh
1 biton or exclusion believing IL, as he did, TO b.
already excluded by causes not under human con
troll.
After some further debate,
: Mr.. CASS again explained and defended IN
. Nicholson letter, and after few remarks in rela
ton to the policy Of non intervention declared tina
he should vote against both the pending amend
mcnts, well as against the original restriction
contained in the bill, upon territorial legislation re
specting slavery.
Z. Without takinp any question. at a quarter pas