The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22

seems TO have fallen into. said that was in favor Of
on-lneryention. applied the whole territory
quirei BY the United States from Mexico IL the question
were presented in relation 10 that territory il
when up for discussion by this holy former
sion, and that, If the question now presented
whole, should maintain the principle; bul that the
question is not presented in that form The whole
question is not before us II has been Withdrawn from
the discussion; and il is only the matilaed remnant Of
the question that is before US
Mr. DOWNS, Viii The honorable senator from Geor-
gia allow ne single question:
Mr. BERRlEN. Most certainly.
Mr. DOWNS. want TO know what is the honorable
senator's definition OF inleryentioni What does he
Mr. BERRIEN mean to say as said before
the senator from Louisiana affords proof that he did
not do me The favor to attend to the remark maethat
an indirect interference has been praetsed by the assump
ton OF California TO organize government in which the
elect OF the Intervention OF Congress against the slave
institution has been perfectly accomplished the Will
mot Provso attached 10 territorial bill would have
compllshed IT, Now, we understand perfectly well,
presume and the senator from Louisiana understands
der what circumstances this operation has been produced
presume that one OF the considerations which enter
ed into that prohibition on the part OF California
against slavery was, the facility which 1t would give to
her admission into this Union read in the debates in
her convention that this impression encouraged by
suggestions which made by the agents OF this gov
ernment and she did not 20 TO the full extent OF the
formation given TO her, because she requested TO
make jurisdiction oextensve with the whole Terri
tory so as to leave no question whatever which might
lead 10 The agitation OF this question oil intervention
ganlzed into territorial government, would be in favor
OF the principle OF non-intervenon When practical in.
PREVENTION has occurred as TO the most important part OF
the Territory, the state OF facts which would call upon
me to act upon this principle OF non-nerventon no long
er continues 10 exist
Mr. DOWNS. Mr.. President. | now understand the
senator from Georgia better than did before and think
the only difference 10 what mean by the term
teryenuon and non Intervention. The Interpretation
which the senator gives is one that do not entertain He
sa, the action OF the people OF California in forming
constitution prohibiting slavery is an intervention Now,
thought tina, the very kind Of intervention that we
were pEoSysldpn1g m e me bill Tor The Territories
ment.
Mr. DOWNS Well. sir, that is changing the form, but
not the nature OF things. know OF authority OF this
government to intervene intervene in this matter
TO make or to unmake laws; and understood this as
question OF making laws by the Congress Of the United
States. What understand by intervention is in.
terpos,ion OF Congress prohibiting, or establishing. or
interfering with slavery That is the idea that have OF
it, Ii Congress mas ever nteiered in this matter To es
tabsh or prohibit slavery, DO not know an instance
object much the senator from Georgia to the man
ne which the people oil California have acted 10 this
matter. Still, view it ~ a very different light from
an act Of Congress to establish slavery we are willing
and prohibit slavery il they choose What have al
ways been lighting against is prohibition BY Congress
hee mas S Ses 10 oy osess Ecen
to the doctrine OF the gentleman that she is yet Terri
tory and how can he assume that these proceedings
there have been an intervention when there have been
none, SO far as can learal
Mr. DAVIS want 10 say word or two to the
senator from Louisiana. | think the whole answer in
his is simply this: that prohibition derives its value
from Congress- and That therefore becomes indirect in
prevention, stated by the senator from Georgia
Mr. DOWNS Ills the act Of Congress
Mr. DAVIS. The senator says il is act OF Con-
gress. That is his own definition But what is nom
Intervention seems TO vary often the light and
shade OF every heetng cloud It has different meanings
in every Stale, in every county, IN every town. Ii
non intervention means that shall not have protec
ton for our property in slaves then am always, and
always shall be- opposed 10 it. IL II means that we shall
have the benefits of the constitution, that Congress
shall not egsaie TO the benefits OF the
constitution, then am opposed 10 intervention, AMI
always shall be opposed 10 IT, So long as favored nom
Intervention, II TO prevent the federal government
from interfering with private property, and IRON deter
mining what constitutional rights in this respect
Then Mr.. President come down to the in point
Non Intervention, as applied 10 this amendment would
be to leave the Mexican laws in force. that the United
States may acquire territory, but the constitutional laws
OF the United states shall not go there; but that laws
pugnant TO the rights oil American citizens shall remain
in force, and that Congress cannot repeal those laws.
Every feeling OF my heart is opposed TO such an idea
this. Every respect feel Tor the constitution under
which was born and the laws have sworn TO support
all, all make place such doctrine that under my
heel, and crush thing which hope never TO hear of
again. Sir, had supposed that intervention when
commended for part OF the democratic creed,
to leave every section OF this broad land its rights
der the constitution But, sir II Il meant TO bring this gov
eminent into subsevency to the laws OF Mexico those
of France, when acquired louisiana those OF Spain,
when acquired Florida, thea. as an American
for all eschew forever the damnabe doctrine.
Mr.. DOWNS The senator IRON Mississippi can give
such adenition OF intervention he chooses but
wish 10 say will not be bound by his definition II be
wished TO convey the idea that would sanction the laws
OF Mexico prohibiting the right TO take slaves there,
that held the doctrine that the constitution OF the
United States, extended as already is in the bill 10 that
property, did NOT allow us to take Our property there he
is mistaken with regard TO my views OF the matter
understood the honorable 10 place nerven.
ton in such odous light and TO give IL such hue
and color that southern man could look on II without
to build up such idea to fight against very good He
and differ But this is matter which is to 20 to the
country and constituents wish il to be understood
and IL must be UNDERSTOOD lar as | am concerned.
rose only 10 say that that kind OF non.ineryeniion
is not that for which have coniended The gentleman,
in one OF the abesi Arguments made this iloor
tended thar BY the laws OF New Mexico and the opera
people had right to take their slaves into these Terrific.
ries. was convinced by bis Argument have taken
my stand upon Il, and not disposed 10 give II
up believe, sir, that whether the laws oil Mexico
in force nowlatever effect the laws OF Mexico have
had there-unler those laws, operated upon by
the constitution OF the United States and BY the acts OF
this BILL we have a right 10 take our slaves there.
wish to have Il so This is what mean by non-inier
venou and that is what believe 10 be the opinion gen
orally entertained But II the gentleman by
intervention that shall have provision expressly 10
admit property, that we shall have the questol de-
cded in avor, and that all who do not TO that ex
tent TO he marked against the odious form OF non
intervention which he has painted cannot agree with
him.
| hope, then, when This question comes TO be consd.
erel by Others that they will understand by intervention
what have always understood By it, and what believe
we have all heretofore understood IT 10 be- My induce
ment tor supporting il was because considered Il 10 be