O^V .0' ^ov^ ;^^^'^ '^^6^ r-'^^'': '^ov^' v^ %^0 3V -^' .<^* - • • • r. *\> ^* J' % '^^.* y ^^ 0^ SPEECH OF ./ HON. WILLARD P. HALL, OF MISSOURI, ON THE ADMISSION OE CALIFORNIA. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1850. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOB£ OFFIC£. 1850. THE SLAVE QUESTION. The House being in Committee of tlie Whole on the state of the Union, on tlie President's Mes- sae;e transmitting the Constitution of Califor- nia. Mr. HALL said: Mr. Chairman: If I were to con.sult my indi- vidual interests, it is probable that I would avoid all discussion of the bill now before the commit- tee. But I would poorly discharge the duties of an American Representative, if personal consider- ations should induce me to withhold the full and free expression of my opinions with regard to any question of great public importance. I have, there- fore, obtained the floor for the purpose of present- ing my views with reference to the admission of California into the Union as a State. Before doing this, however, I feel it due to myself to notice a single remark made by the gentleman from Illi- nois, [Mr. BissELL,] in the speech with whicii he favored us the other day. On that occasion, he thought proper, much to my regret, to introduce Missouri politics into this arena. He went out of his way to applaud the course of one of our Sen- ators during the last summer, and thereby indi- rectly censured myself and a portion of my col- leagues. The honorable member from Illinois is much mistaken in supposing that our complaint against the Senator alluded to, was his charging a portion of the South with favoring disunion. Far from it. We believed, and we still believe, that the Senator's arguments in favor of the constitu- tionality of the proposition to restrict slavery to its present limits — his declaration that " Congress governs the territory as it pleases, and in a man- ner incompatible with the Constitution" — his ef- forts to gain popularity for the Wilmot proviso, by asserting that Jefferson was its author — and his atleiTipts to induce our people to sanction it, by saying that it was unwise for them to oppose it — were calculated, if not intended, to give etjcourage- ment to that faction which was so eloquently de- nounced by the gentleman from Massachusetts, a few days since, and thus to endanger the Union, which we were all so anxious to preserve and per- petuate. Perhaps my friend from Illinois was not aware of these facts. Perhaps, too, he was not aware of this other fact, that the much-applauded Senator was, only a few months ago, opposed to the admission of California as a State. Yet I feel authorized to say, that such was the case. A short time since, I received a letter from one of the most respectable men in Missouri, in which he states: " I remarked lo Colonel Benton, while in Liberty last summer, that X thought the people of California (I do not recollect of incliiriing New Mexico, but probably did) would lorin a constitution and State covernnient, and apply lor admission into the Union as a Slate. He replied, prompt- ly, ' 1 ain opposed to it, sir. There is too nnich of a con- gicimerated mass there, and it is not the old regular way of doing tilings. '" This conduct, on the part of that Senator, to- gether with his virtual denial of the right of the Legislature of each State to instruct its Senators in Congress, /o?-ce(/ a large portion of the people of Missouri to abandon him. If any change has recently taken place in his opinions, upon the subjects referred to, I believe that it has been produced by the opeiation of selfish consideratons; and if aught of evil grows out of the condition of things in our State, he will be justly chargeable with having, for the purpose of gratifying his ma- lignant passions, ruined the very men — the Democ- racy of Missouri — who have made him all that he is. With this notice of the speech of the gentle- man from Illinois, I dismiss that subject, and pro- ceed to the examination of the California ques- tion. Mr. Chairman, it has been frequently asserted by gentlemen of this Plouse, during the present session of Congress, that the admission of Califor- nia into the Union, with her present constitution, v/ould be equivalent to the passage of the Wilmot proviso. As I intend to vote for the admission of * California, I feel called upon to notice the charge which has thus been made. On what ground does that charge rest? Why, sir, we are told that the constitution of California prohibits slavery within her limits; that the Wilmot proviso proposes the same thing; and that, therefore, any act of Congress recognizing the one, is just as objectionable as the