that the Constitution gives you the right to carry your slaves into New Mexico this side of the Rio Del Norte. The bill leaves in full force the paramount authority of the Constitution. The conclusion then is irresistible, that if there be slavery there now, or if there be authority to carry slaves there, either by the prevalence of the Texan law or by the authority of the Constitution, those rights will continue unimpaired and in full force, notwithstanding the passage of this bill. On the other hand, if the Texan authority and Texan law never reached New Mexico, which is my private opinion, it follows that New Mexico continued, notwithstanding the passage of the act of 1836 by the Texan Congress, to be a part of the Mexican republic, and if it never were detached from that republic by the arms of Texas, and the Texan laws never stretched over New Mexico, it follows that, up to the moment of the cession of that territory to the United States by the republic of Mexico, the laws of that republic having, according to my humble conception, abolished slavery, slavery does not exist there, and the territory will be appropriated to the principle of free soil. Now, what ought to be done more satisfactory to both sides of the question, to the free States and to the slaveholding States, than to apply the principle of nonintervention to the state of the law in New Mexico, and to leave the question of slavery or no slavery to be decided by the only competent authority that can definitely settle it forever, the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States?

The honorable member from Connecticut (Mr. Baldwin) on yesterday wanted the law settled. He was answered in a manner triumphantly and irrefutably by the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) that we have no authority so to do. If we were to declare what the pre-existing law was, it would have to be done in the form of a declaratory statute. The effect of a declaratory statute I take to be this. Although the declaratory statute can not alter the pre-existing law, it becomes, with regard to the future state of the law, equivalent to a new enactment from its date. Suppose, then, we were to make a declaration of the law pleasing to the learned senator, whose eminence at the bar, and the knowledge of whose eminence is not confined to one State, but has been coextensive with the Union, how, if we were to attempt to settle this question, could it be settled? In the first place we can not settle it, because of the great diversity of opinion which exists; and yet the senator will ask those who differ with him in opinion to surrender their opinion, and, after they have made this sacrifice of opinion, can they declare what the law is? When the question comes before the Supreme Court of the United States, that tribunal alone will declare what the law is.

Mr. President, I did not rise, as I said, to discuss the state of facts under the operation of the bill now under consideration. But, while I am up, I should be wanting in the discharge of my whole duty, if I did not advert to the present condition of New Mexico. Has any man cast his eyes on that country, can any American statesman propose to leave this question

unsettled, without entertaining the most serious apprehensions of a domestic difficulty which will end in blood and slaughter? Already, according to the information which I have received, there has been a conflict between the people of Santa Fé and some persons-according to the account which I saw, about a hundred-in the employment of the quartermaster's department of the general government, under the direction and control of that military government, that lieutenant-colonel, who now holds in his hands perhaps the destinies of Santa Fé and New Mexico. He looks on wholly indifferent, and is neutral in the struggle about to arise between the people of Santa Fé, composed, I understand, of American citizens, Mexicans, and Spaniards, this side of the Rio del Norte, and the authorities of Texas. And this neutrality is to be kept by the appointed governor, the military governor, the lieutenant-colonel, who has the dealing out of civil commissions, acting, it is true, under one of the departments in Washington, as if he were the Autocrat of the Russias. This military governor, this lieutenant-colonel, who has been placed over this people, and who, as their guardian, is bound to protect them, looks with cold indifference upon that struggle already begun in the streets of Santa Fé, in the conflict, according to my information, of some one hundred men on each side, those in the service of this government taking part with Texas! It was suppressed, ultimately, it is true, by the application of some portion of that force under his command.

Now, Mr. President, I put it to the Senate and to the country-dismissing altogether the question of the title of Texas to the Nueces, or to the Rio Grande, leaving out of view the extent of concession from the slaveholding States to the free States, or from the free States to the slaveholding States-leaving out of view all these considerations, I submit, if you do not know that there is a most insuperable antipathy existing be tween the people of Santa Fé and those of Texas. We know they can not live happily together, and the inevitable result of doing nothing will be to lead to civil war. I ask you, waiving all these considerations about right,

and about whether the Nueces or the Rio Grande was the western limit of Texas-waiving the question of the extent of free or slave territory gained by one or the other party-I ask if our obligations with regard to the people of Santa Fé do not impose on us the obligation to make some effort to dissever them from the authority of Texas, to which they are so unalterably determined not to be attached? Such is my view of the case.

I believe that there has prevailed a most extensive misconception of what is granted to the South by dissevering New Mexico from Texas. It is said that the South will gain nothing by that. Have I not shown that she will gain three times as much as the North, even assuming that New Mexico shall be free territory, and whether or not the Texan law, or the Constitution of the United States, carries slavery there?

I have felt it my duty to make this brief exposition of the reason why I think the amendment should not be adopted, and the bill should be allowed to stand as originally reported.

ON ECONOMY OF
OF TIME.

IN SENATE, JUNE 26 & JULY 2, 1850.

[FEEBLE as Mr. Clay's health was, and having already been engaged nearly seven months in endeavoring to bring about the Compromises of 1850, we find him, on the 26th of June, moving in the Senate to meet at the hour of eleven o'clock, instead of twelve; and, on the 2d of July, earnestly opposing the fixing of a day of adjournment of Congress, until these great questions could be settled.]

June 26. Mr. Clay said:

Mr. President, I rise to move that when the Senate adjourn it adjourn to meet to-morrow at 11 o'clock, and at that hour every day thereafter, until otherwise ordered.

