The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1850-06-25
Thirty.First Congress.-1St Session.
WAsHrNsroN, June lS, 1850.

SESArE.-After memorials, the adjustment
bill was taken up-the question being on the
motion of Mr.. Hale to provide that the State OF
California be-, with her consent, divided, at
future time, into three States.
Mr.. Foote moved to amend the amendment
by providing that the said States, when admit.
ted, he admitted with or without slavery us they
might think it proper.
Mr.. Smith opposed this and all other amend.
ments of hypotheticrl kind, as an impeachment
to the bill. He should not vote for the bill, but
he wanted action upon it. The public business
had not yet been done, and the dog days were
at an end.
Mr.. Chase objected to the amendment that it
pledged future Congress.
Mr.. Foote advocated his amendment
Mr.. Foote'S amendment was agreed to-yeas
IS, nays 9.
Mr.. Rusk hoped the amendment would pre-.
vail and that it would leave Congress in future
so that they should not interfere with local al.
fairs of the States.
Mr.. King thought the boundaries of Califor.
MIA were too large and ought to be reduced,
and certainly would be if the slavery question
did not interfere.
Mr.. Hale said he saw that free man could
not get into the omnibus without negro.
Mr.. Houston said the amendment would
give the South no chance for slave State out
of California, il it was divided, because slavery
was excluded from it by her Constitution.
Mr.. Davis, of Miss, opposed, aud Mr.. Pratt
advocated the amendment.
Mr.. Davis, of Miss, moved to amend so as
to provide that all pre.existng laws of said ter
ritories which restrict the enjoyment Of any
rights exercised under the constitution and laws
of the United States, be hereby repealed.
Mr.. Hale moved to add the following
provided, That all laws abolishing slavery
in Mexico be excepted from this repeating
clause"
Mr.. Foote opposed the proviso. 81
Mr.. Clay opposed the amendment and the
proviso He thought it had been already de.
cided not to interfere with the lea loci, nor ab.
rogate nor recognise any local law. He was
willing to leave the question to the judiciary Of
tho United States. The matter was already
settled by the provision adopted in the tenth
section, which is that slavery be neither pro.
hibited nor established
Mr.. Davis, of Mass, said his amendment
merely asserted that the Constitution OF the
United States should be paramount, on Mexi'
can soil, to any local laws. If we had acqui.
red territory by blood and treasure ought not
our Constitution be extended over It'll Why
should our citizens be compelled to 60 into ex.
pensive and tedious law suits to assert their
rights. He sought to amend the bill; but ifit
could not be-if it was intended to maintain
the local law of Mexico, he could not support
the bill.
Mr.. Pratt said the local Jaw was annulled by
the annexation of the territories. This was his
opinion and that Of the Senator from Mass. If
we were right, the amendment offered by the
Senator from Miss, would be nugatory, but
would prevent others from voting for the bill.
The debate was continued by Mesars. Soule,
Dawson, Walker, Foote, Davis, of Miss, and
others. Without taking the question, at 4
o'clock, the Senate adjourned,
JUNE l9.-The adjustment bill was taken up,