try has been explored, and we can understand a little better what we are doing when we make the grant. I think it is a matter that calls for the serious consideration of Congress. Some portions of the country are filled with valuable minerals to a remarkable extent, and some better knowledge of the general features and general character of the country ought to be possessed by us before we undertake to grant it away.

Mr. FOOTE. The donative proposition would be equally satisfactory to me, under any circumstances that can be imagined. I do not care how valuable or how widely opposed the character of the lands is. My own opinion is that the people of California are entitled to as much land as this amendment proposes to confer upon them; and I concur with the Senator from Missouri that it is by no means a liberal provision.

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I would inquire what number of sections the amendment proposes to embrace? Does it cover all after the sections relating to the judiciary?

The PRESIDENT. It does; all of them.

Mr. DAVIS. I would then call the attention of my colleague to the last section, which contains a proviso, which I understood my colleague to explain to the Senator from Missouri as being a negative proposition in its character. I would rather, if it be a negative, that it should be struck out.

Mr. FOOTE. It is not a matter of great importance to me, but I believe, and I think I have good reason to believe, that it will tend to secure additional support to the amendment, on the principle that I have stated. I am anxious that the amendment should be adopted. I know that some members of this body, as well as of the House of Representatives, would be disinclined to vote for the amendment if they thought the effect would be to prevent the Senators and Representatives from California from taking their seats. With that object in view I have drawn the amendment so as to leave the matter precisely as it is, so that the qualifications of the members of each House will be decided upon in each House respectively.

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. This seems to carry a conclusion somewhat in addition to any argument which has been given before for the admission of the Senators and Representatives to their seats. I have held, and stated before to the Senate, that the people of California had, in my opinion, no right to form a State government and send Senators and Representatives here until they had the consent of Congress. My objection is radical and covers both cases. I move to strike out that part which relates to the Senators and Representatives taking their seats.

Same bill Aug. 13, 1850.

TUESDAY, August 13, 1850.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill. The question was on the passage of the bill.

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I do not propose, Mr. President, at this stage of the bill, and in the known temper of the Senate, to enter into any argument upon its merits or demerits. Although there is a wide field of facts not yet explored, it is not my purpose to enter upon it. I feel that it would be useless. More than that; I should fear to expose myself to an exhibition of that restlessness which has on this question marked the majority of the Senate, and which I do not wish to encounter. But I ask why, and among whom, is the spirit of impatience manifested? Does it proceed from a desire to provide a government for California? No, sir; the records deny that. This impatience is most exhibited by those who, at the last session of Congress, refused, unless with the slavery restriction, to unite with us to give the benefits of a territorial government to California; such a government as was then adapted to their condition; nay more, such a government as is best adapted to their condition now. Then, sir, among that class of Senators the great purpose of giving a territorial government to the people of California was held subordinate to the application of the Wilmot proviso to the bill. Then, and for that reason, Congress failed to give the protection to this people which they had a right to expect at the hands of a just Government, and which they had a right to demand under the treaty of peace with Mexico.

Now, sir, when the people inhabiting that Territory have formed a Constitution, one of the clauses of which prohibits the introduction of slaves, those who refused to give a government under the circustances just named, and, as we have a right to infer, for the reason stated, are now found most earnest in pressing upon us, in violation of all precedent, its admission as a State into the Union. Then are we not compelled to conclude that their policy, both then as now, was governed by the single desire to exclude slaveholders from introducing that species of property into any of the recent acquisitions from Mexico? Is that in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, which secures equal privileges and immunities to all the citizens of the several States of the Union? Is it in accordance with the principle of even-handed justice, if there had been no constitutional obligations? These acquisitions were made by the people of

the whole United States, and we are bound to remember that those whom this bill proposes to exclude, contributed more than their fair proportion, both of blood and treasure, to obtain that territory. No, sir, the Constitution forbids; justice condemns. the course which is pursued, and patriotism and reason frown indignantly upon it. Is it, then, a matter of surprise that we, the suffering party, have shown resentment and made determined opposition? Is it not rather a matter of surprise that that indignation which has blazed throughout the southern States should have been received with such calm indifference by the majority of Congress; that Congress has not only refused to listen, but has treated with scorn the appeal which has been made? Such, however, has been the history of this debate.

But if the motive be denied, then I ask, if not for the reason I have given, why are northern Senators pressing with such eagerness the admission of California? Is it to secure a benefit for their manufactures or navigation? No, sir. They know that when the inhabitants of California become a State they will be a people in favor of free trade, and that their policy will be to invite the shipping of the world, and secure for themselves the cheapest transportation. It is not, then, for purposes of their own interest that they seek her admission. Is it to preserve their political rights under the Constitution? No sir, Now they are in the majority, and they need no addition for such a purpose as that. Then we are forced to conclude that it is for the purpose of aggression upon the people of the South-that it is an exhibition of that spirit of a dominant party which regards neither the Constitution nor justice, nor the feelings of fraternity which bind them to us, but treads with destroying and relentless step on all considerations which should govern men, wise, just, and patriotic.

