As for California-far from seeing her sensibility affected by her being associated with other kindred measures-she ought to rejoice and be highly gratified that, in entering into the Union, she may have contributed to the tranquillity and happiness of the great family of States, of which, it is to be hoped, she may one day be a distinguished member. tion is not at all unusual. Few laws have ever | Committee believe that they express the anxious passed in which there were not parts to which desire of an immense majority of the people of exception was taken. It is inexpedient, if not the United States, when they declare that it is impracticable, to separate these parts, and em-high time that good feeling, harmony, and fraterbody them in distinct bills, so as to accommodate nal sentiment should be again revived, and that the diversity of opinion which may exist. The the Government should be able once more to proConstitution of the United States contained in ceed in its great operations to promote the happiit a great variety of provisions, to some of which ness and prosperity of the country, undisturbed serious objection was made in the convention by this distracting cause. which formed it, by different members of that body; and, when it was submitted to the ratification of the States, some of them objected to some parts, and others to other parts, of the same instrument. Had these various parts and provisions been separately acted on in the convention, or separately submitted to the people of the United States, it is by no means certain that the Constitution itself would ever have been adopted or ratified. Those who did not like particular provisions found compensation in other parts of it. And in all cases of constitution and laws, when either is presented as a whole, the question to be decided is, whether the good which it contains is not of greater amount, and capable of neutralizing anything objectionable in it. And, as nothing human is perfect, for the sake of that harmony so desirable in such a confederacy as this, we must be reconciled to secure as much as we can of what we wish, and be consoled by the reflection that what we do not exactly like is a friendly concession, and agreeable to those who, being united with us in a common destiny, it is desirable, should always live with us in peace and concord. A majority of the Committee have, therefore, been led to the recommendation to the Senate that the two measures be united. The bill for establishing the two Territories, it will be observ. ed, omits the Wilmot proviso on the one hand, and, on the other, makes no provision for the in troduction of Slavery into any part of the new Territories. That proviso has been the fruitful source of distraction and agitation. If it were adopted and applied to any Territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such Territory were admitted as a State into the Union. There was never any occasion for it to accomplish the professed object with which it was originally offered. This has been clearly demonstrated by the current of events. California, of all the recent territorial acquisitions from Mexico, was that in which, if anywhere within them, the introduction of Slavery was most likely to take place; and the constitution of California, by the unanimous vote of her convention, has expressly interdicted it. There is the highest degree of probability that Utah and New-Mexico will, when they come to be admitted as States, follow the example. The proviso is, as to all those regions in common, a mere abstraction. Why should it be any longer insisted on? Totally destitute as it is of any practical import, it has, nevertheless, had the pernicious effect to excite serious, if not alarming, consequences. It is high time that the wounds which it has inflicted should be healed up and closed. And, to avoid, in all future time, the agitations which must be produced by the conflict of opinion on the Slavery question, existing as this institution does in some of the States, and prohibited as it is in others, the true principle which ought to regulate the action of Congress in forming Territorial Governments for each newly acquired domain, is to refrain from all legislation on the subject in the Territory acquired, so long as it retains the Territorial form of Government-leaving it to the people of such Territory, when they have attained to the condition which entitles them to admission as a State, to decide for themselves the question of the allow. ance or prohibition of domestic Slavery.) The The Committee beg leave next to report on the subject of the Northern and Western boundary of Texas. On that question a great diversity of opinion has prevailed. According to one view of it, the western limit of Texas was the Nueces; according to another, it extended to the Rio Grande, and stretched from its mouth to its source. A majority of the Committee having come to the conclusion of recommending an amicable adjustment of the boundary with Texas, abstain from expressing any opinion as to the true and legitimate western