The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-14

ri
WINS il answered, that the Federal Government
was established by the States to afford, within its
prescribed sphere, common and equal protection
and security to all. The plastic, variously de-
fined, intangible doctrine of non-interyention
formed a shelter for oil who, eschewing the tent
of aboltionism, were nevertheless hostile to the
institution of slavery.
| The third resolution assumes that the admis-
sion of California was mere matter of congress
sional disc elton, and asserts that those who
opposed it were willing to admit her with limi-
ted boundaries, thereby acknowledging they had
no constitutional objection. The last position
is an error of fact; as your Senator did not,
could not offer or except any such proposition
my objections were fundamental, aud had my
course in any moderate degree attracted your
attention, you could not have attributed to me n
disposition to enter into such contract did
not consider the admission Of California as n
thing wholly within the discretion of Congress.
Every question of legislation is constitutional
question, and should be distinctly referable to a
prescribed duty or granted power. Congress
may admit new States into the Union. This is
not an authority which would warrant that body
in the creation of State, or would Justify 1t In
waving an inquiry into the facts, and requiring
adequate proof of the existence Of State, and
of its competency to take its place in this union
Of equals, and properly to discharge its duties
as a member of the confederacy.
The right of "the people Of n territory" in
organizing themselves into a State, to deter.
mine its organic law, is not disputed, has not
been opposed by Southern men-but the unor
ganized, unauthorized adventures in Californis
were not "the people of territory" as the phrase
is applied and understood in the United States
There was not the local, the social, the politica
relation Which would fulfill the definition Of "a.
people" or "a terrtory,"-the inhabitants, ex
cept the Mexcans remaining there, were by law
} trespassers on the public domain, which was not
"a territory" but an underlined part of the terri.
tory belonging to the United States. The States
Of the Union were the sovereign owners, not
those who first might reach the new acquisition
in the race Of the gold hunters The ultimate
sovereignty could be acquired but in one of two
modes, by withdrawal of the authority of the
States to whom the territory belonged, or by
successful revolution. No one will contend that
it was acquired in either mode; that essential re-
quisite therefore did not exist. There having
been no census, there being no officer who could
! hold an election, or affx an official signature to
a return and no prescribed qualifications for
voters; the information was so imperfect, so
wholly unofficial, and the defects so radical as
to constitutea case which in my opinion did not
come within the constitutional power of Con-
grcss, conferred for the admission Of new States.
The necessity of the case required the establish
ment Of government and review Of the action
of Congress Mt the last and two preceding ses-
sions will show, why the mode Of admitting
California as State was adopted instead of fol-
lowing the oldest and safest mode of establish
ing a territorial government, preparatory to a
transfer of the eminent domain to the people of
the territory, for the organization Of a State.
It will be seen that the Southern members, as a
class, had for years past desired and attempted
to organizes territorial government, but that the
effort failed because of the determination of
Northern members not to allow such government,
unless with the condition that involuntary ser.
vitude should be excluded from the territory.
| The inhabitants of California were driven to
the formation of State as the only mode of
obtaining a government, and could not have
doubted, as it appears by the debates Of their
convention they did not, that in order to be ad-
mtted Us n State it was necessary that they
should conform to the views of the anti-savery
majority in Congress- This furnishes an expla-
nation for the extended unnatural boundaries
Mey claimed, including in one section popula-
ton whose representatives protested against the
act, in another an unknown inaccessible desert
J with the prohibition of slavery in the whole
! that the agitatng question of slavery might (by
their action) be kept out Of Congress. Thus
: the Inhabitants of California are relieved from
the censure which would have attached to thu
attempt of aliens and citizens to prohibit othe
, citizens from sharing with them the harvest of
fered by country filled with hidden treasure
which every freshet threw to the surface. Blu
7 lust to the extent that the inhabitants are ex
) cused, the responsibility attaches to the anti
slavery majority represented in the Federal Gov
eminent, which refused the mode best suited t
. the condition of California, and adopted anothe,
!, because THUS tho STAKEHOLDER Of the South coul'
r be excluded. Had there been no such influence
8 and an equal opportunity for emigration from
; the South as from the North, the resulting popI
: lation might have decided differently rs to TIT
; introduction of slaves; but if not, there woult
\ have been no cause TO complain when in du'
3 time and manner the decision was made against it
Though the Missouri Compromise was no
t within the constitutional powers of Congress, i
may have derived validity from the acquiescenc'
of the States, and certainly should no, have bee,
: repudiated by the North, for whose benefit i
was introduced and by whose votes 1t was al
f most unanimously supported. Two senator
e from Indiana, one member from New Hamp
l., shire, and one from New York, and three from
: Massachusetts, being the Northern vote agains
$ the Missouri Compromise.
(; Whilst, then, agree with the structures con
o tanned in your fourth resolution on the Missouri
i Compromise, as an original proposition, though
II and still believe the question, as presented to us
G wears a very different aspect from that which
{ bore In 1920. Though time cannot sanctf
: wrong, 1t may establish acquiescence, and thu
1t may be considered a compact between tn
States whose powers are not, like the Congress
restricted to the grants Of the Constitution. II
the action of the Nashville Convention on th
! subject see but laudable anxiety to avoic
sectional strife, and a fraternal spirit of conces
, sion. After asserting in their sixth resolution
the duty Of the Federal Government to recog
, nize and maintain the equal rights Of the cti
zens Of the several States in the territories o
) the United States, their eleventh resolution Sc
+ forth: That in the event dominant majority
shall refuse to recognize the great constitutions
rights we assert, and shall continue to deny tn,
obligations Of the Federal Government to main
tain them, it is the sense Of this Convention tina
the territories should be treated as property, ant
divided between the sections of the Union, 81
that the rights of both sections be adequatel,
secured in their respective shares. That We arc