The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-27
CONGRESSIONAL.
DIE ErEHNED DEBATE.
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1850.


SENATE.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tGoyERRMENIs-ADJUsrMENr
The Senate having under consideration the bill for
the admission of California into the Union. the esab
shu,en, OF territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico and making proposals TO Texas for the settle
men, OF her northern and western boundaries, the ques
ton pendng was upon the amendment submitted by MIR.
FoorE, modified rs follows
Amend 3d section 10y inserting therein in the six
teenth line, alter The VOID " therefor" as follows;
oian, within her bound r,es, attempt exercise
jurisdiction over, any poon of the territory al present
claimed by te, except ha which is embraced within the
foiowinp boundaries, VII Commencing in tho Pacific
ooan, hree Enssh miles i,om The shore, tbs AID de-
gree Of north a,nde thence with ihe southern boundary
line o The Territory Of Oregon ths of the Sierra
Nevada thence along the crest OF that mountain TO the
pomt where II nterecs the parallel g arnde OF 80 deg
~ mn thence with said parallel Of latitude 70 point
~ ,he rao,c ocean .nlse English miles 'som me SHORE
and hobors adjacen. 10 or included within the limits here
established. b. called Colorado he reslur
Of the territory embraced within The limits OF the said Sae
adppedb the people California the government OF
which Ie,ri,oy 20 esaoishea al the provisions Of lhls
boundaries lein specned are hereby declared
force in said Territory OF Colorado
Various propositions to amend the amendment thereto
fore repored] were made and rejected.
Mr. DAVIS, OF Mississippi: offer the following as
amendment 10 the amendment OF my colleague, to
come in at the end thereof:
date OF its acquisition by the United States, which
deny obstruct The rleh, Of citizen Of tue United
species OF property legally held in Of the States Of this
Union, be and are hereby declared 10 be repealed
Mr.. YULEE would suggest to my friend from
Missspp 10 substitute different phraseology for the
word repealed" something OF this sort-declaed to be
Mr. BUTLER Repealed" is the right word |
know that good deal is said here, that want the
doctrine Of non-inteIventon. Now, | hold that Is
proper that Congress should repeal laws and want It 70
no before the people, and lei be understood that is
competent ior Congress to repeal such laws may be in
existence, and substitute therefor the constitution and the
laws OF the United States No doubt that pro-
position, though they may talk about non intervention
as they please th,nk il is the right word.
Mr.. FOOTE- do not care about the words, but the
effect Of the amendment Holding that the treaty under
which this territory acquired has carried the cOnst
tuition oil the United States these Tertoresthe fact
being, my Judgment that the act OF conquest carried
Itself, the lace OF II, carries the constitution there,
aid from congressional enactment in behalf OF
the guaranteed rights OF the South. am willing to stand
upon the constitution formerly advised to do
by the dstng colleague of the senator from South
Caroline. not now living, tMr Calhounl do not wish
on, be emphacaly called il believe that southern
rights, guaranteed by the constitution OF the United
States, in danger from the laws OF conquered
country. shall, therefore, vote against the amend
ment because believe it 10 be IN opposition TO the
ncple of neutrality-suspicious. and with this brei state
ment OF my reasons, will not further detan the Senate
Mr. DAVIS, of Msslssppi. My colleague and myself
do not dher much TO the effect of The constitution
when brought in contact with the laws OF Mexico
The question seems TO be much smaller than that.
Mr DAVIS, OF Mississippi. The question ~ whether
il necessary 10 have suit to determine whether the
constitution Of the United States does repeal these laws
whether we shall save emigrants 10 that country The
expense and delay OF those suits by act OF Congress
which declares what he and believe
Mr. CLAY. Mr.. President. the great principle which
pevades throughout that bill is the principle Of non-n-
erventon BY Congress upon the OF the institution
Of slavery Now, what is the amendment proposed IL
Is better to at to the point We understand
the object OF IT, There laws existing there, IN "a
oma. The newly acquired Terrtoy which. according
70 opinion, are supposed to abolish slavery These
laws according that opinion in existence now II
Congress has power to intervene upon The subject oil
slavery according the southern doctrine, il may 80
designate it, how Congress repeal laws which abol-
sh slavery and create distractions 10 The transportation
slavesl Ii Congress can repeal existing lave poho-
lung slavery could not Congress enact laws authorzmS
he introduction OF slavery, or slavery already exissd
here, make laws to abolish IT. What, IN other words,
the difference between the direct action OF congressional
egsa,on upon the subject OF slavery to Introduce or to
dobbit IT, TO the power OF Congress TO repeal
1isting laws within territory, winch existing laws
rave declared the abolition of slavery That is the
ont The principle OF non-inierventlon seems to me TO
~ clearly violated the attempt repeal the local
avs il could be violated in the attempt, BY the
oce and power OF congfeesiona enactment, 10 INTRO
= uce it,
ucky coniounds by his generalization, the local laws
\ the United States with the laws of the republic OF
Mexico All this has been argued again aud again II
nol an intererence OF Congress with the local laws
any part Of the United States. 1t is but Congress dis
hagng it, duty to carry out the provisions and gnaran-
Of the constitution OF the United States We all know
ery well that the constitution composed Of two parts
fncipes and provisions Principles 90 with an enact
bent-provisions do not But here we find an ob,iruc
ION in the way OF enjoying our constitutional nights.
hloh obstruction require to he removed we DO not
ek Congress 10 enlarge our constitutional nights or 10
bridge The constitutional rights OF anybody slse. But
claim Congress that hese foreign obstrucuons 10
enjoyment OF the rights OF the citizens OF the United
tsies shall be removed. Although il may be IN our
er TO have them removed by appeal 10 the courts,
ng upon for them by their adjudication, yet
duty OF Congress. lies before 1t and, among other
)Ings, that duty the citizen the necessity o
ekDg the hands of The courts those rights which ~
y duty OF Congress 10 protect
have objection to modify the language so az to de-
II 10 be null and void" II very much in accor
nee with the position which took a former occa
do not intend by the language to admit that these
do exist against the constitution OF the United States
not my self perceive that the effect would be varied
this change in the phraseoogy. am willing, there
Z re- 10 say declared be null and vold- in lieu OF the
ord repealed" il that make it more acceptable
nemen on the other side The from Kentucky
10 to make difference between the power protect
ID the power to destroy--he difference between the
" to protect and the right destroy Sir. does not fol
that because We call upon the Congress- OF the United
TO protect the citizens of the United States in the
loymen OF their property. that we thereby acknow-
~ gc the right in the Congress of the United States
deprive them OF that property. The one "a duy-the
er is expressly forbidden by the constitution TO be
The distinction is too broad. and has been too
len and ably discussed by Others too strongly en-
iced, TO render at all important for me to detain the
llSs mate about further discussion now.
~ Mr. BUTLER. hold that It was the solemn duty Of
IL xA al k.u rtfr