be in reality so or not-that Slavery never can go
there. This is what is stated, however. Well,
be it so. If slave labor be not profitable there,
it will not go there; or, if it go, who will be
benefited? Not the South. They will never
compel it to go there. We are misunderstood-
grossly, I may say-by honorable Senators,
though not intentionally; but we are contending
for a principle, and a great principle-a principle
lying at the very foundation of our constitutional
rights-involving, as has been remarked, our
property; in one word, involving our safety, our
honor, all that is dear to us, as American free-
men. Well, sir, for that principle we will be com-
pelled to contend to the utmost, and to resist ag-
gression at every hazard and at every sacrifice.
That is the position in which we are placed. We
ask no act of Congress as has been properly in-
timated by the Senator from Mississippi-to carry
Slavery anywhere. Sir, I believe we have as
much constitutional power to prohibit Slavery
from going into the territories of the United
States, as we have to pass an act carrying Slave-
ry there.
We have no right to do either the one
or the other. I would as soon vote for the Wil-
mot Proviso as I would vote for any law which
required that Slavery should go into any of the
Territories."

Mr. Downs of Louisiana said:

"I must confess that, in the whole course of my life, my astonishment has never been greater than it was when I saw this [Mr. Clay's] proposition brought forward as a compromise; and rise now, sir, not for the purpose of discussing it at all, but to protest most solemnly against it. I consider this compromise as no compromise at all. What, sir, does it grant to the South? I can see nothing at all. The first resolution offer ed by the honorable Senator proposes to admit the State of California with a provision prohibit ing Slavery in territory which embraces all our possessions on the Pacific. It is true, there may be a new regulation of the boundary hereafter; but, if there were to be such a regulation, why was it not embraced in this resolution? As no boundary is mentioned, we have a right to presume that the boundary established by the Constitution of California was to be received as the established boundary. What concession, then,

than this: That California is already disposed of having formed a State Constitution, and tha Territorial Governments shall be organized for Deseret and New-Mexico, under which, by the operation of laws already existing, a slaveholding population could not carry with them, or own slaves there. What is there in the nature of a compromise here, coupled, as it is, with the proposition that, by the existing laws in the Territories, it is almost certain that slaveholders cannot, and have no right to, go there with their property? What is there in the nature of a compromise here? I am willing, however, to run the risks, and am ready to give to the Territories the governments they require. I shall always think that, under a constitution giving equal rights to all parties, the slaveholding people, as such, can go to these Territories, and retain their property there. But, if we adopt this proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, it is clearly on the basis that Slavery shall not go there.

"I do not understand the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) to maintain the proposition, that the South asked or desired a law declaring that Slavery should go there, or that it maintained the policy even that it was the duty of Congress to pass such a law. We have only asked, and it is the only compromise to which we will submit, that Congress shall withhold the hand of violence from the Territories. The only way in which this question can be settled is, for gentlemen from the North to withdraw all their opposition to the Territorial Governments, and not insist on their Slavery Prohibition. The Union is then safe enough. Why, then, insist on a compromise, when those already made are sufficient for the peace of the North and South, if faithfully observed? These propositions are in the name of a compromise, when none is necessary."

The debate having engrossed the attention of the Senate for nearly two months

March 25th.—Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported the following bills:

Senate, 169.-A bill for the admission of California into the Union,

Senate, 170.-A bill to establish the Territorial other purposes.

is it from the North, that we admit a State thus / Governments of Utah and New-Mexico, and for

These bills were read, and passed to a second reading.

April 11th.-Mr. Douglas moved that Mr. Bell's resolves do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas 26; Nays 28.

prohibiting Slavery, embracing the whole of our possessions on the Pacific coast, according to these resolutions? As to the resolution relating to New-Mexico and Deseret, if it had simply contained the provision that a constitutional government shall be established there, without any mention of Slavery whatever, it would have been well enough. But, inasmuch as it is affirmed that Slavery does not now exist in these Territories, April 15th.-The discussion of Mr. Clay's does it not absolutely preclude its admission there? and the resolutions might just as well resolutions still proceeding, Colonel Benton affirm that Slavery should be prohibited in these moved that the previous orders be postponed, Territories. The Senator from Alabama, if I un- and that the Senate now proceed to conderstood him aright, maintains that the proposisider the bill (S. 169) for the admission of tion is of the same import as the Wilmot Pro- the State of California. viso; and, in view of these facts, I would ask, is there anything conceded to us of the South ?" ́ Mr. Butler of South Carolina said: 'Perhaps our Northern brethren ought to understand that all the Compromises that have been made, have been by concessions-acknowledged concessions-on the part of the South. When other compromises are proposed, that require new concessions on their part, whilst none are exacted on the other, the issue, at least, should be

Mr. Clay moved that this proposition do lie on the table. Carried: Yeas 27 (for a Compromise); Nays 24 (for a settlement without compromise).