and northern boundary of that State. The terms proposed for such an adjustment are contained in the bill herewith reported, and they are, with inconsiderable variation, the same as that reported by the Committee on Territories. According to these terms, it is proposed to Texas that her boundary be recognized to the Rio Grande, and up that river to the point commonly called El Paso, and thence running up that river twenty miles, measured thereon by a straight line, and thence eastwardly to a point where the hundredth degree of west longitude crosses Red River; being the southwest angle in the line designated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line of the territory set apart for the Indians by the United States. If this boundary be assented to by Texas, she will be quieted to that extent in her title. And some may suppose that, in consideration of this concession by the United States, she might, without any other equivalent, relinquish any claim she has beyond the proposed boundary; that is, any claim to any part of New-Mexico. But, under the influence of sentiments of justice and great liberality, the bill proposes to Texas, for her relinquishment of any such claim, a large pecuniary equivalent. As a consideration for it, and considering that a portion of the debt of Texas was created on a pledge to her creditors of the duties on foreign imports, transferred by the resolution of Annexation to the United States, and now received and receivable in her treasury, a majority of the Committee recommend the payment of the sum of millions of dollars to Texas, to be applied in the first instance to the extinction of that portion of her debt for the reimbursement of which the duties on foreign imports were pledged as aforesaid, and the residue in such manner as she may direct. The sum is to be paid by the United States, in a stock, to be created, bearing five per cent. interest annually, payable half-yearly, at the treasury of the United States, and the principal reimbursable at the end of fourteen years. According to an estimate which has been made, there are included in the territory to which it is proposed that Texas shall relinquish her claim, embracing that part of New-Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, a little less than 124,933 square miles, and about 79,957,120 acres of land. From the proceeds of the sale of this land, the United States may ultimately be reimbursed a portion, if not the whole, of the amount of what is thus proposed to be advanced to Texas. It cannot be anticipated that Texas will decline to accede to these liberal propositions; but if she should, it is to be distinctly understood that the title of the United States to any territory acquired from Mexico east of the Rio Grande will remain unimpaired, and in the same condition as if the proposals of adjustment now offered had never been made. A majority of the Committee recommend to the Senate that the section containing these proposals to Texas shall be incorporated into the bill embracing the admission of California as a State, and the establishment of territorial governments for Utah and New-Mexico. The definition and establishment of the boundary between NewMexico and Texas have an intimate and necessary connection with the establishment of a territorial government for New-Mexico. To form a territorial government for New-Mexico, without prescribing the limits of the Territory, would leave the work imperfect and incomplete, and might expose New-Mexico to serious controversy, if not dangerous collisions, with the State of Texas. And most, if not all, the considerations which unite in favor of combining the bill for the admission of California as a State and the Territorial bills, apply to the boundary question of Texas. By the union of the three measures, every question of difficulty and division which has arisen out of the territorial acquisitions from Mexico, will, it is hoped, be adjusted, or placed in a train of satisfactory adjustinent. The Committee, availing themselves of the arduous and valuable labors of the Committee on Territories, report a bill, herewith annexed, (marked A,) embracing those three measures, the passage of which, uniting them together, they recommend to the Senate. The Committee will now proceed to the consideration of, and to report upon, the subject of persons owing service or labor in one State escaping into another. The text of the Constitution is quite clear: "No person held to labor or service in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due." Nothing can be more explicit than this language -nothing more manifest than the right to demand, and the obligation to deliver up to the claimant, any such fugitive. And the Constitution addresses itself alike to the States composing the Union and to the General Government. If, indeed, there were any difference in the duty to enforce this portion of the Constitution between the States and the Federal Government, it is more clear that it is that of the former than of the lat ter. But it is the duty of both. It is