The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-06-17

omnibus. They are provided for in separate
and distinct bills, and may not pass, though the
omnibus bill should They are just as likely
to pass, if the PRESIDENTS policy should be
adopted, as if the omnibus bill were TO pass.
/ Their success is no more dependent upon the
success of the latter than of the former. In
opposition to either of these bills it will not be
pretended that the Republic has ever uttered
one word, directly or indirectly, nor is it our
| purpose now TO utter word in relation TO the
merits of either. We may be allowed, how
ever, 10 remark, in this connexion that while
the bill abolshing the slave trade in the Dis
trct of Columbia will hardly be claimed as
Southern achievement, very eloquent and dis
tingulshed jurist of the South, who is mem
Der of the Senate, recently, in his place in that
body, denounced the fugitive slape bill as soon
tanning provisions so contrived, that, far from
remedying the evil of which the South COM
plains, they most obviously embarrass and OBJ
struct the exercise of her acknowledged rights"
| In reference to SO much of the compromise
plan as provides for the settlement of the Texas
boundary question, by the purchase from that
|
tory north of the line Of SO deg. 30 min, but of
two and half degrees south of that line and an
nexing it to New Mexico, which will have
the effect, according to the views and opinions
of Mr.. CLAY, the chairman Of the compromise
committee, to convert considerable extent OF
sLape territory into free territoryin reference,
we say, TO this part of the compromise plan, if
| ha ,lo sJs
that as something for the South to boast of, we
shall not stop TO argue the point with him, al
though he might, in his zeal, denounce opposi-
ton to any portion of the compromise plan as
:. hostility to the southern States"
AS it regards the admission of California into
the Union as State, there is no difference
between the compromise committee and the
PREsIDENT-both being in favor Of her adms-
sion with her present boundaries.
So far, then, as the admission of California
into the Union State, the settlement of the
Texas boundary question, the fugitive slave
bill, and the bill abolishing the slave trade in
the District of Columbia--so far as these four
out of the five measures embraced in the com
promise plan are concerned, there is no possible
pretence for asserting that the line Of policy re-
commended by the PRESIDENT, or our support
and defence of that policy, indicates any, the
slightest degree of ''hostity," either on his
part or on ours, Ito the Southern States"
1t is the fifth and only remaining measure Of
+ the compromise plan-the establishment of ter
ritoria governments for New Mexico and
Utah--without the Wilmot proviso, that is
made matter Of gorifcation by portion of
the Southern advocates of that plan. 1T repu-
dates the odious Wilmot," exultingly excaims
one, 1T preserves our honor" cries another.
1T guarantees TO the South the full fruition OF
all its constitutional rights" loudly vaunts a
third. Well, let us see how the matter really
is. What right, then, has the South claimed,
from the beginning Of the controversy down to
the present moment, in regard TO the territory
acquired from Mexico2 The right for her citi-
zens TO take their slaves to that territory, and
there be protected in the use and ownership OF
them. The Wilmot proviso inhibited the South
from the exercise Of this right, and on that ac-
count became hateful and odous throughout that
whole section of the Union. Now, it is true,
that in the compromise plan the Wilmot proviso
. does not appear; but are the rights claimed by
the South, in this respect, asserted and main
tained2 Will the Territory, if the compromise
plan be adopted, be practically open for the
settlement of Southern planters with their
savesl Not al all. Such is not the expecta-
ton OF MIR. CLAY, or General CAss, or, we be-
lieve, of any intelligent supporter Of the plan,
South or North. Mr.. CLAY, and many of those
who act with him. believe that the Mexican
laws prohibiting slavery still remain in force in
the Territory; and, of course, as the territorial
legislature is prohibited, under the compromise
, plan, from passing any law admitting OF exclud-
ing slavery, that there it cannot and will not
go.
For the non-insertion of the Wilmot proviso
in the territorial bill, the Compromise report
gives the following very significant reasons:
''The bill for establishing the two Territories, Il
9 will be observed, omits the wilmot proviso, on
the one hand, and, on the other, makes no pro-
vision for the introduction of slavery into any part
4 of the new Territories. That proviso has been
the fruitful source Of distraction and agitation. II
it we're adopted and applied to any Territory, il
, would cease TO have any obligatory force as soon
as such Territory were admitted a State into
to accomplish the professed object with which il
was originally offered. This has been clearly
demonstrated by the current Of events. Califor-
MIA Of all the recent territorial acquisitions from
Mexico, was that in which, If anywhere within
them, the introduction Of slavery was most
likely TO take place; and the constitution Of Cali
fornia, by the unanimous vote Of her convention,
has expressly interdicted IT, There the highest
degree Of probability that Utah and New Mexico
WILL when they come TO be admitted States,
follow the example"
/, This part Of the report has, as far as we have
been able 10 discover, been generally objected TO
, at the South.
In reference to the clause forbidding the ter
f ritoral Legislature FROM passing any law admit
ting or excluding slavery, General CAss, in a
, recent speech in the Senate, said:
1--WE have inserted a restrictive clause, forbid.