The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-04-07

When Territories applied for admission as States il
not right TO question them upon the subject OF their ns
tuons As States they could adopt the institution ~ Of
ton that the constitution OF the State. presented
did not carry out the views q the most q the people
there as he q a. a y s
rne that slavery excluded by the Mexican law and
by nature was correct, why was the enactment OF the
Proyiso urged There was m9tvs a. he bottom o. VI
il was true alleged the South that the enactment OF
the Provso was unconstitutional opposition 10 il was not
NECESSARY for the protection q s9a.hsrs rights
was that OF non intervention Taylor, he knew had
been represented pro- slavery man to the South and
provsost TO the North but to make him show his
hand, Mr. r. did not think II necessary TO change has
course upon this question, Here Mr. X. appealed TO
northern democrats TO know If they were TO be driven
from their position by the fact that the wings had come
TO III HE did not believe any such doctrine TO be
good logic or good sense.
He. for one could not have the face TO meet his
siituents and tell them that on such grounds he bad
changed his position this subject Some days since Mr.
Roor had said that no man from the North would have
been elected 10 this Congress his constituents had known
him 70 be an anproyisost In his case this declara.
ton failed to hold good, as the gentleman went on to
show. He and colleague had steadily opposed IT, and
so had Mr.. MILLER, Of Ohio. They had all made the
issue before their constituents and had been again
returned 10 Congress triumphantly II they in Time
to be overhrown at home upon this question: they would
die tpoilicaly with harness on struggling for what they
deemed the right Ii he should be instructed in favor OF
the Provso, he had BEEN he should obey resign
His people demanded that governments should be given
TO the Territories was necessary that these questions
should be settled He was disposed, in settling the
boundary question:, TO be as liberal as any gentle
man. He was in favor OF complying with The obli-
CATION OF the constitution for the restoration Of the
acknowledging that obligation had gone on to justify
the policy OF keeping only TO the ear the improperly
OF which course Mr. X. argued at length to prove: Hi
nois had always maintained honest faith on this branch
OF the slavery question, neither directly nor indirectly
Sinking her duties. He would never vote to abolish
slavery here but his constituents had right to demand
that the slave trade should be abolished in this Distinct
by the enactment OF such laws on the subject as pre-
vailed in the sayehoding States; which Mr. X argued
to prove was not carrying out the purposes OF abolition
ISM The aboitionsts were aided in their efforts to
overthrow the government by certain gentlemen from the
South. who, ike them, held ultra grounds
MIR. MARSHALL, having next obtained the floor, said
that he believed that the present crisis should be met
without fear He did not allow himself to dream OF dis
union, which but the remedy OF absolute desposm,
under most unbearable oppression. But whenever the
Of tyranny, the right Of revolution should be resoed to,
and then only could il be justified. Slavery was the
apple of dscord So widely did the people Of the North
Union was endangered by its agitation.
Mr. M here related at some length the history OF the
gradually generated difference OF opinion between the
North and South on the subject OF slavery He held that
fanacsm and knayey together had been long laborng
create prejudice against slavery in order to seize po
cal power.
The head OF this spirit was that Of yandal, and its
triumph would be over the end OF the Union Like that
of the hordes of northern Europe its passion would not
be satisfied until it stood on the ruin OF civilization and
law.
The spirit OF abolitionism las the speaker went on to
show was much OF fanaticism of cunning
and political rickery The danger from it was IN nom
action at the present time.
He did not intend to comment on the speeches Of
Messrs. THADDEus STEVENS and Horace MANN in the
which sy Du, he y S on
was to affect slavery in the States Here Mr. NJ made
quotations to that endl He wouldpass over the mis-
statements and foul aspersions the South found in
the speech Of Mr. SrEvEss, OF Pennsy but must
call attention to the fact that the main purpose of the alb
clifton leaders, as therein developed, to affect the in
stuon in the States 1t was therefore the duty of all
conservative men to settle the question, by at once and
forever quieng the slavery issues before the country
1t was astonishing that the North, which had been
eminently successful in the work of progress, should
busy themselves with the institutions OF their neghbos
The views OF the Morrill, as expressed in 1919, were
wholly and entirely at variance with those they urged
now. Mr. Taylor, OF New York, at that time, in his
speech the Missouri controversy, had emphatcally
discaimed any purpose OF depriving the South OF fair
participation the Territories OF the United States, as
the gentleman quoted at some length to prove, The
compromise then made was fair and proper. He was
for carrying out its principle in the legislation OF Con-
gress the subject Since that time the North had OBJ
tanned Iowa. Oregon, sc. He believed that the North
was in honor bound TO agree TO settlement OF this
question the same basis, leaving one part OF the ter
rtoy to be governed by the principles Of Massachusetts
and the other part S those Of Virginia He did
for the question of the equality Of the sections in.
yolyed That question was intimately connected
with the vital interest Of the South Il might as
well be expected that would be passive when the
brandshng torch around his dwelling,
that the South should be passive under the purposes
avowed by northern members on this floor While he
preferred the principles of the Missouri compromise
basis OF settlement, he would willingly meet the North
the basis OF Mr. McCLERsASDs proposition. which he
repeated length. He would once subscribe TO that
doctrine. His vote the question OF California would
be regulated by what the House would do with reference
to the remaining Territories II the struggle come,
he was for keeping all the questions connected with 1t
open
The data on which The House was called to vote
on the boundaries OF California too imperfect the
gentleman from Kentucky argued TO prove.
The treaty OF Guadalupe Hidalgo was a strange insru-
men setting at defiance much OF the law Of nations
Here Mr. M. criticised that convention, and held that
the right OF the native Mexicans belonging there TO claim
all glance 10 either government existed 10 this day. II
the duty OF the last Congress to have provided Cali
iorna with government and therefore II she had acted
premalurey IN forming a constitution and demanding
admission as State. II was the fault Of Congress We
had by the same treaty taken $1,000 New Mexcans un-
der flag Was it because slavery bad not been pro-
hbted by the people there that government for her had
been refusedi II so, this fact presented additional
for the settlement OF the whole question. There
was valuable United States trade in New Mexico
which required the protection OF valid laws II said
that the present anomalous government oil New Mexico
good enough, because It better than before its
acquisition by the United States.
This Mr.. M. denied, and went on to dsprove. There
was remedy for the collection OF debts in New
Mexco-no right OF trial by jury &c the government
being wholly military and at war with what he con.
ceved TO be the great principles OF the American govern
ment Though might be better than the previous Mex
,can government IL was not what American had a