well known and incontestable that citizens of slaveholding States encounter the greatest difficulty in obtain ing the benefit of this provision of the Constitution. ception of their duty, arising under the Constitution of the United States. It is true that a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has given countenance to them in withholding their assistance. But the Committee cannot but believe that the intention of the Supreme Court has been misunderstood. They cannot but think that that Court merely meant that laws of the several States, which created obstacles in the way of the recovery of fugitives, were not authorized by the Constitution, and not that the State laws affording facilities in the recovery of fugitives were forbidden by that instrument. The non-slaveholding States, whatever sympathies any of their citizens may feel for persons who escape from other States, cannot discharge themselves from an obligation to enforce the Constitution of the United States. All parts of the instru ment being dependent upon, and connected with, each other, ought to be fairly and justly enforced. If some States may seek to exonerate themselves from one portion of the Constitution, other States may endeavor to evade the performance of the other portions of it; and thus the instrument, in some of the most important provisions, might become inoperative and invalid. But, whatever may be the conduct of individual States, the duty of the General Government is perfectly clear. That duty is, to amend the existing law, and provide an effectual remedy for the recovery of fugitives from service or labor. In devising such a remedy, Congress ought, whilst, on the one hand, securing to the owner the fair restoration of his property, effectually to guard, on the other, against any abuses in the application of that remedy. In all cases of arrest, within a State, of persons charged with offenses; in all cases of the pursuit of fugitives from justice from one State to another State; in all cases of extradition, provided for by treaties between foreign powers-the proceeding uniformly is summary. It has never been thought necessary to apply, in cases of that kind, the forms and ceremonies of a final trial. And, when that trial does take place, it is in the State or country from which the party has fled, and not in that in which he has found refuge. By the express language of the Constitution, whether the fugitive is held to service or labor, or not, is to be determined by the laws of the State from which he fled; and, consequently, it is most proper that the tribunals of that State should expound and administer its own laws. If there have been any instances of abuse, in the erroneous arrest of fugitives from service or labor, the Committee have not obtained knowledge of them. They believe that none have occurred, and that such are not likely to occur. But, in order to guard against the possibility of their occurrence, the committee have prepared, and herewith report, a section, (marked B,) to be offered to the fugitive bill now before the Senate. According to this section, the owner of a fugitive from service or labor is, when practicable, to carry with him to the State in which the person is found a record from a competent tribunal, adjudicating the fact of elopement and slavery, with a general description of the fugitive. This record, properly attested and certified under the official seal of the court, being taken to the State where the person owing service or labor is found, is to be held competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which had been adjudicated, and will leave nothing more to be done than to identify the fugitive. The attempt to recapture a fugitive is almost always a subject of great irritation and excitement, and often leads to most unpleasant, if not perilous, collisions. An owner of a slave, it is quite notorious, cannot pursue his property, for the purpose of its recovery, in some of the States, without imminent personal hazard. This is a deplorable state of things, which ought to be remedied. The law of 1793 has been found wholly ineffectual, and requires more stringent enactments. There is especially a deficiency in Numerous petitions have been presented praythe number of public functionaries authorized to ing for a trial by jury, in the case of arrest of afford aid in the seizure and arrest of fugitives. fugitives from service or labor in the non-slaveVarious States have declined to afford aid and holding States. It has been already shown that cooperation in the surrender of fugitives from this would be entirely contrary to practice and labor, as the Committee believe, from a miscon-uniform usage in all similar cases. Under the name of a popular and cherished institution-an institution, however, never applied in cases of preliminary proceeding, and only in cases of final trial-there would be a complete mockery of justice, so far as the owner of the fugitive is concerned. If the trial by jury be admitted, it would draw after it its usual consequences; of continuance