The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-04-09

other States have been when asking admission into The
Union and of which have been subjected 10 the in
dignity OF having their application coupled with the de-
cson Of other Inferior and, TO them. foreign ques-
tons:
object to tupon principle principle Of fair legs.
upon its own merits unaided BY stronger measures m
impeded by weaker ones
object to il account Of the nature Of The subjects
threatening the Union with dissolution while her app
cation 10 calm concatory, national, and promising 10
strengthen and augment the Union.
object TO II because California herself has objected 10
H. Her constitution contains this provision:
"Epry iaW enacted by hs isgiatws siak sontaia bat
object and that shaa BE- sxgvessrd IN ne title''
This is the opinion Of California about mixing different
subjects together in the process OF Legislation and
WISE opinion 49, and wise provision is to be pat
INTO her constitution, and worthy to be put into all
situations and very III and proper 10 be acted upon by all
bodies, wae.ner wrl'en down u ner eons
Legislative operation in the old States called og-roi
hag-a Term which needs no definition in this assem-
by-and took care by fundamental enacment-by law
Of constitutional dignity and permanent obligation, to
keep tout OF her own borders And now by what would
seem to be rebuke Of her constitutional provisions
fiout upon her wisdoma satire upon her pruderyand
caution not to pretend to be better than othefs is
proposed in the American Congress to perform the ope
ration upon heIselfo log-rol her, herself into this
Union Unto it, or out Of It, as the may beas the
'rolrs may be successful or not in getting their "ogs
together
object to the process. object to mixing California
now take the ingredients in detail.
!. The government for the two Territories. This
brings up the Wmo Proviso, which is unconstitutional
ion OF Others and both constitutional and expedient in
the opinion Of some others is angry, distracng,
and sectional question. with which California. for her
SELL has determined to have nothing to do She has put
il into her constitution that slavery and involuntary
vitude shall not exist in her borders This settles the
question OF the Wilmo Proviso for her and was in
tended to settle il, and intended to free the question
OF her admission from the mpediment of that ques-
ton And now, how wrong to her, how unjust, how
notifying, how unexpected and incomprehensible 10
her, TO have the question OF her admission connect
Ell with this Proviso in two neghboring Territories,
and her admission made actually dependant upon it's
set,lement--preced ent.seitement-in New Mexico and
the Great BASIN She had well have remained Ter
rory herself subject 10 the question upon her soil,
as thus to be subjected TO il abroad; and better, too
There is more dignity in being tiled al home than
abroad consonance TO notions of fair trial TO
be tried in her own person than by proxy. After all,
there is positive incongrulty and incompabilty IN mix
ing these two Questions One is clearly constitutional
The power for IT is written down in the constitution
Congress may admit new States and this is an appca
ton for the admission OF State out OF territory be-
longing TO the United States; and there is no question OF
consttutonality in il. Not so the Wilmot Proviso.
Power Tor 1t is not written down in the constitution Its
constuonality is denied, and that by many members
this floor Here, then, is coupling OF undsputedly
constitutional with senuously disputed constitutional
measure; and, in voting upon them as whole, or as
mutual and dependant measures, as system OF meas.
ures as compromise, members may find themselves in
state OF impossiby Oaths to the constitution cannot
be compromised and therefore questions of disputed
should never be mixed with questions of undspued con-
stituonality
am ready to vote for governments to the Territories
and believing in what have alleged from the beginning,
that slavery is extinct in New Mexico and in all Cali
ornia and cannot be revived in either any part OF
either, without positive enactment, ready to
them governments without any provision on the subject
2. Texas, with her large and various questions, is
the second subject proposed 10 be coupled with the adj
mission OF California. II is large and complex sub
tarf in staalf ,nI 1,as.nr A
new State, TO be carved out of her sdeIeduction of
boundares-settlement Of the dispute with New Mex-
cocession OF her surplus territory TO the United States
such the large and various points which the Texas
question presents. They deserve a separate consider
alton Texas herself should object 10 this commune.
ton with California; as much as California should objec,
TO it with Texas They present incompatible subjects
nconguous and large enough each TO demand separate
consideration They subjects OF equal dignity Each
concerns State and States should be considered alone
But there another objection this conjunction, of high
er order STILL and which this Congress, and the
exercise OF its powers By the constitution, Congress is
to admit States by this coupling OF Texas and Cali
fornia il would be Texas which would admit the new
State of California Thus: Texas four questions TO
be settled, not one OF which be settled without her
consent State cannot be carved out OF her-her
boundaries cannot be reduced--her dispute with New
Mexico cannot be setedher surplus territory canno, be
bad without her consent! This gives her veto upon
the admission Of California. coupled as Proposed-gyes
her four vetoes for there four points at which her
consent would be necessary, and the Withholding OF
which upon any one point would be veto upon the ad;
mission oil California. In fact il would give her still
vetocs for the subjects coupled together and acted
upon whole must all stand fall together that
the veto OF Texas upon any part OF her own subject
would be the veto OF the whole with which they were
coupled
The Texas questions ought TO be seted-ought TO have
been before she admitted into the Union and pro-
posed II then five years ago, and have proposed il again
at the present session My proposition, heretofore print
ed by order OF the Senate contains my sentiments am
ready TO vote for Them or for better if offered; but al
ways rs a separate and substantive measure.
g. Fugitive slave bill This is case OF runaway ne.
groes, and in which California has She will
have no slaves 10 run away, and 10 her
She is TOO far of for that She has interest in the sub
ject and is degradation to her to have the question OF
her admission mixed up with it. In her protest
against this dshonor against the disgrace al having the
with fugacous bill for the capture OF runaway negroes
coyery OF these slaves II is OF the Oldest the
calendar and warmly pressed at the OF
the session II must be about ripe for decision by this
time ready 10 vote upon IT. and 10 vote anything
under the constitution, which will be efficient and salts.
factory IL is the only point in my opinion, at which
any OF the slaveholdng States States, have given
Just OF complaint to the slaveholding States.
leave out individuals and societies, and speak OF States
IN their corporate capacity and say, this AFFAIR OF the
savehoding States in my opinion, have given just
cause OF complaint to savehoding sisters But how is
II here in this body, the appropriate to apply the e
gal remedy Any refusal on the part oil northern
bers TO legislaie the remedy We have heard many OF
them declare their opinions; and line OF East
and West, dividing North from South in these opinions.
see no geographical boundary dividing northern and
southern opinions see diversity OF opinion bat such
as occurs in ordinary before Congress. For
ready IN uOfa No for NJ I'm.