Washington sentinel., 1853-10-09

of the negotlators OF both parties, the proposal
to exclude slavery by treaty stipulation with
n foreign government was abhorrent to every
true American-that no demand was made by
Mexico for it, and that every such idea was
wholly abandoned by the Mexican negotator,
and with good feeling upon his part.
1t was on account of this reply that no pro-
vision in the treaty sent in by Mr.. Polk looked
to the exclusion of slavery. 1t is scarcely ne
cessary to add that Mr.. Polk never would have
sent to the Senate treaty containing such n
provision-a provision subjecting the domestic
concerns of the States to the supervision of
our enemy, and humating to the heroes Of the
south, upon the fields Of Mexico, by placing
them under the care and Surveillance of pow
crless and vanquished people! ......"
But what Mr.. Trist dared not do, what Mex
leo dared not ask, what the one peremptorily
refused, and the other willingly relnquished--
an American proposed upon the floor of the
Senate of the Union What Mexico gave
without qualification, he proposed to take with
conditions suggested by lanaticisn,
and proposed in entire violation of the duty of
an American patriot.
| Mr.. Baldwin, of Connecticut (whig,) pro-
posed to add to the 9TH article Of the treaty
this proviso-substantiall the H4a,ot pro
ciso:n
"Prori.led, There shall he neither slavery nor
| involuntary servitude in the territories hereby
| ceded. otherwise than in punishment of crimes
whereof tile party shall have been duly convicted
To the honor of the Senate, and the dshonor
of the vote in the affirmative, this proposal,
instead of receiving the required number OF
two-fhrds of the Senate, was defeated by more
than that number.
It is not singular that in the ranks of the
| affirmative should be found the name of Mr..
CLAYTON, the negotiator of the Central Ameri-
can treaty in the cabinet, and its defender in
the Senate, or that of Mr.. Corwin, the champion
| of Mexico during the war, and the opponent OF
the acquisition, by treaty, which has given us
| an empire on the Pacific, or that of Mr.. Dayton,
the endorser of General Scott in the Baltimore
whig convention, or Of "honest John Davis"
Nor is it surprising that, upon such a question,
the whole northern whig vote cast was thrown
into the scale against the south, and in opposi-
ton to the interests and honor of the country.
Nor is it, on the other hand, wonderful that
upon such proposition there should be found
in the negative such inen as CaSs Douglas,
Bright, and last though not least, the patriotic
| Dickinson, whom those, then untrue to the
Constitution and the country, no1c seek to pro-
scribe as factionist.
1t is matter of profound satisfaction that
the entire free State democracy voted in the
negative except three of whom one was the late
distinguished Senator from New York, the
leader of the Van Buren party in lS4S, and the
abolition candidate for governor at that cleo
ton, and the present head of the so-called
"soft shell" faction, the Hon. John A. Dix.
Here then was an attempt to bring assistance
from abroad to home fanaticism in its unhal-
lowed war upon the constitutional rights of one
half of the States of the Union; for, suppose
the proposal had been carried, the faith Of the
country would have been thus plighted to the
snouiu De perpeIuafy excluded from II. HAD
California, under this Mexican decree, regis
tered by the American Senate, been admitted
as free State, and had subsequently by law
permitted slavery, what would have been the
result? Mexico would have demanded of the
federal government to enforce the treaty within
State, by putting an end to slavery. Thus
either slavery would have been abolished in a
State by federal authority, or there would have
been breach of the condition Of the cession of
the territory, upon which the territory ofthe State
would have been forfeited to its original owner.
Thus would sovereign State of the Union
have been subjected to the insolent demand for
abolition by foreign power, made through the
federal government.
This monstrous proposal thus conceding far
more thanthe Monroe doctrine was designed
to mcct-in the interference Of foreign powers
in concerns domestic in their character-pedg-
ing the honor OF the country to register and en-
Etorcc the foreign viii againstthe reserved rights
OF q State OF the Union, and dangerously in
volving the concession of q power in the federal
government over slavery in the States-this
proposal Of attempted treason to the Constitu.
ton and to the Union, stands in merited and
dishonored solitude upon the records Of the
country. Free-soilism, abolition, where their
schemes begin and end in o,n o,rn council
chambers, are as nothing when compared with
the introduction Of the dangerous foreign Gle
ment in the conduct of our internal policy
The country and its affairs are and must evel
remain unsafe in the hands of men who prosti
intrigue with foreign governments to affair
their improper ends at home.
II But when such men rise with an effrontcrv
which is only commensurate with their past
though not forgotten, public offences---and will
a complacency, which forces upon the mind tho
remembrance Of the famous Buffalo gathering