Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-10-03
Judge Berrien on the Compromise.


We have already placed before our readers
some extracts from the recent address of Judge
Berrien to the People of Georgia, showing the
peculiar position which he occupies with refer
ence to the warm contest now pending in that
State. Another part of the address exhibits the
distinguished authors senatorial course and pre-
sent views in regard to the several measures COM
monty known as the Compromise, and especially
the Texas Boundary bill, which, after the failure
of the original Compromise bill, presented the
real issue between the friends and opponents of
Compromise. 1t will appear from the extract
which we subjon, that Judge Berrien voted for
this bill, and now defends it with reasons which
should have peculiar weight, coming as they do
from a gentleman of such high authority with all
who are for firmly, though prudently, maintaining
the cause OF the South. The Secessionsts pre-
tend that the Boundary bill inflicted grievous
outrage upon Southern rights, by producing the
dismemberment of slave State. If an outrage
at all, the record proves that it outrage of
the South upon the South for ma ority of the
Southern members voted for the bill. But we
desire to call the attention of all candid South
of the merits fthe measure itself 1t involved,
as we have just said, the whole issue of Compro-
mise; and the circumstances under which it was
adopted should never be forgotten. No part of
MIR. Fillmore's administration reflects more credit
upon his craftsmanship than his memorable mes
sage advising Congress of the danger arising from
the extraordinary attitude of Texas, and pointing
the way to an adjustment of the grave difficulty
which was at once honorable to the United
States and satisfactory to Texas. Judge Berren
truly says that ''the peace and harmony of the
Union were endangered" The Boundary bill
removed the danger. Had the counses of those
who opposed it prevailed, civil war must have
broken out, and this tits just to presume, deb.
erately contemplated by the enemies of Compro-
mise. The embarrassment created by the Tex
as Boundary question was the leading induce
Inent with Southern advocates of the Compro
mise to abandon the Missouri line. We know
that the Southern Democrats generally commended
that the right of Texas to all the country East
CT the Rio Grande should be acknowledged
But there were many Southern men who hon
esty believed that Texas had no shadow of title,
and nearly the whole North denied her claim
The adoption of the Missouri line, therefore,
would only have left an unsettled dispute with
Texas, VIII icb must have ended either in blood
shed or in surrendering to the operation of the
Wimot Proviso all the country claimed by Texas
North of SO. 80. Under the Boundary bill, and the
other Compromise measures, the South has pro-
cured from Congress an acknowledgment of the
principle Of non-nervention for all the territory
acquired from Mexico. The present State of
California constitutes no exception, for Congress
had no right to reject he r because her own peo-
pie chose to prohibit slavery and Congress is
admitted on all sides to be the Judge of the fitness
of Territory to become State Believing that
Ca lfornla was not prepared for the change, we
concurred with those members of Congress who
opposed her admission a separate measure; but
seeing that the majority was clearly in favour Of
admission, and had the right to allow it, we cor
daily supported general BILL including the ad-
mission together with satisfactory adjustment
of other questions
Ertract from Judge Bsrr'ens Address 10 the Peo-
pie Of Georgia.
In common with my colleagues resis ed the adms-
ures relating 10 the ewly acquired territory were en-
braced in one Bill, endeavoFed 10 Obtain such modi-
tcation OF IT, as would enable ne to vote Tor it, 1t
failed 10 the Senate combined measure. By no
act OF mine but by disagreement between its friends
relative c the boundary of New Mexico as the records
OF that body viii show. When a separate bill for the
united IN opposing it. They may have differed as to
the grounds on which they rested their opposition but
all | believe concurred in The act se.
For the bills establishing territorial governments in
New Mexico, and Utah, | voted under the belief that
we were bound by the treaty with Mexico to relieve
the inhabitants OF The former from the military gov,
ernment 10 which they Were subjected and to eman-
cipate The latter, from Mormon rule
gave rot only ray vote, but my cordial support to
the bill providing Tor the settlement of The conflicting
claims OF Texas and The United States Tor the follow
ing (among otheD reasons, which | will state without
discussing them.
LIST. | thought that the peace and harmony OF tie
Union wsre endangered. There was part Of the Ar
my OF the United States in New Mexico whose COM
mander exercised civil authority within the limits of
the territory claimed by Texas That State had provi.
ded Tor the extension of her laws the whole ter
Titory which she claimed, and for a military force to
sustain her ofhcers 10 the execution OF them. In this
state ofthIngs collision seemed inevitable and not be-
leVng mat ours was government OF force, which
could be sustained by IT, could survive the strife OF
arms between a State and the United States | was
ANXIOUS that these conflicting claims should be peace,
fully adjusted.
I'd. Justice 10 the inhabitants of New Mexico re-
CURED this, or some similar adlustmen. By the boun-
daIies which had been established for California and
Utah. very small portion OF territory lying west of
the RIO Grande, remained 10 New Mex o. Santa Fe
her chief city, and the principal centre Of her pnpua
ton, lies Of II; and thus If the jurisdiction OF Tex
as had been extended to the Rio Grande, New Mexico
would have been limited a alp of land west
OF that river, the population OF which, for long and
Indefinite period, would not have authorized the
ton OF State, to be in terms Of the treaty with Mexi-
co. incorporated INTO the Union OF the United States
% believe hat Texas, one 1.-THE sovereign States
OF ms Union, invested with all the rights and mmunl-
ties OF any other State had in OF her sovereign
~ an unquestlonabe and exclusive right 10 decide
f1r ne sell on the proposal 10 be submitted by The United
States mat tne interest OF that State, and ofihe Union
required that Il should be made and accepe ed and that
The exercise by Texas Of her undoubed right could moi
authorize the interference Of give any Just eau OF
otrncs 20 anv other State. That ia certainly not