New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-28

the unclaimed land bat If people settle upon ter
ritory belonging 10 any country how could the for
nation of a Government by that people divest the
owner OF the soil Of bis right OF ownership and yes;
the ownership in the new Government The
United States owned California how then was
the erection Of State Government 10 divest rs Of
that ownership The right Of the United States
TO hold land was the same that OF an individual,
except that the former held it ony for one grea!
purpose-to sell.
tee judicature and laws Of the country, were ali
against the suppositon that California became pro-
prietor OF the public domain within her borders
What, then was there in this case 10 lead % the
oyerturniDg Of all the practice Of the past Cal
iiornia had expressly, upon the face OF her Con.
titutioD, admitted the ownership, by the United
States, Of the public domain. Ia conclusion, he
appesled TO Mr.. Soul6 TO reconsider this question
rnd withdraw bis objections connected with the
public domain
Mr. WEBsTyR next considered the question Of
boundary redtEirming bis position that no better
boundaries could possibly have been chosen than
those defined by the Constitution Of California.
He contended that South California would be OF no
value for slave labor, the soil and climate actually
forbade il. The disposition evinced by the people
in that part Of the country had been 10 exclude
Slavery from their midst The South could obtain
nothing practical from such 4 division, was II mol.
better then, under all circumstances, 70 admit
California as she is II had no part In toe acqu
sition Of these territories was no prophet and
it needed no prophetic vision at the time OF their
acquisition 10 foresee the consequences which mus.
follow that measure. These consequences were
now upon Us. As an American be was DESTROYS OF
settling the difficulties impending, and in that
spirit advocated the bill now under consideration.
Mr. FOOTE addressed the Senate in relation 70
bis course and views upon the Missouri COmprO-
mise line, in the course Of his remarks maintaining
that the assertion that Mr. Calhoun was ia favor OF
that line was incorrect. He declared that ne would
never make it sine qua non. He would vote for
the pending amendment but If 1t was rejected, he
would vote for the bill without it.
Mr. BARNwELL next addressed the Senate In
support Of the right Of the South TO equality in the
Union with the North, repeating the story OF North
ern aggression and insult and defending the instl-
tuition Of Slavery maintaining the right Of the South
TO protection in their slave property under the dag
OF the United States wherever 1t Heated. In conciu-
sion he declared himself in favor OF the extension
Of the Missouri Compromise line
Mr. FOOTE followed, with additional remarks IN
relation to Mr.. Calhoun's ground IN favor OF non-
Intervention.
Mr. BUTLER replied TO Mr.. FOorE, maintaining
that the non-iuterventiOn for which Mr. Calhoun
oontended, was the establishment Of Territorial
Governments without any provision In relation to
slavery thus giving the South an equal chance In
the settlement Of the Territories.
: Mr. DAVIS Of Miss. also replied To his colleague
with much warmth intimating that the bill could
never receive bis vote.
Mr. DAVIS was frequently interrupted 10 bis re-
marks by Mr.. FOOte, and sort Of conversational
debate was continued between the parties, until
halfpsst four, when the Senate adjourned