The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-17

Southern States had an equal right to 60 to thi.
territory with their property, and If | have
shown that the people Of California had no righl
to exclude US from that terrtory--and Chief
Justice Sharkey says that il was a power which
"could not be rightfully exercised even by d
monarchy "--then, ask, could the Congress Of
the United States waive that irreguasity which
impaired this constitutional right! In my judg-
ment it could not
i Suppose California had presented herself with
a constitution embracing clause providing that
the right OF trial by jury should BIO abolished in
that State: would il have been constitutional To
/ admit her as a State with such clause in her
constitutions? No one will say so--and why
Because the Constitution expressly guarantees
the right of trial by jury; a, Congress, in the
exercise of its power 10 the admission Of States,
as well as in all other cases, must exercise this
power strictly within the limitations of the Con.
stitution itself, and 1t. would not be competent
for Congress to waive such an irregularity by
attempting to give sanction to an act which was
unconstiution
Mr.. President, it may be said that these peo-
pie in California were forming State govern
ment; and that, therefore, the authorities have
read do not apply to them, but that they apply
to people living under a territorial form of
government This is begging the whole ques-
ton; the main issue being whether these peo-
pie were such people as were competent to
form a State government, or whether California
was a State. But what said the distinguished
chairman Of the Committee Of Thirteen, Mr..
CLAY! In the report accompanying the intro
duction Of the compromise bills into the Senate,
he says
"Although she California has organized for
and constitutonally regarded as a territory un
| til she is actually admitted as State into the
Union"
So, sir, the chairman of the Committee Of
Thirteen himself said that California g must be
legally and constitutonally regarded as territory
until she is actually admitted as State into the
Union" Then, sir, it was the act of admission
which created her State, and that act was in
violation Of the constitutional rights of the
South, and of the power of Congress, under the
Constitution, to admit new States.
Mr.. President, as to the bill providing terrific
rial governments for Utah and New Mexico, we
made no complaint of these simply upon their
face. But our objection was, that the Congress
of the United States did not do its duty in
placing the Southern States upon an equality
with the other States, in reference to the piotec
ton of their property on entering these terrific
ries. We take this positon-snd believe it is
a position which may be well mantaned-that
by the treaty making power under which this
territory was acquired, there being local law of
Mexico abolishing slavery there, we were placed
upon an inequality with the rest of the States
| in reference to the enjoyment of our property in
this territory. And that Intervention took place
against us by the local law under the treaty
making power. Many persons are led into error
by not distinguishing properly between the acts
of different departments of the government, in
exercising powers involving the equal rights of
the several States of the Union, and suppose that
an act of Congress removing the obstruction Of
the local law of Mexico, would be Intervention
in our favor; whereas it would only be placing
us upon an equality with the other States, in the
enjoyment of cur propertyin the territory, where
intervention bad already taken place against us
by tho local law of Mexico, existing, not right
fully, but de (acto, through the neglect Of Con-
gress to do its duty in declaring its er Silence
| We do not believe that the Mexican law
righyully exists against us in these territories.
But it exists there de facto; and il we go there
with our property, we may be compelled to en-.
counter it, and have our right to our property
decided under it, by the Supreme Court of the
| United States. In other words, we may have
to subject ourselves to the expense and hazard
| Of doubtful decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, to know whether we can ee-
curely enjoy our property or not We say, that
at the time this territory was acquired, every
citizen of the United States had an equal right
to enter it with his property, aud IL there was
any existing local law Of Mexico obstructing our
right TO go there with our property, II was the
duty OF Congress TO remove that obstruction,
and to place Us upon al equality with all the
citizens Of the other States in the use and en-
joyment of our property there. Congress re-
fused TO do this. And il was just cause Of
complaint 10 the South.
Upon what principle were these territorial
governments established! They were estab-
ished, sir, upon what is called the principe of
non-interyention. And what is non-intervention
as understood by majority Of those who acted
upon this question in the passage Of these laws
II Is, that the Southern people were not to have
even the right Of protection Of their property in
those territories. What is the real fact Of the
case! We gave up the line Of SO deg. 30 min
which was the old line Of compromise between
the two sections, for principle, and that prin-
ciple was non intervention. And that non.in-
PREVENTION, as understood by majority Of those
who passed these laws, was the exclusion Of
the South from the enj oyment Of their property
in these territories. This was what was CON-
planned Of, and OF what we bad right 10 CON-
| plain. Not that there was anything upon the
face Of the bills 10 which we objected, but that
Congress did not do It's duty in legisIaing for
the territories in such manner rs 10 give 10 the
South that protection for their property which
vas given TO all the property Of all the other
States Of the Union.
With reference 10 the question Of the Texas
boundary, have only word or two 10 say
Our objection 10 that act was, that the govern.
ment disputed the title OF Texas 20 her territory,
and that the proposition which was made 10 her
TO sell portion Of il for Ten million Of dollars
was not made 10 her on fair terms; that she had
not the proper alternative presented 10 her 10
accepting or rejecting t. Texas was admitted
into the Union under what are termed the reso-
lutions Of annexation, providing that in all
The territory north Of 36 80 slavery should be
Nexcuded, and that south of that line, the States
Afterwards 70 be formed within her limits, were