us in going there. All I ask is, that we may be treated as equals-that no insulting discrimination shall be drawn between southern and northern people-between southern property and northern property. How is this proposition regarded by the northern men to whom it is tendered, and by whom it may be accepted? The spirit in which it is accepted is a part of the res gesta; and I therefore press the inquiry, in what light is the proposition regarded?—in what spirit will it be accepted, if it is accepted at all, by northern men? When we shall have answered this inquiry, it will be seen whether there is leaven enough in this little lump to leaven the whole loaf. Mr. Webster is positive that we can never introduce slaves into the territory. "The laws of God," he thinks, will for ever forbid it. He, and those who go with him, will not vote for the "proviso," because it is unnecessary. They are opposed, uncompromisingly opposed, to the introduction of slaves into the territories; and they are ready to do anything that may be found necessary to keep them out. It is easy to see what they will do, if we commence introducing our slaves. They will at once say, "the laws of God" having failed us, we must try what virtue there is in the "Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay and those who follow him are quite certain that "we are already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, too, are opposed to the introduction of slavery into the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded. The northern men who stand out against the compromise, insist, and will continue to insist, on the Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that slavery will be permanently excluded. All, all are opposed to our going in with our slaves, and all are ready to employ whatever means may be necessary to keep us out. I assert the fact distinctly and emphatically, that we are told every day that if we attempt to introduce our slaves at any time into New Mexico or Utah, there will be an immediate application of the "Wilmot proviso," to keep us ont. Mark you, the proposition is to give territorial governments to New Mexico and Utah. These are but congressional acts, and may be altered, amended, explained, or repealed, at pleasure. No one here understands that we are entering into a compact, and no northern man votes for this compromise, with the expectation or understanding that we are to take our slaves into the territories. Whatever additional legislation may be found necessary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, we are given distinctly to understand will be resorted to. But there is yet another difficulty to be overcome, a more serious obstacle than either "the laws of God," as Mr. Webster understands them, or "the laws of Mexico," as understood by Mr. Clay. In regard to the first, I think Mr. Webster is wholly mistaken, and if he is not, I am willing to submit; and in regard to the second, I take the ground, that when we conquered the Mexican people, we conquered their laws. But Mr. Clay's bill contains a provision as prohibitory as the "proviso" itself. The territorial legislature is denied the right to legislate at all in respect to African slavery. If a master's slave absconds, no law can be passed by which he may recover him. If he is maimed, he can have no damages for the injury. If he is decoyed from his service, or harbored by a vicious neighbor, he is without remedy. A community of slaveholders may desire to make laws adapted to their peculiar wants in this respect, but Congress, by this compromise of Mr. Clay's, denies them the right to do so. They shall not legislate in regard to African slavery. What now becomes of the hypocritical cant about the right of the people to regulate their own affairs in their own way? With these facts before us, it becomes us to inquire how much we give and how much we take, in voting for Mr. Clay's bill. We admit Čalifornia, and, being once in, the question is settled so far as she is concerned. We can never get her out by any process short of a dissolution of the Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, and we give it beyond redemption and for ever. Our part of the bargain is binding. Our follies may rise up and mock us in after times, but we can never escape their effects. This much we give; now what do we take? We get a government for New Mexico and Utah, without the Wilmot proviso, but with a declaration that we are excluded already "by the laws of God and the Mexican nation," or get it with a prohibition against territorial legislation on the subject of slavery, and with a distinct threat constantly hanging over us, that if we attempt to introduce slaves against these prohibitions, the "Wilmot proviso" will be instantly applied for our more effectual exclusion. Such is the compromise. Such is the proposed bargain. Can you, fellow-citizens, expect me to vote for it? Will you demand of your representative to assist in binding you hand and foot, and turning you over to the tender mercies of the Free-Soilers? It is said, we can get nothing better than this. But is that any sufficient reason why we should vote for it ourselves? If I am beset with robbers, who are resolved on assassination, must I needs lay violent hands on myself? or if my friend is in extremis, must I strangle him? We can get nothing better, forsooth! In God's name, can we get anything worse? It is said