from time to time, to bring evidence from distant places; of second or new trials, in cases where the jury is hung, or the verdict is set aside; and of revisals of the verdict and conduct of the juries by competent tribunals. Dur ing the progress of all these dilatory and expensive proceedings, what security is there as to the custody and forthcoming of the fugitive upon their termination ? And if, finally, the claimant should be successful, contrary to what happens in ordinary litigation between free persons, he would have to bear all the burdens and expenses of the litigation, without indemnity, and would learn, by sad experience, that he had by far better abandon his right in the first instance, than to establish it at such unremunerated cost and heavy sacrifice. But, whilst the Committee conceive that a trial by jury in a State where a fugitive from service or labor is recaptured, would be a virtual denial of justice to the claimant of such fugitive, and would be tantamount to a positive refusal to execute the provision of the Constitution, the same objections do not apply to such a trial in the State from which he fled. In the slaveholding States, full justice is administered, with entire fairness and impartiality, in cases of all actions for freedom. The person claiming his freedom is allowed to sue in forma pauperis; counsel is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect his witnesses and to attend the sessions of the court; and his claimant is placed under bond and security, or is divested of the possession during the progress of the trial, to insure the enjoyment of these privileges; and, if there be any leaning on the part of courts and juries, it is always to the side of the claimant for freedom. likely to be agreed to. It could not be done with. out exciting great apprehension and aların in the Slave States. If the power were exercised within this District, they would apprehend that, under some pretext or another, it might hereafter be attempted to be exercised within the slaveholding States. It is true that, at present, all such power within those States is almost unanimously disavowed and disclaimed in the Free States. But, experience in public affairs has too often shown that where there is a desire to do a particular thing, the power to accomplish it, sooner or later, will be found or assumed. Nor does the number of Slaves within the District make the abolition of Slavery an object of any such consequence as appears to be attached to it in some parts of the Union. Since the retrocession of Alexandria county to Virginia on the south side of the Potomac, the District now consists only of Washington county on the north side of that river; and the returns of the decennary enumeration of the people of the United States show a rapidly progressing decrease in the number of slaves in Washington county. According to the census of 1830, the number was 4,505; and in 1840, it was reduced to 3,320; showing a reduction in ten years of nearly one-third. If it should continue in the same ratio, the number, according to the census now about to be taken, will be only a little upward of two thousand. But a majority of the Committee think differently in regard to the Slave-Trade within the District. By that trade is meant the introduction of slaves from adjacent States into the District, for sale, or to be placed in dépôt for the purpose of subsequent sale or transportation to other and distant markets. That trade, a majority of the Committee are of opinion, ought to be abolished. Complaints have always existed against it, no less on the part of members of Congress from the South than on the part of members from the North. It is a trade sometimes exhibiting revolting spectacles, and one in In deference to the feelings and prejudices which the people of the District have no interwhich prevail in non-slaveholding States, the est, but, on the contrary, are believed to be deCommittee propose such a trial in the State from sirous that it should be discontinued. Most, if which the fugitive fled, in all cases where he de- not all, of the slaveholding States have, either in clares to the officer giving the certificate for his their constitutions or by penal enactments, proreturn that he has a right to his freedom. Ac-hibited a trade in slaves as merchandise within cordingly, the Committee have prepared, and report herewith, (marked C), two sections which they recommend should be incorporated in the fugitive bill, pending in the Senate. According to these sections, the claimant is placed under bond, and required to return the fugitive to that county in the State from which he fled, and there to take him before a competent tribunal, and allow him to assert and establish his freedom, if he can, affording to him for that purpose all needful facilities. The Committee indulge the hope that if the Fugitive bill, with the proposed amendments, shall be passed by Congress, it will be effectual to secure the recovery of all fugitives from service or labor, and it will remove all causes of complaint which have