The Senate now took up Mr. Bell's resolves aforesaid, when Mr. Benton moved that they lie on the table. Lost: Yeas 24; Nays 28.

Mr. Benton next moved that they be so presented for their consideration before they amended as not to connect or mix up the I understand it, the Senator from Kentucky's admission of California with any other whole proposition of compromise is nothing more question. Lost: Yeas 23; Nays 28.

Various modifications of the generic idea | Tennessee, Mr. Bell. By a provision in the were severally voted down, generally by large majorities.

Among the subjects referred to the Committee which command their first attention, are the reso- In considering the question of the admission lutions offered to the Senate by the Senator from | of California as a State into the Union, a majori

ed to their condition. Congress will fail in the performance of a high duty, if it do not give, or attempt to give to them, the benefit of such protection, government, and laws. They are not now, and for a long time to come may not be, prepared for State government. The territorial form, for the present, is best suited to their condition. A bill has been reported by the Committee on Territories, dividing all the territory acquired from Mexico, not comprehended within the limits of California, into two territories, under the names of New-Mexico and Utah, and proposing for each a territorial government.

ty of the Committee conceive that any irregu- | of providing for them government and laws suitlarity, by which that State was organized without the previous authority of an act of Congress, ought to be overlooked, in consideration of the omission by Congress to establish any territorial government for the people of California, and the consequent necessity which they were under to create a government for themselves, best adapted to their own wants. There are various instances, prior to the case of California, of the admission of new States into the Union without any previous authorization by Congress. The sole condition required by the Constitution of the United States, in respect to the admission of a new State, is, that its constitution shall be republican in form. California presents such a constitution; and there is no doubt of her having a greater population than that which, according to the practice of the government, has been heretofore deemed sufficient to receive a new State into the Union.

In regard to the proposed boundaries of California, the Committee would have been glad if there existed more full and accurate geographical knowledge of the territory which these boundaries include. There is reason to believe that, large as they are, they embrace no very disproportionate quantity of land adapted to cultivation. And it is known that they contain extensive ranges of mountains, deserts of sand, and much unproductive soil. It might have been, perhaps, better to have assigned to California a more limited front on the Pacific; but even if there had been reserved, on the shore of that ocean, a portion of the boundary which it presents, for any other State or States, it is not very certain that an accessible interior of sufficient extent could have been given to them to render an approach to the ocean, through their own limits, of very great importance.

The Committee recommend to the Senate the establishment of those territorial governments; and, in order more certainly to secure that desira ble object, they also recommend that the bill for their establishment be incorporated in the bill for the admission of California, and that, united together, they both be passed.

The combination of the two measures in the same bill is objected to on various grounds. It is said that they are incongruous, and have no necessary connection with each other. A majority of the Committee think otherwise. The object of both measures is the establishment of a government suited to the conditions, respectively, of the proposed new State and of the new Territories. Prior to their transfer to the United States, they both formed a part of Mexico, where they stood in equal relations to the government of that republic. They were both ceded to the United States by the same treaty. And, in the same article of that treaty, the United States engaged to protect and govern both. Common in their ori gin, common in their alienation from one foreign government to another, common in their wants of good government, and conterminous in some of their boundaries, and alike in many parA majority of the Committee think that there ticulars of physical condition, they have nearly are many and urgent concurring considerations everything in common in the relation in which in favor of admitting California, with the pro- they stand to the rest of this Union. There is, then, posed boundaries, and of securing to her at this a general fitness and propriety in extending the time the benefits of a State government. If, parental care of government to both in common. hereafter, upon an increase of her population, a If California, by a sudden and extraordinary augmore thorough exploration of her territory, and mentation of population, has advanced so rapidly an ascertainment of the relations which may as to mature for herself a State Government, that arise between the people occupying its various furnishes no reason why the less fortunate Territoparts, it should be found conducive to their con-ries of New-Mexico and Utah should be abanvenience and happiness to form a new State out of California, we have every reason to believe, from past experience, that the question of its admission will be fairly considered and justly de

cided.

A majority of the Committee, therefore, recommend to the Senate the passage of the bill reported by the Committee on Territories, for the admission of California as a State into the Union. To prevent misconception, the Committee also recommend that the amendment reported by the same Committee to the bill be adopted, so as to leave incontestable the right of the United States to the public domain and other public property of California.

