The southern press., 1851-09-01

la common with " majority OF the South, en-
tertained objections to this bill preferred
that territorial government should hive been
provided for Catornia. Ms was done for Utah
and New Mexico. Il would have been a more
regular and appropriate mode of disposiug OF
that portion of the territory but the failure to
do so do not regard as n violation of the Con.
stitullon or the rights of the South In the
admission of California, Congress exercised q
power expressly conferred upon il by the Con
sttution, "to admit new States into the
Union" and though our Judgments do moi
wholly approve # the exercise of that discre-
tiopary power in this instance, il constitutes no
such cause Of complaint against the govern
ment as would istify the resistance which has
been Indicated by the enemies OF the compro-
mise and the advocates Of disunion.
The principle upon which California was ad-
mitted into the Union, with her constitution
prohibiting slavery, has ever received The sane
ton of Southern statesmen. The principle
denies to Congress the right to look into the
constitution of State asking for admission
into the Union further than to see that it is re.
publican in its rm Of government. Whether
sav, ry shall exist there is a question not for
the consideration Of Congress, bat to be deter
mined by the people when they frame their
State constitution.
following resolution introduced by Mr. Calhoun
into the Senate of the United States in ls47.
1t was the annunciation of sound coastitu-
tional principle, and | am prepared to maintain
its correctness:
Resoiued, That, as Fundamental principle
in our political creed, people, in forming a
consiitution, have the unconditional right to
form and ndopt the government which they may
think best calculated to secure liberty, prosper
ity, and happiness and that, in conformity
thereto, no other condition is imposed by the
federal constitution on State, in order to her
admission into this Union, except that its
constitution be republican and that the imposi-
| ton of any other by Congress would not only
ba in yiolation of the Constitution, but ia direct
conflict with the principle on which our political
system rests" .s.,
Now Mr.. CoBB does not state at all the main
objection made by the South to the bill admit
ing California; and we are compelled to con
clude that he was afraid to do it, because that
objection is overwhelming and unanswerabe.
1t is that the territory allowed her in the bill is
enormously large, enormously greater than Con-
gress ever before permitted any one State to
appropriate from the public domain "A sea
coast nearly thousand miles long land, with
Oregon, giving to the North the monopoly Of all
our Pacific sea5oard, down to latitude below
Charleston, South Carolina, and with climate
warmer than the Atlantic coast We know the
case of admitting Texas with a large territory
is cited as precedent for that of California, but
the Texan territory was already her own, and
had not been bought or paid for by the federal
government. Besides, provision was made for
dividing Texas, and giving to the North all her
territory above 36 30; and this provision was
proposed by the South as to California, and re-
fused And by thus surrenderng all California
to the North the Southern people were deprived
of the right of emigrating thither with their
property, and the vast region Of southern Cali
forna was forever prevented from determining
the question of slavery for itself. Yet Mr..
COBB coolly tells us California was admitted OIL
constitutional principles, and Southern prnci-
pies, only, perhaps, little too soonl Taking
the circumstances ak together, we consider the
act for the ffmission of California one of the
greatest outrages that history has recorded.
|
on which it was done as a superadded insult to
the understanding of the South. Bot when we
see prominent Southern men going about to ex-
cuse and palliate the transaction, we are con-
strained to confess that the understanding of the
South is not worthy of the high respectto to which
we thought it entitled
Mr. CoBB excuses the act emancipating slaves
brought into this District for sale, by telling
that Maryland did the same thing about sixty
wears ago. That was when Maryland was
menaced with the influx of slaves from the
Northern States then emancipating, and the OBJ
ect of the law was precisely the reverse of the
recent act of Congress. And the same thing
may be said of the laws of Georgia to prevent
the influx of slaves. But if it be assumed that
Congress has the same jurisdiction over slavery
in the District that the States have within their
own borders, Congress may emancipato at
pleasure.
Mr. CoBB denies the right of secession. lie
thinks it would have been absurd for the trainers
of the federal Constitution TO provide, in the
very organization of the government, for it's own
dissolution.
Well, il this is an argument against the
right of secession, is it not equally opposed to
the right of revolution which Mr. CoBB asserts (!
lie denies the right of secession, because it il
not declaed in the Constitution Why the
right Of secession is State right; and who
ever took it into his head, before Mr.. CoBB, to
look for the rights Of the States in the federal
Constitution Why, in that instrument, every
thing which relates to the States is restrictive,
except the clause which declares that all powers
not granted by it, are reserved to the States and
the people. WHY does Mr.. CoBB seriously
contend that the States have no rights which
are not specified in the federal Constitution!
Mr.. CoBB thinks that if the right of secession
had been recognized, the States, originally,
would not have hesitated about entering the