hitherto been experienced on that irritating subject. But, if in its practical operation it shall be found insufficient, and if no adequate remedy can be devised for the restoration to their owners of fugitive slaves, those owners shall have a just title to indemnity out of the Treasury of the United States. their respective jurisdictions. Congress, standing in regard to this District, on this subject, in a relation similar to that of the State Legislatures, to the people of the States, may safely follow the example of the States. The Committee have prepared, and herewith report, a bill for the abolition of that trade (marked D), the passage of which they recommend to the Senate. This bill has been framed after the model of what the law of Maryland was when the General Government was removed to Washington. The views and recommendations contained in this report may be recapitulated in a few words: 1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new State or States; 2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed; It remains to report upon the resolutions in 3. The establishment of territorial governments, relation to Slavery and the Slave-Trade in the without the Wilmot Proviso, for New-Mexico District of Columbia. Without discussing the and Utah, embracing all the territory recently power of Congress to abolish Slavery within the acquired by the United States from Mexico, not District, in regard to which a diversity of opin-contained in the boundaries of California; ion exists, the Committee are of opinion that it ought not to be abolished. It could not be done without indispensable conditions, which are not 4. The combination of these two last-mentioned measures in the same bill; 5. The establishment of the western and north ern boundaries of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New-Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New-Mexico; 6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into another State; and, 7. Abstaining from abolishing Slavery; but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. "shall, when ready, able, and willing to become a State, and deserving to be such, be admitted with or without Slavery, as the people thereof shall desire, and make known through their Constitution." This was rejected: Yeas 19 (all Southern); Nays 36. July 10th.-The discussion was interrupted by the death of President Taylor. Millard Fillmore succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King of Alabama was chosen President of the Senate, pro tempore. July 15th.-The bill was reported to the Senate and amended so as to substitute "that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting" Slavery in the new territories, instead of "in respect to" it. Yeas 27; Nays 25. Mr. Seward moved to add at the end of the 37th section: tude shall be allowed in either of the Territories "But neither Slavery nor involuntary serviof New-Mexico or Utah, except on legal conviction for crime." If such of these several measures as require legislation should be carried out by suitable acts of Congress, all controversies to which our late territorial acquisitions have given rise, and all existing questions connected with the institution of Slavery, whether resulting from those acquisitions, or from its existence in the States and the District of Columbia, will be amicably settled and adjusted, in a manner, it is confidently believed, to give general satisfaction to an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States. Congress will have fulfilled its whole duty in regard to the vast country which, having been ceded by Mexico to the United States, has fallen under their dominion. It will have extended to it protection, provided for its several parts the inestimable blessing of free and regular government, adapted to their various wants, and placed the whole under the banner and the flag of the United States. Meeting courageously its clear and entire duty. Congress will escape the unmerited reproach of having, from consideraMr. Benton moved a change in the protions of doubtful policy, abandoned to an unde-posed boundary between Texas and Newserved fate territories of boundless extent, with a Mexico. Rejected: Yeas 18; Nays 36. sparse, incongruous, and alien, if not unfriendly population, speaking different languages, and accustomed to different laws, whilst that population is making irresistible appeals to the new sovereignty to which they have been transferred for protection, for government, for law, and for order. The Committee have endeavored to present to the Senate a comprehensive plan of adjustment, which, removing all causes of existing excitement and agitation, leaves none open to divide the country and disturb the general harmony. The nation has been greatly convulsed, not by measures of general policy, but by questions of a sectional character, and, therefore, more dangerous, and more to be deprecated. It wants repose. It loves and cherishes the Union. And it is most cheering and gratifying to witness the outbursts of deep and abiding