that if we reject this, they will pass the "Wilmot proviso." Let them pass it; it will not be more galling than this. If the proviso fails to challenge our respect, it at least rises above our contempt. If it ever passes, it will be the Act of the American Congress of men learned in the law, and familiar with the abstruse readings of the Constitution. It will be done deliberately, and after full reflection. It will not be done by adventurers on the shores of the Pacific, who seem to know but little of our Constitution or laws, and to care less for our rights. I have heard it said that it will be dangerous to reject the application of California for admission into the Union. Already she is threatening to set up for herself, and if we reject her, she will withdraw her application and establish herself as an independent republic on the Pacific. Let her try it. We have been told that if the South refuse to submit to the galling insults and outrageous wrongs of the North, the President will call out the naval and military power of the nation, and reduce us to submission. When California asserts her independence, and sets up her republic on the Pacific, we shall see how quick the President will be to use this same military and naval force, in bringing her back to her - allegiance. These threats have no terrors for me. As I could respect the reckless and bold robber who, unmasked, presents his pistol and demands my money or my life, above the petty but expert pickpocket, who looks complaisantly in my face while he steals my purse, so can I respect the dashing and dare-devil impudence of the Wilmot proviso, which robs the South, and takes the responsibility, above the little, low, cunning, sleight-of-hand scheme, which robs us just as effectually, and leaves us wondering how the trick was performed. So long as I remain in your service, fellow-citizens, I will represent you faithfully, according to my best judgment. In great emergencies like this, I feel the need of your counsel and support. It would give me pain, if any important vote of mine should fail to meet your approbation. Whilst I shall never follow blindly any man's lead, nor suffer myself to be awed by any general outcry, I confess myself not insensible to the applause of my countrymen. In a great crisis like the present, men must act, responsibility must be taken, and he is not fit to be trusted who stops in the discharge of his high duties to count his personal costs. I cannot vote for Mr. Clay's compromise bill. With very essential changes and modifications, I might be reconciled to its support. These I have no hope of obtaining, and I therefore expect to vote against it. Like the fatal Missouri compromise, it gives up everything and obtains nothing; and like that and all other compromises with the North, it will be observed, and its provisions maintained, just so long as it suits the views of northern men to observe and maintain them, and then they will be unscrupulously abandoned. It will give me great pleasure to find myself sustained by my constituents, in the votes I intend to give. My head, my heart, my every thought and impulse admonish me that I am right, and I cannot doubt or hesitate. Your fellow-citizen, WASHINGTON CITY, May 13, 1850. A. G. BROWN. ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. On the 13th of June, 1850, in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the bill admitting California was rejected, to the effect that thereafter it should not constitute an objection to the admission of a state lying south of the Missouri Compromise line that her constitution tolerated slavery. Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, renewed the amendment, pro forma, and said: I LONG since made up my mind that I would introduce no proposition of my own, nor vote for any other man's proposition, which did not give ample justice to my section. My determination was not formed without consideration. The whole ground had been duly examined, and my judgment was based on a solemn conviction, that no proposition which did not inflict positive injury on the South had the least chance of favor in this House. If I had ever been brought to doubt the correctness of this judgment, the vote just taken would have convinced me beyond all dispute that I was right. Day by day our ears are filled with the cry of "compromise!" "adjustment!!" We have been invoked time and again to come forward and settle this angry dispute, on terms equitable and just to all sections of the confederacy. We have been admonished, in high-sounding phra seology, that to the people of the states, when forming their constitutions, belonged the duty and the right of settling for themselves the question of slavery or no slavery. Some, we have been told, fanatical and violent, would repudiate this doctrine; but the great body of the moderate men of the North, of all parties, we have been assured, had planted themselves on this broad, republican platform. Now, sir, what have we seen? The question has been taken on a proposition declaring that it shall hereafter be no objection to the admission of a state lying south of 36° 30′ that her constitution tolerated or prohibited slavery, and this proposition has been voted down-voted down, sir, by a strictly sectional division-all the southern members voting for it, and all the northern members, with but one honorable exception, voting against it. Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. Three or four. Mr. BROWN. I saw but one-Mr. McClernand. There may have been three or four. It may have been that five or six threw up their hats and cried "God save the country!" Mr. BISSELL. I was not in my seat. I should have voted for it with great pleasure. Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. I voted for it. Mr. BROWN. It may be that five or six voted for the proposition. But what of that? Where was the great body of the northern members, Whigs and Democrats? They were just where I have always predicted they would be when it came to voting. They were found repudiating the very doctrine on which they ask us to admit California-the doctrine of self-government in regard to slavery. There could be no mistaking the intention of this vote. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], in a speech of marked emphasis, had called on the South to cease debating, and let us have a vote-a vote which should test the question, whether northern members were prepared to assert the doctrine, that under no circumstances should any other slaveholding state enter this Union. The debate did cease in obedience to that appeal, the vote was taken, and the result is before us. And now, sir, in reference to that result I have a word to say. It explodes at one dash, the hollow-hearted and hypocritical pretension that this question was to be left to the people, when they came to form their respective constitutions. It verifies what I have said here and elsewhere, that this doctrine was a miserable cheat, an infamous imposition, a gross fraud upon the South. If the people, as in the case of California, make an anti-slavery constitution, the doctrine is applied and the state is admitted; but if any other state shall offer a pro-slavery constitution, we are given by this vote distinctly to understand, that such state, her constitution, and this doctrine, will all be trampled under foot together. I want my constituents and the country to see to what end we are to come at last. The bold stand is taken by this vote that not another slave state is to be admitted, no odds what her constitution may say. I take ground with the eloquent gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and now declare, that if this is to become the ruling principle of the North-if we are thus to crouch at the footstool of power-if we are to be brought down from our high position as equals to become your dependants—if we are to live for ever at your mercy, rejoicing in your smiles and shrinking from your frown--if indeed, sir, it has come to this, that the Union is to be used for these accursed purposes, then, sir, by the God of my fathers, I am against the Union; and so help me Heaven, I will dedicate the remnant of my life to its dissolution. Men may talk of adjustments, letters may be written, speeches may be made, newspapers printed to glorify the Union-but, sir, if this is the Union you would glorify, it is base-born slander to say the South is for it. If we are to have a Union of equals, it will for ever rest upon all our hearts and all our hands-it will be eternal. But if it is to be a Union of the tyrant and the serf, a Union of the monarch and the menial, a Union of the vulture and the lamb, then, sir, I warn gentlemen it will be a Union of perpetual strife. Say what you will, write what you will, speak what you will, think what you will, the South will wage eternal warfare upon such a Union. We will invoke with one voice the vengeance of Heaven upon such a Union-we will pray unceasingly to the God of our deliverance that he will send us a bolt from heaven to shiver the chain which thus binds us to tyranny and oppression. DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 19, 1850, ON THE AD- MR. BROWN said he had taken no part in the debates on the question of admitting the delegate from New Mexico, nor did he intend to participate in this discussion at any great length. The honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gentry] had announced the principle which had governed his vote in favor of Mr. Smith, as a delegate from New Mexico, and had informed us that he should govern himself by the same principle in voting for Mr. Babbit, the delegate from Deseret. To the correctness of the honorable gentleman's theory, Mr. B. made no sort of objection, and if the theory was applicable to the matter in hand, he should be found voting with the gentleman from Tennessee. The honorable gentleman says, it is a part of the early theory of our government, that, whenever you govern a people, you should grant them representation. No one could mistake the meaning of the gentleman. He meant to assimilate this case to that of our colonial forefathers, and to assume that, as they complained with justice of the British Crown for governing them without giving them representation, the people in New Mexico and Deseret may justly make the same complaint of us. The colonies were governed. The Crown sent them governors, secretaries, judges and tax-gatherers. It required the acts of their local legislatures to be sent home for approval. It governed them with most despotic sway; but do we govern New Mexico and Deseret? How, sir, in what manner have we governed these territories? We have steadily refused them all governments. The ægis of our protection has not been extended over them. We have sent them neither governors, secretaries, |