The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-04
CITY OF WASHINGTON, THURSDAY MORNING JULY 4. 1850

lOCOs
been such compact, and that the title Of the United
elusive Of the whole question il there had been no
compact with any Of the States But let US examine
the ordinance Of 's7 for moment. and see how af-
ossss qrasr s Articles Ss y sSSSse
competent anhority and consequently bad no other va.
lidy than the acquescence Of the people, under the
the people OF those Territories before or after they be-
came States was never submitted 70 the original
thirteen States for ratification BY them Hence, although
parties in point Of fact il adopted BY but
Of them, and that one without comPetent authority %
contract
Early in the first session Of the first Congress that as
sembed underline constitutions an act to provide for the
government Of the territory northwest Of the river Ohio
was passed, IN which provision was made for carrying
the ordinance into effect as territorial government The
ordinance had the validity, therefore, as any other
act OF Congress for the government Of the Territories,
and no more / was no more compact in the legal
sense OF the term than The third section of the bill before
the Senate IL the ordinance sufficient to secure the
title Of the United States to its lands without the consent
q re- psops q shs i territory surely me b before Y
subject 80 far as i relates 70 the authorities and prece
dents growing out Of The action Of our government
a tss e az sa: Ts s,ys ass Ssss
still more so 10 me- Yet they were essential to clear
and full eucidation OF the subject The question must
ty,
abstract ideas Of yae oil the antiquated notions Of the
civil law, or Of the feudal sysem-the act with refer
ence 70 our own institutions. and upon the principles Of
chairman Of committee Of this body to report bill for
the admission Of State, review the precedents
under our own constitution examine the practice in
the subject from the formation OF the government look
into the action OF all the departments Of the government
and examine the decisions Of the courts and when find
there is unbroken chain Of authority upon the sub
ect running through our entire history nation. do
not hesitate to bring in bill in accordance with the
amples of those who have gone before.
Now, sir. / have few words to say upon the other
branch OF the question in regard to the civil law. But
before proceed 70 that must be permitted to make
fona upon which the senator commented "a freely In
the first place. that ordinance not before us for our
ton The bill neither raties nor rejectst Then, how
for or against this bill II has nothing to do with the
bill When the question shall arise, whether that ordi-
nance shall be assened to or not will be proper to ex
shall accept reject it But until then il can have moth
ing TO do with this question And yet, sir, the senator
devoted large portion Of bis speech To- critical
me for saying that think his criticism hardly
justfabe. II was upon that portion which verbal
error had been committed BY the young. gentleman who
not be acted upon before the original arrived slight
discrepancy detected between the copy furnished and
the one in the volume Of debates and that is seized
upon here TO excite prejudice against the people of Cal
f0nia, by the innuend0 that stupendous fraud in
contemplation No direct charge is made upon anybody
fraud might have been pepeasd under cover 81 these
two copies OF the ordinance.
Sir, / think If had made the discovery. and the ex-
PLANTATION was given that it verbal of
the young in making the copy, should have dropped
there without attempting 10 fasten upon the people OF
California the odum OF an intended fraud upon Congress
this debate have some use which desire 10 make Of
lit That ordinance reutss the last half Of his argument
tie attempted to fasen upon the people OF California the
design OF sezing and holding the public domain within
her limits
That ordinance expressly repudales any claim or title
to the public lands, and asks Congress 10 grant portion
OF them to the State This Is the official evidence OF that
convention that California did not claim, did not pretend
to own them, nor assert any right TO them The ord
nance goes on to say that CalifoniawlI enter into
stipulation compact with the United States, and the
legislature Is hereby authorized TO declare behalf Of
the State. II such decaraon be proposed by Congress
Sns Ss aSO he psa
California deemed it necessary to say that she would
make the declaration il Congress- proposed it, taking it
saeb on s ~ other sa.s
would not be considered necessary for her TO make IT,
Yet il Congress desired such declaration her part
she ready TO make it, in order TO remove all doubt
upon the subject as she did not conceive that she could
possibly have any title to the lands.
But there is other evidence-concusive evidencethat
the charge against the State OF California OF having de-
sired seize and hold these lands is UNJUST The
referred yesterday to the resolution introduced into
the California convention by Mr.. McCarver ] will
read
Rssoived, the deliberate opinion of this venon
That the public domain within the limits of ths State,
right and justice belongs the people OF California; and
the undsiurbed enjoyment thereof ought 10 be secured 10
them
asked the senator from louisiana during the delivery
OF his Speech whether that resolution adopted by
the convention. He said for the reason that il
not dee ned prudent TO set their claim at that time, lest
they might be received into the Unon and that the
resolution was rejected solely on that ground Now, let
look into the dcbate and whether the discussions
at the time sustain this declaration. read from the vol
ume of debates, page 465:
Mr. McCarvcrs resolution In relation the public lands
Mr. Sherwood I shall vote against this resolution.
Think these lands belong the OF the United
States. They the governments fifteen millions of dol
gress grant them the State Of California; inamuc
she had appropriation for the support of government
think we cannot say that Of right 'hey belong TO CALI
fornia.
1t doctrine broached twenty thirty ago.
doctrine which never preva n the Congress oil the
United States L. may be popular In the western States
but u in open violation OF the constitution Of the United
! States.
The question was then taken, and the resolution
jected.
This is the entire debate. No spoke in favor oI
the resolution Not even the author OF il had the cour
age to defend it. II rejected without division
which indication that the vote must have been very
nearlyf not quiteunanmous Yet, sir, in the face o
this debate and the vote following IT, the senator from
Louisiana tells that the convention in favor oI
the principle OF The resolution and only induced to
ting up the claim hereafter The debates and proceed
ngs oi that convention justify such charge against the
honor and integrity of ils members The insinuation i
denounced unfounded and unjust BY the record itself