Whilst a majority of the Committee believe it to be necessary and proper, under actual circumstances, to admit California, they think it quite as necessary and proper to establish governments for the residue of the territory derived from Mexico, and to bring it within the pale of the federal authority. The remoteness of that territory from the seat of the general government; the dispersed state of its population; the variety of races-pure and mixed of which it consists; the ignorance of some of the races of our laws, language, and habits; their exposure to inroads and wars of savage tribes; and the solemn stipulations of the treaty by which we acquired dominion over them -impose upon the United States the imperative obligation of extending to them protection, and

doned and left ungoverned by the United States, or should be disconnected with California, which, although she has organized for herself a State Government, must, legally and constitutionally, be regarded as a Territory until she is actually admitted as a State into the Union.

It is further objected that, by combining the two measures in the same bill, members who may be willing to vote for one, and unwilling to vote for the other, would be placed in an embarrassing condition. They would be constrained, it is urged, to take or reject both. On the other hand, there are other members who would be willing to vote for both united, but would feel themselves constrained to vote against the California bill if it stood alone. Each party finds in the bill which it favors something which commends it to acceptance, and in the other something which it disapproves. The true ground, therefore, of the objection to the union of the measures is not any want of affinity between them, but because of the favor or disfavor with which they are respectively regarded. In this conflict of opinion, it seems to a majority of the Committee that a spirit of mutual concession enjoins that the two measures should be connected together-the effect of which will be, that neither opinion will exclusively triumph, and that both may find, in such an amicable arrangement, enough of good to reconcile them to the acceptance of the com bined measure. And such a course of legisla

desire of an immense majority of the people of the United States, when they declare that it is high time that good feeling, harmony, and fraternal sentiment should be again revived, and that the Government should be able once more to proceed in its great operations to promote the happiness and prosperity of the country, undisturbed by this distracting cause.

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 exception was taken. It is inexpedient, if not impracticable, to separate these parts, and embody them in distinct bills, so as to accommodate the diversity of opinion which may exist. The Constitution of the United States contained in it a great variety of provisions, to some of which serious objection was made in the convention 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.

:

The Committee beg leave next to report of the subject of the Northern and Western bound. ary 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.

A majority of the Committee have, therefore, According to these terms, it is proposed to been led to the recommendation to the Senate Texas that her boundary be recognized to the Rio that the two measures be united. The bill for Grande, and up that river to the point commonly establishing the two Territories, it will be observ- called El Paso, and thence running up that river ed, omits the Wilmot proviso on the one hand, twenty miles, measured thereon by a straight and, on the other, makes no provision for the in-line, and thence eastwardly to a point where the troduction of Slavery into any part of the new Territories.

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.

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 According to an estimate which has been legislation on the subject in the Territory ac- made, there are included in the territory to which quired, so long as it retains the Territorial form it is proposed that Texas shall relinquish her of Government-leaving it to the people of such claim, embracing that part of New-Mexico lying Territory, when they have attained to the condi-east of the Rio Grande, a little less than 124,933 tion which entitles them to admission as a State, to decide for themselves the question of the allow. ance or prohibition of domestic Slavery. The

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

1

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.

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 auA majority of the Committee recommend to thorized by the Constitution, and not that the the Senate that the section containing these pro- State laws affording facilities in the recovery of posals to Texas shall be incorporated into the fugitives were forbidden by that instrument. The bill embracing the admission of California as a non-slaveholding States, whatever sympathies State, and the establishment of territorial govern- any of their citizens may feel for persons who ments for Utah and New-Mexico. The definition escape from other States, cannot discharge themand establishment of the boundary between New-selves from an obligation to enforce the ConstituMexico and Texas have an intimate and neces- tion of the United States. All parts of the instrusary connection with the establishment of a ter- ment being dependent upon, and connected with, ritorial government for New-Mexico. To form a each other, ought to be fairly and justly enforced. territorial government for New-Mexico, without If some States may seek to exonerate themprescribing the limits of the Territory, would selves from one portion of the Constitution, other leave the work imperfect and incomplete, and States may endeavor to evade the performanco might expose New-Mexico to serious controversy, of the other portions of it; and thus the instruif not dangerous collisions, with the State of ment, in some of the most important provisions, Texas. And most, if not all, the considerations might become inoperative and invalid." which unite in favor of combining the bill for the But, whatever may be the conduct of indiviadmission of California as a State and the Territo-dual States, the duty of the General Government rial 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 adjustment. 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 latter. 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.

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 excite ment, 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 pray. the 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