The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-01
THE UNION.

pOintof Mr. p KnG. at the request of hss gentleman
ana Nj Casey were read for the information OF the
Mr. BAYLY called the attention OF the Char 10 the TACT
that for the consideration OF the last enacted deficiency
bill: special order laid aside by large majority
The question the appeal being put; the decision OF
Chair was sustained by lAlEe malorily.
The question then REQUIRED the motion to lay aside
the California State question, and take up the revou
honary pension general appropriation bill aud II was
greed to--ayes 3d. noes 50.
The California question being then in order the CLERK
reported TO the committee the amendment the amend
nent first to be considered, which proposed amend
amendment making the line OF SO deg 80 min the south
ern boundary OF California, BY declaring that the people
OF any portion Of the Said Territory, in convention
frame State constitution might recognise reject sla
very. as they preferred, without their said action being
regarded MS reason for the rejection Of their application
Tor admission.
Nh BAYLY moved to lay aside this subject 10 take up
the Indian appropriation bill motion ruled of order
Mr. GORMAN, who held the floor when the Calilor.
MA question was last before the committee, demanded
ment
And the question hereupon being put by teers i, was
agreed to---ayes IS, noes 40.
adopted and explained that adopted, the provso ap
piled 70 bur the portion of California lying south Of SO
deg 80 min tie proposed further TO amend it by ex.
tending ls application to the whole Of California and
New Mexico, by extending the Missouri Compromise
line to the Pacific, in the same and understand
ing in which II was originally applied in the Of Mis-
sour.
Mr.. G. remarked that, by his amendment, (above writ
tenn the clause tiansposed which provided for the
ratification OF the action OF the people of California of
the change in the boundary OF The State by Congress
which ne proposed He desired TO make the change In
the position OF this clause only for the cake Of the
gruty Of The thing
The CHAIR deciding this amendment to he out Of or
der,
Mr.. STEVENS appealed
The question on The appeal being put. the vote stood
AIR. rho MpSON Of Mississippi, insisted on the en-
foreemeat Of The rule, when;
BY direction of the Chair the Clerk proceeded to
call the roll ard w members answered 70 Their names
The CHAIRMAN having reported the facts to the
Speaker, he House again went into Committee Of the
Whole on the state Of the Union
Mr. MASON moved that the committee do rise to
enable INN to move resolution for the appointment Of
select committee OF twenty one to be charged with the
slasery question affecting the admission Of new States
or the formation oil territorial governments motion not
agreed 70
Mr.. GREEN then withdrew his last proposed amend
Mir MARSHALL,moved an amendment 10 the amend
meh-pfoposng 10 declare ,sat in The application OF the
Mexico, the purpose OF Congress TO permit the ex
isteuce Of slavery south of that line
blr. NJ. having addressed the committee for five min
utes in favor Ut his motion to amend
Mr.. ORR moved that the committee do now rise on
which motion tellers were ordered and il was not agreed
Mr.. MARSHALL having Withdrawn the amendment.
Mr. seldom trenewing III said do perceive the
necessity, Mr. Chairman OF The amendment offered by
tue gentleman from Kentucky for, in my estimation, the
language OF the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri { Mr.. GSELN] sufficiently imbodes the same
principle. In heretofore advocating that amendment,
nave certainly understood in that sense d. indeed,
do not SEE how the Missouri Compromise can be reaf
rmed and applied TO the Territories in the aud
spirit OF lis original adoption, without thereby recogns
ing the right OF settlement with slaves south OF the line
No historic fact Is certain than that tue Missouri
line was adopted and intended has ever since oper-
a'ed. AS compromises partition of the Louisiana ac-
QUESTION between the slaveholdng and ehodins
~ ,fa.io IA
element with slaves south OF the line moi recognised
in terms but only everybody knows because all the
territory south OF that line subject to the jurisdiction
OF slavehodng community, and under The operation OF
laws recognising and projecting properly ia slaves
When, therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from
Missouri proposes to reatrm and apply the Missouri line
IN the sense and spirit OF Its original adoption, cannot
doubt its nghfu Interpretation would sanction and recog
Mise the right OF settlement with slaves south Of the line
Sl II any doubt can exist, or is entertained by honor
able members in relation to this construction, by all
means let be made explicit and clear beyond the posi-
bility OF misconstruction. With this purpose | shall
cheerfuly sustain and now advocate the amendment OF
the gentleman IRON Kentucky. We have already had,
Mr.. Chairman. sad experience of the mischief arising
from the use OF ambiguous phrases and the adoption OF
platforms OF doubtful construction believe the present
anti slavery agitation owes much OF IFS extent and nlen
city 10 the mistaken policy OF adopting delusve phrases
and POSITIONS susceptible OF double construction. win
the VAN purpose OF uniting IN party action the opposing
In the last presidential canvass, instead of having
fair Just conception of the views OF the two sections each
was deceived by such dcusve constructions and ambgH
Gus phrases into the belief that they acting
principles when the most radical difference pur-
po.e and views in fact prevailed Such certainly the
case, TO considerable extent with the democratic party
The doctrine OF non intervention, is called, unques
tonably had very different construction Al the North
and at the South In my State If il had received the
construction put upon here by northern men, been
explained II has sAce seen by the distinguished cand
date of the democratic party feel assured he could not
have commanded the vote oil my State, staunch
she has been in her adherence the principles
and candidates OF the democracy. No. sir very differ.
ent exposition given Of this doctrine the South
And now, when the difference Is exhibited in Legislative
action here the disappointment and deuson adds
greatly to the feeling OF injustice and wrong which
ankes in the breasts OF the southern people The party
shakcn-we nigh rent asunderby the legitimate result
of such conirarant and antagonstc opinions The only
earthly chance OF rean,ng and consolidating i
again will be forever to discard such miserable shifts and
receptions, and TO adopt measure of Justice and
equality, such the Missouri Compromise, spirit
and with understanding that admit in the future
no paltenng or equivocaton.
Mr.. s Withdrawing the amendment,
Mr.. McWlLl.lE said that he renewed it, with the
those who doubted the construction OF the Missouri Com
promise line, that ia, whether or not when IT ptohlb.
tied slavery north OF the parallel of 80 deg 30 north
latitude IL 10 be understood recognising slavery
south oil that line. THIS ia the only sensible meaning OF
the Missouri Compromise IT was DIVISION Of the
territory between the slavehoJng and the savelod
ing States But az this construction doubted, and
la,or am not Tor -endng thus quesuon to the and
Involving II ia this eeso controversy The court has
her.oovt enjoy Ell the confidence ri the country and
ought not invo We IL in this controversy the effect
would be 10 destroy the influence Of the court either
Moth or South II il decided against The South, i would