The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-04-11

against argument, OF reason against reason ana wne
after such employment of intellectual faculties nm
myself IN the minority, am for submitting to the act
Inc maIoriy ! am not Tor resoriing 70 adJournmen
calls or the yeas and nays and other dilaoy proceed
ngs IN order TO delay that which, il the constitution ha
full and fair operation. must inevitably take place
There great loss OF Sleep with great physical dscom
fort, IN The one mode OF proceeding. without any in III
Other Bal, whilst this is my judgment OF what s prope
IN debeatlye bodies other gentlemen entertain dlfferen
Opinions. They think il fair to employ all the parla
meaaIy means .nai are vested n them by the consu
they belong TO defeat impede delay 10 any extent IN
passage OF the measures which they consider odous
repeat. ". 90 not lastfy such course but we mus
and we can never expect to make him as we could wis
him TO be-
4 Now. the senator from Missouri has chosen Il
characterize this measure OF uniting several subect
n one bill with unfaimess OF proceeding. Sir, If
were disposed TO retort, which am far from doing
s aa wSsn h
deayored to show that the pending proposition was 4
combine California the territorial governments for ths
two proposed Territories, the fxalion Of the line
Texas lie fugitive slave bill, the bill for aboshng III,
slave trade in this District, abolition and God Almighty
knows how many other subjects, which his imagination
depicted contemplated TO be introduced into omn
bus bill, and to be considered n that way The sena
i tor from Missouri knows perfectly well that no such
purpose existed and ne has right to infer any purpose
/ OF the kind No longer ago than Friday last when
misunderstood my colleague, and supposed that his OBJ
Iact was 10 combine this fugitive slave bill with these
measures he rose at once and dsclamed any such in.
i
combinaon of subjects than the admission OF California
the establishment OF territorial governments anddoubt
ing its proprety as did Friday, not being absolutely
determined in my own mnd-adding TO these two meas
uIes the establishment OF suitable boundary for Texas
with the offer OF equivalent for the surrender of any
title which she might be supposed to have in the territory
SO surrendered Let US look, whilst this subject OF
Texas, to another part OF the senator's Argument, and
put to the candor OF the senator 10 admit how unfair
how improper, at least is to suppose that, by such
combination have indicated, the result would be to
You pass bill with the separate section for the adms-
sion OF California, other sections in the bill estab
fishing governments in the two Territories, and other
sections in relation to the proposition to Texas for the
settlement of her boundary, making her certain offers,
and this latter proposition dependant on the consent which
Texas might or might not give But suppose Texas does
give her does anybody believe that the other
parts of the bill would become dead nugatory Each
portion of the bill is of force and effect according to the
object in view, and each might stand although the other
portion OF the bill might be rendered null in consequence
OF the non concurrence OF Texas in any proposed ar
rangement with her
It has been said that ii is wrong to make those who
might be in favor OF the admission Of California, and
against the establishment OF territorial governments
Ulce Uersa vote on such combnation-that it would
be wrong to combine them in one bill, because they
would have to against both, liking portion Of
the bill for bolh still dslkng portion OF the bill
And told that what the wisdom OF California stg
gesled ia her constutionha is to say the keeping Of
subjects separate and dsncs thereby to be disregard
ed Now, there is very little OF paccabity in this idea
OF total separation OF subjects Suppose you have the
California bill alone before You is that single ideai
There is st the admission OF the Stale, and secondly
the proper boundaries of tho State Now, there may be
senators, II you had this single bill before you, who
would say we willing to admit State, to be carved
out oil this Territory but against the boundaries
proposed; and why not separate 1t into two bs-one for
the admission OF the Staie and the other for the xaon
o. iis limits i Why. thus you night go on cutting sub
divided into and say that each OF them shall contain
single, and only a single. idea Take the tariff bill.
II contains i've hundred items usually and we have
uqy ma sac n a vDtp w H.
out parts OF il being Objectionable TO some, or
that did not contain items for which voted
cause OF other items in the same BILL And so with
the course we propose. II we combine together a
bill for the admission OF California and for govern
mens for the Territories, in the first place those who
opposed the combination may oppose IT. III II is in
troduced already in the BILL il may be proposed TO strike
out what relates TO the Territories; il il is proposed
that they shall be added to the bill Tor the admission OF
California, they amendments call for the yeas
ton Of the measures together But suppose the majority
oyenues them Suppose there Is majority s % favor OF
ton is put, Will you vote Tor or against the bill Aud
what are you 10 do IN a case OF that kind Exactly
and good mixed together. You may vote against il, II
you please Ia too, because OF the bal there Is in it
you may vote for H. because you approve oil the greater
amount Of good there is 10 y The question iSt NE time
the bill and il the good outweighs the bad, that will
be further consideration for voting for the whole meas
ure.
But sir, my object now is 10 show that there is per-
feet connexon between the subjects proposed 10 be uni
ted and refer not to what the senator from Missouri
has charged, but 10 the State OF California, territorial
governments for the Territories, and at most the hxaon
Of the boundary Of Texas SIR, are these subjects con
neced together, or are they not Let look al facts
and at history Let appeal TO the very facts which
the senator from Missouri himself insists ought TO be so
influential on our judgment Well, sir, California, New
Mexico, and Utah. all component parts OF the Mex
can republic, and they ceded together assoeia
- L.. - A.
like grade OF government in Mexico All OF them were
proyinces OF them States under the Mexican
republic They came here together, in association,
der the treaty by which acquired them. They came
here the last session together all mplonng the esab
shmen OF territorial governments within their respect.
i've limits. II was not done. Why was il not done I
The South reproaches the North for not doing IT, by say
ing you insisted upon the introduction of the Wmot Pro-
vso The North reproaches the South, by saying you
responsible for il by opposing the Wmot Proviso.
Mr. President, both parties were wrong, and neither
was wrong. They were wrong in the aggregate but
not wrong separately. They were wrong in the aggre.
gate because Congress failed TO devise and establish gov
ernments which IL called upon TO do by all the sol.
emn obligations OF treaty stpuIaons, and all the solemn
duties which resulted from the fact OF the acquisition OF
those Territories by this country. They were wrong
separately, because you who coniended the Proviso
did so, have no doubt. honestly; and you who opposed
case therefore, OF rreconcabe difference OF opinion be-
tween two large parties in Congress- and their convc.
dons, their conscences, respectively restrained them
from yielding the one 10 the views OF the other No
proacbes therefore, think, Justly be made by one
party upon the other II subject OF deep and pro-
found regret that proper governments not then de-.
vsed but i was attributable solely to those unhappy