son, and when, after such employment of our intellectual faculties, I find myself in the minority, I am for submitting to the act of the majority. I am not for resorting to adjournments, calls for the adjournments, calls for the yeas and nays, and other dilatory proceedings, in order to delay that which, if the Constitution has full and fair operation, must inevitably take place. There is great loss of sleep, with great physical discomfort, in the one mode of proceeding, without any in the other. But, while this is my judgment of what is proper, in deliberative bodies, other gentlemen entertain different opinions. They think it fair to employ all the parliamentary means that are vested in them by the Constitution, or by the rules which regulate the body to which they belong, to defeat, impede, or delay to any extent the passage of the measure which they consider odious. I repeat, sir, I do not justify such a course; but we must take man as he is, with all his weaknesses and infirmities, and we can never expect to make him as we could wish him to be.

Now, the senator from Missouri has chosen to characterize this measure with unfairness of proceeding. Sir, if I were disposed to retort, which I am far from doing, I could say that there had been some unfairness in the argument of the senator from Missouri, when he endeavored to show that the pending proposition was to combine California, the territorial gov ernments for the two proposed Territories, the fixation of the line of Texas, the fugitive slave-bill, the bill for abolishing the slave-trade in this District, abolition, and God Almighty knows how many other subjects, which his imagination depicted as contemplated to be introduced into our omnibus. bill, and to be considered in that way. The senator from Missouri knows perfectly well that no such purpose existed, and he has no right to infer any purpose of the kind. No longer ago than Friday last, when I misunderstood my colleague, and supposed that his object was to combine this fugitive slave-bill with these measures, he rose at once and disclaimed any such intention. Sir, nobody has gone further in this proposed combination of subjects than the admission of California, the establishment of territorial governments, and-doubting its propriety, as I did on Friday, not being absolutely determined in my own mind-adding to these two measures the establishment of a suitable boundary for Texas, with the offer of an equivalent for the surrender of any title which she might be supposed to have in the territory so surrendered. Let us look, while on this subject of Texas, to another part of the senator's argument, and I put it to the candor of the senator to admit how unfair, how improper, at least, it is to suppose that, by such a combination as I have indicated, the result would be to give Texas a veto on California ? Who imagines that? You pass bill with the separate section for the admission of California, other sections in the same bill establishing governments in the two Territories, and other sections in relation to the proposition to Texas for the settlement of her boundary, making her certain offers, and this latter proposition dependent on the consent which Texas might or might not give. But suppose Texas

does not give her consent, does any body say that the other parts of the bill would become dead or nugatory? Each portion of the bill is of force and effect according to the object in view, and each might stand, although the other portion of the bill might be rendered null, in consequence of the non-concurrence of Texas in any other power.

It has been said that it is wrong to make those who might be in favor of the admission of California, and against the establishment of territorial governments, or vice versa, vote on such a combination-that it would be wrong to combine them in one bill, because they would have to vote against both, not liking a portion of the bill, or for both, still disliking a portion of the bill. And we are told that what the wisdom of California suggested in her Constitution-that is to say, the keeping of subjects separate and distinct is thereby to be disregarded. Now there is very little of practicability in this idea of a total separation of subjects. Suppose you have the California bill alone before you, is that a single idea? There is first the admission of the State, and secondly the proper boundaries of the State. Now there may be senators, if you had this single bill before you, who would say we are willing to admit a State, to be carved out of this territory, but we are against the boundaries proposed, and why not separate it into two bills, one for the admission of the State, and the other for the fixation of its limits. Why, thus you might go on, cutting subjects up into as many parts as they are capable of being divided into, and say that each one of them shall contain a single, and only a single, idea. Take the tariff bill. It contains five hundred items usually, and we have never passed a tariff bill, or given a vote upon it, without some parts of it being objectionable to some, or that did not contain items for which some man voted against his judgment, but which he did vote for, because of other items in the same bill. And so with the course we propose. If we combine together a bill for the admission of California, and for governments for the Territories, in the first place those who opposed the combination may oppose it. If it is introduced already in the bill, it may be proposed to strike out what relates to the Territories; or if it is proposed that they shall be added to the bill for the admission of California, they can move amendments, call for the yeas and nays, and thus show their opposition to the association of the measures together. But suppose the majority overrules them. Suppose there is a majority in favor of the association of the measures, and then the final question is put: Will you vote for or against the bill? And what are you to do in a case of that kind? Exactly what we would do in all human concerns. There is bad and good mixed together. You may vote against it if you please in toto, because of the bad there is in it, or you may vote for it, because you approve of the greater amount of good there is in it. The question for the time is, whether there is more of the good than of the bad in the bill; and if the good outweighs the bad, that will be a further consideration for voting for the whole

measure.

But, sir, my object now is to show that there is a perfect connection between the subjects proposed to be united, and I refer not to what the senator from Missouri has charged, but to the State of California, territorial governments for the Territories, and at most the fixation of the boundary of Texas. Sir, are these subjects connected together or are they not? Let us look at facts and at history. Let us appeal to the very facts which the senator from Missouri himself insists ought to be so influential on our judgment. Well, sir, California, New Mexico, and Utah, all were component parts of the Mexican republic, and they were ceded together, in association, to the republic of the United States. They were of a like grade of government in Mexico. All of them were provinces; none of them were States under the Mexican republic. They came here together, in association, under the treaty by which we acquired them. They came here at the last session together, all imploring the establishment of territorial governments within their respective limits. It was not done. Why was it not done? The South reproaches the North for not doing it, by saying, You insisted upon the introduction of the Wilmot proviso. The North reproaches the South by saying, You are responsible for it by opposing the Wilmot proviso.

