Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-05-02

therefore, no difficulty in my own mind up
on this subject. | hold, sir, that Congress
has power to establish territorial govern
ment, containing ali needful rules and reg
ulations respecting the territory, including
that of prohibiting slavery. hold, also,
that new States may be constitutionally ad-
miited into the Union, withou, having pas
ed through the subordinate condition of
territorial existence, in accordance with nu-
merous and repeated precedents.
Mr.. Chairman, il seems little remarka-
BILE to me, that such lack Of power of Con-
gress should all at once have been discover
ed, both IN the admission of States and the
government Of Territories, when the power
in both respects has been so long exercised,
and SO quietly acquesced in The power
Of Congress TO inhiblt slavery in the Terri
tories has been so long acquiesced in, and
50 often directly or indirectly applied. tina.
1t would seem almost too late to question it.
why, sir, what is the history of this sub
Ject! Legislation on this subject is older
than the Constitution. 1t began with the
Continental Congress. The first was in
1854, and that was in the form of resolu-
ton prohibiting slavery from going into the
then Northwest Territory Again, in 1877,
when the ordinance for the government of
that Territory was adopted, the principle of
that resolution was embodied in the odn-
ance, at this time, unanimously; but, at the
adoption of the resolution in I7S4, Virginia
and some other of the slave States voted "a
gainst it. In 1889, Congress, under the
present Constitution, affirmed over that or
dinance. But it is said that it did no more
than permit compact already formed 10
remain. All that may be true; but the ar
gument is Just as good still. The Cmti-
mental Congress did legislate upon the sub
ject, having no more power to do so than
the present Congress has over territory now
free, and that legislation has never been
questioned. But in the Missouri comprom-
Use, Congress directly legislated-in 1915,
in the Texas resolutions, and, in IS4S, in
relation to the Territory of Oregon. 1t
would seem, if precedent was anything, here
were enough to establish the point, SO far
as the power Of Congress is questioned; and
all who have any doubts OF the eIpedieney
now free, are commended to a careful peru
sal of the speech of the distinguished Sena-
tor from South Carolina.
But, Mr.. Chairman, in relation to the adj
nilsson of California, the honorable gentle
man from Louisiana (Mr. Conrad) has Ia
ken new position, understood him to
admi. the power of the people of California
TO form their constitution, and the regulari-
ty Of their proceedings, but still denies them
admission. i.
Mr. CONRAD. The gentleman will par
don me for interrupting him, but he has
mistaken the nature of my remarks. VIII
he allow me TO correct himl
Mr.. HEBARD. Certainly
MIR. CONRAD. l understood the gentle
man to say that admitted the right of the
inhabitants of California to frame consti-
tuition for themselves. made no such adj
mission. said on the contrary, that this
act of the people Of California was an irreg-
ularity-a great irregularity-that this Ter
ritory belonged to the United States, and
no people had a right to establish govern
ment there without the consent and author
lty of the United States; that, nevertheless,
Congress having omitted to provide the
people oil this country with a government,
The adoption of a constitution for themselves
was excusable, aud even praiseworthy p; and
if the constitution adopted by them contain
ed nothing contrary to the interests or to
he laws of the United States, was willing
hey should live under it until we had pro-
tide them with government.
Mr.. HEBARD. Mr.. Chairman, am obi
red to the gentleman for correcting me, if
have msstated him, for certainly did not
intend it. give him great credit for the
;andor ofhis remarks, and although differ
rom him in some of his views, l think
IAN discover conservative feeling, and de-
otion to the Union and to the government,
hat will protect them both from the unhal-
owed faint OF dlsunion. But it seems to
ne, that the explanation that the gentleman
las given does not leave it essentially differ
mt, except in the particular Of the irregu-
drity. He now admits that it was a
praiseworthy act," and this is only another
way Of Asserting to their power to do *;
or we can hardly understand how the peo-
lie of California, in adopting a constitution
or their government, can be said to have
lone praiseworthy act, if they had not the
ightfu political power to do it. But this
5 not the purpose for which alluded to the
entleman's remarks. 1t was to see what |
gould be the condition and position of CAL
fornia, with constitution and government
phich gave them all the powers Of any sov-
reign State, and yet not admitted into the
Union. She would not be in the condition
f territory, with a territorial government
iven her by Congress. She would not be
n the condition of the other States, for I'M
il she was admitted into the common bond,
{ the Union, she would owe no allegiance
0 the general government. She would,
therefore,, if left in that condition, be essen
tally an independent nation. think, there
,re, she must be either territory, under
ONE government imposed upon her by the
ieneral Government, civil or military, or
he must be admitted into the Union as a |
tate, with her State Constitution. Wheth-
r she will be entitled to the representation
o this House that she claims, / consider
mother and different question. When she
hail be admitted as a State, and her two |
that she has sent here to
SIX for their seats, then it will he in time
, examine their credentials, and determine
pom the merits of their claim They may
- r a II