Sir, I complain of no one, I reproach no one, when I say, that it does appear to me, that, out of respect for ourselves, out of respect for the country, out of respect for the duty which we owe to the other public business of the country, we should ascertain what is to be the fate of this bill. I could not, this morning, refrain from making a contrast between the proceedings of another legislative body over the sea and our own. Upon a question as to the organic law of the government of France, limiting and restricting, to a great extent, the elective franchise, a body composed of upward of seven hundred members decided the question in less than ten days, passed the bill, and submitted it to the proper authority to be acted upon. And here we have been nearly two whole months upon a single bill, and if any man can see when the question is to terminate, I own, for one, that I am in utter darkness. My purpose, therefore, is to move that we meet again at 11 o'clock; and I shall insist, if the motion prevail, that we sit from day to day, until a decision is had. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

MR. HALE. Mr. President, I hope the yeas and nays may be taken on this motion. I have risen simply to say that, for one, I shall vote against it.

MR. CLAY. I supposed so.

Also, same day:

Mr. President, the senator from New Hampshire is in his usual vocation. There has not been a proposition for dilatory proceedings in relation to

this bill, since its origin to this moment, to which he has not lent his aid, his countenance, and his support. He is in his accustomed vocation.

Sir, did I cite the proceeding in France for the purpose of approving the privation of the right of suffrage from two thirds of the people? If the senator says so, it is a great perversion of the purpose for which I cited it. I cited it to show that upon a great national measure, involving the rights of thousands upon thousands, the French Chamber of Deputies, in about ten days, came to a final decision.

If you go to the other side of the channel, you will find that it is not common, in the British House of Commons, to extend the discussions on any measure, whatever may be its object or character, more than a week or ten days. And yet here, nearly two months have been exhausted in the consideration of this measure. The senator tells us that this has resulted from the fact of connecting together measures, contrary to the usual mode of parliamentary proceeding. I deny the fact. This conjunction is not contrary to parliamentary law. I vindicated the conjunction of the measures in a manner which no one has yet ventured to answer. It depends upon the discretion, the sound discretion of the Senate, whether it will mix one or more measures together, and upon the final passage of any such combined measure every man must decide for himself, and according to his own conscientious convictions, whether he will vote for the combined measures or not; just as in the case of a tariff, combining thousands of items, with some of which he is satisfied, and to others of which he is opposed, he votes for or against the tariff, according to the manner in which he supposes there is contained in it a distribution of good or evil. But even supposing the objection to hold good that this measure is composed of incongruous parts, is it never to be decided? Why, sir, the week before last it was hoped, it was believed by every body, that we should arrive at a decision by the last of this week. Now no man thinks of any such thing. When, I ask, are we to come to a decision of it?

Sir, I can go before the country without fear, without trembling, as to the judgment which will be pronounced upon the course of action pursued by the Senate of the United States. Let the country decide, and decide it by the yeas and nays upon propositions for adjournment, who has procrastinated this measure. And does the honorable senator expect by delay, by procrastination, to prevent, finally and ultimately, a vote upon this measure? If not, why not come to a vote? Why not accelerate our arrival at that vote by meeting earlier, sitting longer, and sitting every working day in the week if necessary?

Mr. President, I regret this opposition. I am not, however, surprised at it, because it has been encountered in every stage of the progress of this measure. But, in spite of that opposition, I trust that a majority, a large majority, of the Senate will be found in favor of restoring the 11 o'clock hour for meeting and going on with this business until we can arrive at a conclusion..

July 2. On motion by Mr. Yulee, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution, submitted by him yesterday:

Resolved, that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives do adjourn their respective Houses on Thursday, the first day of August next, at twelve o'clock, meridian.

MR. CLAY. Mr. President, I should be very glad to learn what view has been taken by the honorable senator from Florida of the actual state of the public business, and the probability, by the time proposed in that resolution, of disposing of it, which is indispensable to the public service. There are questions in relation to the formation of territorial governments in our recently-acquired acquisitions from Mexico; there are questions relating to the subject of slavery within the United States and in these Territories, and I do trust that Congress will not think of an adjournment without some final and decisive adjustment of these questions, or at least the ascertainment of the utter impracticability of settling any of these questions. Besides, there are the appropriation bills, with respect to which I believe no progress has been made-bills which ordinarily have occupied of themselves more time than will elapse between now and the time proposed for the adjournment.

Indeed, with any view which I can take of the condition of public affairs, I think nothing would be more inexpedient than for the Senate at this time to commit itself to any day of adjournment, but especially one so near at hand as that which is proposed. There is no member of this body more anxious than I am that this session of Congress should come to a termination. But I would as soon quit the field of battle at the moment when our arms were directed against a foreign enemy, and when it was my duty to expose my life to the utmost hazard-I would as soon, aye, sooner, flee from such a field of battle, than I would quit my post here, and leave the country in the position in which it would be left if we do not settle these matters.

Sir, we are without even any suggestion from the honorable senator from Florida of the possibility of accomplishing the great works which lie before us, and which ought to be disposed of before we adjourn. It is with feelings of regret that I must say that we have not had the assistance of the honorable senator in our endeavors to settle these agitating questions.

There is an idea that, when there is a fixed day of adjournment, some moral or parliamentary coercion will operate upon members, and compel them to accelerate the dispatch of business. I can not act in reference to the great questions now pending upon any such hope as that. Thinking, then, that it would be altogether improper and highly imprudent to fix at this time a day for the adjournment of Congress, and especially to fix such an early day, I move that the resolution now under consideration be postponed until this day fortnight. By that time we shall, perhaps, be able to have a clearer view of what remains to be done, and of the time in which it can be done.