Mr. President, both parties were wrong, and neither was wrong. They were wrong in the aggregate, but not wrong separately. They were wrong in the aggregate because Congress failed to devise and establish governments which it was called upon to do by all the solemn obligations of treaty stipulations, and all the solemn duties which resulted from the fact of the acquisition of those territories by this country. They were not wrong separately, because, you who contended for the proviso did so, I have no doubt, honestly, and you who opposed the proviso, did so, I have no doubt, honestly. It was a case, therefore of irreconcilable difference of opinion between two large parties in Congress; and their convictions, their consciences, respectively restrained them from yielding the one to the views of the other. No reproaches, therefore, I think, can justly be made by one party upon the other. It was a subject of deep and profound regret that proper governments were not then devised, but it was attributable solely to those unhappy divisions which sometimes exist in deliberative bodies, and prevent legislation. But, sir, these territories were all together-Utah, California, and New Mexico. One short year ago they were all territories, and allow me to say, however much it may be emphasized, that California is no State yet, and she can be no State until she has the seal and sanction of the paramount authority which pervades all this country. It is in the power of Congress, if it choose to exercise the right, to put down the present State government which has been established there, and establish a territorial government there. I am not disposed to charge on a community the misconduct or peculiar opinions of any individual of that community, but I must say what I have been constrained to feel, that I am pained to see with what contumacy, with what

disregard of the allegiance due from the States, old and new, they sometimes treat the parental and paramount authority. And I was lately-I will not say provoked, for the annoyance was too slight-somewhat grieved at seeing some letter-writers from California talking already of breaking off from this Union and setting up for themselves. They will venture on no such hazardous experiment as that. If they do, I venture to say the common authority of the Union will recall them to obedience and a sense of their duty very quickly. But, sir, these three Territories, one of which is now called a State, were component parts of Mexico, and they are now component parts of the United States; and allow me to say in reference to that part of the argument of the senator from Missouri which speaks of the wretched condition of California at this moment, with her mines of boundless extent of gold-that desperate condition, that anarchy with which she is threatened, that want of law which exists, that danger of breaking into pieces (for such I believe was the remark of the honorable senator) if there is not some legislation here-do not all these considerations, every one of them, apply with equal force, and ought they not to receive equal application, to the Territories of Utah and New Mexico? Why, in regard to New Mexico especially, she is not only at present without any government, except some patched-up military form of government, but she is at this moment threatened with civil war with her neighbor Texas, and if I were to single out of these three Territories, that in regard to which it was the most imperative duty of Congress at once to legislate, I would say it was New Mexico, and the adjustment of the boundary between her and Texas. Every consideration derived from anarchy, confusion, the want of government, the want of law, the danger from disorder which the senator has arrayed in reference to California, applies with full force and vigor to New Mexico. Well, how does this matter stand? The three sisters came here at the last session of Congress: New Mexico the eldest, California next, and Utah the youngest. They came here all soliciting territorial governments. Attempts were made to give them all territorial governments, but they failed. In the mean time, Miss California has made a runaway match of it—and she has not only done that, but she has taken as large a portion of the common patrimony of the whole as she pleases. She comes here now with her two sisters— the one older and the other younger-and cocks up her nose, and asks if you will associate her with those two girls. [Laughter.] Mr. President, I might laugh, if I did not feel the profoundest respect toward California; but, as was asked on another memorable occasion, "Ye gods, on what meat has our Cæsar fed, that he has grown so great?" I believe the meat of California would seem to be gold; for although it appears to abound in all parts of the country, yet it is said that they can not carry on the government without some loan. I have seen some documents of late from the Legislature of California, and I find in one of them a very sensible report to one branch of the Legislature, in which it is proposed to levy a

poll tax of five dollars, which it is said will collect an ample revenue by July next for all the purposes of the government. But is there not, in the nature of the subject—which is the establishment of governments for our recent acquisitions; is there not in the fact of their community of existence heretofore, and in the community of their present existence; is there not in the fact that we propose government for the one, matured, it is true, in the form of a State government, and for the others, governments also adapted to their peculiar condition-ample reason why they should be combined? And what is there, I ask, in the nature of the case, that offends the dignity of California, or renders it less to her honor to be associated hereafter, where she has always been associated heretofore, with Utah and New Mexico?

But, sir, the honorable senator from Missouri has endeavored to place himself behind precedent, and he asserted that in every instance of the admission of a new State the question of admission has stood by itself, unconnected with any measure whatever. Now, it is very remarkable that that honorable senator did not recollect the case of the admission of the very State of which he is such an able and efficient senator. Why, sir, that State was not admitted alone. Other subjects were connected with the act by which she was admitted. Here it is:

"An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories.

And the eighth section of the bill provides expressly, not merely for the establishment of a temporary territorial government, but a permanent, perpetual, fundamental law in reference to these other Territories:

"That in all the territories ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, lying north of 36° 30′ north latitude, not included within the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited."

What did we do in the case of Louisiana? In 1805 two territorial governments were established-one for the Territory of Orleans, and the other for the Territory of Louisiana; the latter one embracing the very State to which this provision in reference to slavery was applied. But if I were to open the records of this body what would they disclose? Not a Territory and a State combined, but two States, as far separated from each other as possible, were combined by the Senate of the United States in the same bill, and by a perseverance almost unexampled in the history of legislation, each House, having disagreed with the other-vote after vote was taken without any practical result. But they finally saw land, and the question was settled by the Senate yielding to the separation of the two