And this is the evidence of that love for the Union which is constantly presented to us as a reason why we should abandon the rights, why we should be recreant to the known will of our constituents, why we should disregard the duties we were delegated to perform, and submit to aggression such as freemen have never tamely borne. But, Mr. President, is this the way to avoid danger from the indignation which has been aroused; is this the way to avert the danger of disunion, if such danger exist? That indignation, and that danger, so far as it has been excited, is the offspring of injustice, and this is the maturing act of a series of measures which lead to one end-the total destruction of the equality of the States, and the overthrow of the rights of the southern section of the Union. We, sir, of the

South, are the equals of the North by compact, by inheritance, and the patriotic devotion and sacrifices by which the territory from which it is proposed to exclude us was acquired. And when such an outrage excites a manly remonstrance, instead of bringing with it a feeling of forbearance and a disposition to abstain and reflect, it is answered by the startling cry of disunion, disunion! What constitutes the crime of disunion?

This, sir, is a Union of sovereign States, under a compact which delegated certain powers to the General Government, and reserved all else to the States respectively or to the people. To the Union the South is as true now as in the day when our forefathers assisted to establish it; against that Union they have never by word or deed offered any opposition. They have never claimed from this Federal Government any peculiar advantages for themselves. They have never shrunk from any duty or sacrifice imposed by it, nor sought to deprive others of the benefits it was designed to confer. They have never spoken of that constitutional Union but in respectful language; they have never failed in aught which would secure to posterity the unincumbered enjoyment of that legacy which our fathers left us.

Those who endeavored to sap and undermine the Constitution on which that Union rests are disunionists in the most opprobrious understanding of that term; such being the crime of disunion, I ask by whom, and how is this spirit of disunion promoted? Not by those who maintain the Constitution from which the Union arose, and by adherence to which it has reached its present greatness; not those who refuse to surrender the principles which gave birth to the Union, and which are the soul of its existence; not those who claiming the equality to which they were born, declare that they will resist an odious, unconstitutional, and unjust discrimination against their rights. This, sir, is to maintain the Union by preserving the foundation on which it stands; and if it bé sedition or treason to raise voice and hand against the miners who are working for its overthrow, against those who are seeking to build upon its ruins a new Union which rests not upon the Constitution for authority, but upon the dominant will of the majority, then my heart is filled with such sedition and treason, and the reproach which it brings is esteemed as an honor. But, sir, if gentlemen wish to preserve the constitutional Union, that Union to which I and those whom I represent are so ardently attached, I have to say the way is as easy and plain as the road to market. You have but to abstain from injustice, you have but to secure to each section and to all citizens the provisions of the Constitution under which the

Union was formed; you have but to leave in full operation the principles which preëxisted, created, and have blessed it. Then, sir, if any ruthless hand should be raised to destroy the temple of this Confederacy, with united hearts and ready arms the people will gather around it for its protection; then, sir, it would be indeed a Union of brethren, and not that forced Union which it is sought now to establish and maintain by coercing sovereign States at the point of the bayonet, and reducing the free spirit of the people to submission by the terror of marching armies. By virtue, by confidence, by the unpurchasable affection of the people, by adherence to fundamental principles, and under the direction of the letter of compact and Union, this Republic has grown to its present grandeur, has illustrated the blessings and taught to mankind the advantages of representative liberty. As a nation, it is, though yet in the freshness of youth, among the first Powers of the globe, and casts the shadow of its protection over its citizens, on whatever sea or shore, for commerce or adventure, they may wander. When we see a departure in the administration of the Government from the fundamental principles on which this Union was founded, and by adherence to which it has thus prospered, we have reason to believe the virtue and wisdom of our fathers have departed from the people, or that their agents are unworthy of those whom they represent.

We stand on the verge of an act which is to form an era in the history of our country. Now, for the first-time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections of the Union, by securing a majority to one, in both Houses of Congress; this, too, when sectional spirit is rife over the land, and when those who are to have the control in both Houses of Congress will also have the Executive power in their hands, and by unmistakable indications have shown a disposition to disregard that Constitution which made us equals in rights, privileges, and immunities. When that barrier for the protection of the minority is about to be obliterated, I feel we have reached the point at which the decline of our Government has commenced, the point at which the great restraints which have preserved it, the bonds which have held it together, are to be broken by a ruthless majority, when the next step may lead us to the point at which aggression will assume such a form as will require the minority to decide whether they will sink below the condition to which they were born, or maintain it by forcible resistance.

Such are the momentous consequences which are foreseen as possibly flowing from this event; nor are these forebodings, in