attachment to it, which have been exhibited in all parts of it, amidst all the trials through which we have passed, and are passing. A people so patriotic as those of the United States, will rejoice in an accommodation of all troubles and difficulties by which the safety of that Union might have been brought into the least danger. And, under the blessing of that Providence who, amidst all vicissitudes, has never ceased to extend to them His protecting care, His smiles, His blessings, they will continue to advance in population, power, and prosperity, and work out triumphantly the glorious problem of man's capacity for self-gov. ernment. The Senate proceeded to debate from day to day the provisions of the principal bill thus reported, commonly termed " the Omnibus." June 28th.-Mr. Soulé of Louisiana moved that all south of 36° 30' be cut off from California, and formed into a territory entitled South California, and that said territory Which was negatived; Yeas and Nays not taken. July 17th.--The Senate resumed the consideration of the "Omnibus bill." Mr. Foote moved that the 34th parallel of north latitude be the northern boundary of Texas throughout. Lost Yeas 20; Nays 34. July 19th.-Mr. King moved that the parallel of 35° 30' be the southern boundary of the State of California. Rejected: Yeas 20; Nays 37. Mr. Davis of Mississippi moved 36o 30'. Rejected: Yeas 23; Nays 32. July 23d.-Mr. Turney of Tenn. moved that the people of California be enabled to form a new State Constitution. Lost : Yeas 19; Nays 33. Mr. Jeff. Davis of Mississippi moved to add: "And that all laws and usages existing in said United States, which deny or obstruct the right Territory, at the date of its acquisition by the of any citizen of the United States to remove to, and reside in, said Territory, with any species of property legally held in any of the States of this Union, be, and are hereby declared to be, null and void." This was rejected: Yeas 22; Nays 33. July 24th.-Mr. Rusk moved that the Rio Grande del Norte be the western boundary of Texas throughout, as defined in her statute of limits. Rejected: Yeas 18 (all Southern); Nays 34 (Douglas not voting). July 25th.-Mr. Hale moved that the true boundary of Texas be ascertained and conformed to, without prejudice on account of anything contained in this bill. Rejected: Yeas 23; Nays 30. Mr. Benton moved an amendment intended to exclude from Texas every portion of NewMexico. Rejected: Yeas 16; Nays 38. July 26th.-Mr. Seward moved that New-Mexico be admitted as a State into the Union. Rejected: Yeas 1 (Seward); Nays 42. July 29th.-Mr. Dayton of N. J. moved that the true northern boundary of Texas be ascertained and settled by an amicable suit before the Supreme Court. Rejected: Yeas 18; Nays 34. Mr. Mason of Virginia moved that the proposed commissioners to settle the boundary of Texas be authorized, in case the true legal boundary be found impracticable, to agree on and fix a convenient compromise boundary. Lost, by a tie: Yeas 29; Nays 29. Mr. Turney moved that no pecuniary consideration be given for any change from the rightful boundary of Texas. Rejected: Yeas 20; Nays 31. July 30th.-Mr. Walker of Miss. moved that this bill do lie on the table. Yeas 25; Nays 32. Lost: Mr. Dawson of Ga. now moved the following additional section : "And be it further enacted, That, until such time as the boundary line between the State of Texas and the territory of the United States be agreed to by the Legislature of the State of Texas and the government of the United States, the Territorial government authorized by this act shall not go into operation east of the Rio Grande, nor shall any State be established for New-Mexico, embracing any territory east of the Rio Grande." This prevailed by the following vote-30 to 28-and gave the death-blow to the "Omnibus Bill." Yulee-30. Messrs. Baldwin, Hamlin, Mr. Bradbury's amendment, thus amended, prevailed by a similar vote: Yeas 30; Nays 28. [It provided for the appointment of commissioners to determine, in connection with commissioners to be chosen by Texas, the Northern boundary of that State.] July 31st.-Mr. Norris of N. H. moved 66 nor estabto strike from the bill the words, lishing nor prohibiting African Slavery" (which words deny to the Territorial Legislatures the power to establish or prohibit Carried Yeas 32; Nays 20. Slavery). (Nays all Southern, but Ewing of Ohio and Whitcomb of Ind.-Cass, Clay, Dayton, Dickinson, Douglas, Seward, etc., in the affirmative.) Mr. Pearce of Md. now moved to strike from the bill so much thereof as provides a Territorial Government for New-Mexico, and for settling the boundary between her and Texas. Carried: Yeas 33 (including all the opponents of a compromise, whether from the North or the South, and all those averse to paying Texas ten millions of dollars for relinquishing her pretensions to absorb New-Mexico, with some who would not vote in this conjunction for the portions of "the Omnibus" severally disapproved of ;) Nays 22: YEAS-For breaking up "the Omnibus": Hunter, Mason, Miller, Berrien, Morton, |