adoption of the other. " From this, to me, novel doctrine, l,as a southern man, and the Represent- ative of a slaveholding constituency, must beg leave to dissent. The passage of the Wilmot proviso would be an act on the part of Congress of gross injustice, as I conceive, to one half of the States of this Union, tyrannical in its operation upon those im- mediately to be affected by it, and of doubtful constitutionality. By aduiilling California into the Union as a State we would perpetrate no such wrong. We would not violate the Constitution. We would only exercise an expressly delegated power. We would not oppress the people of Cal- ifornia. We would only give effect to their praise- worthy ambition, by elevating them to the proud station of a member of this great and growing Confederacy. Nor would we, in my opinion, act unjustly towards the South. We would only rec- ognize the right of the people of California to determine for tlieniselves the f|uestion of domestic slavery — a rii;lu that isiltiimed by, and ij;uaraiiticd to, every State in the Union, by the Constitution under wliich we live. Mr. Ciiairman,as;rent revolution seems to have been elTected in the minds of certain ^'ontlemen, upon tiie shivery question, witliin the last few months. Until very recently, I had understood the southern ground to be, that " the right to pro- ' hibit slavery in any territory, l)elongs exclusively ' to the people thereof, and can only be exercised • by them in forming their constitution for a State ' government, or in their sovereign capacity as an ' mdependent State." Such is the very language of a resolution adopted by the Legislature of xMis- souri at its last session. Some of the citizens of our State assailed the resolution with much bitter- ness, as being loo ultra southern. One of our Senators went so far as to expres.'s himself thus vith regard to it: " Farewell compromise! fare- ' well conces.'^ion ! farewell Congress ! farewell 'Missouri! farewell Constitution of the United ♦ States, and of all the States I" 1 believe, how- ever, t!iat the people of Mi.ssouri generally ap- proved the rcsuluti'in. I advocated it; and for advocating it, 1 was denounced by certain indi- viduals as a disunionist and a nullifier. And now, when 1 announce my determination to carry that resolution into effect, by voting for the admission of California, I am told, from another quartc, that I favor " the Executive proviso.'" Well, sir, all 1 have to say upon that subject is this: That, as I was not driven from my principles last summer, by assaults at home, so i will not be driven from my principles now, by assaults here. It will not be denied, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Missouri can, at any moment, abolish slavery within their limits. Now will it l)e seriously contended, that the abolition of slavery in Mis- souri, by the peo[>le of that State, would be as ob- jectionable to the South, as an attemj)! on the part of Congress to do the same thing ? And if not, why not? For this plain, substantial atid all-suflicient reason. Under our Government, it is the prov- ince of each Slate to regulate its own domestic affairs, and any attemiU, on the part of Congress, to interfere with that right, woidd be a violation of the compact entered into when this Union was formed. It is for a similar reason, that while the passage of the Wilmot proviso would be justly offensive to the slaveiiolding States, the admission of California into the Union can give rise to no well-founded complaints in any quarter. But, it is said, that we cannot properly admit California, because Congress has not authorized the people to forma State government, it appears to me, that this objection has no solid foundation on which to rest. The Consiinuion declares that " new States may be admitted by the Congress, mto this Union." This is all the power we jiossess over the subject; wc can admit States, not cn-ale them. Wc cannot form a State constitution. We cannot establish a Stale governmeiit. These things can only be done by the[ie<)|)le. And any attempt to do them by any other power, would be an usurpation, wholly without constitutional authority. Have, Ihcn, the people of Califi)rnia estalilislied a State govetnrnenl' Have tliey adopted a State constitu- tion } They have. Their work is now before us — their consiitutmn is now on our tables; and the question aubniiilcd is, bhull we admit tiiem into the Union? The Constitution says, we may admit them, for it says wc may admit new Slates. But gentlemen say, that we cannot admit them, because we have not ^eclared in advance that we would admit them upon their application. Now,sir, I understand that all our powers are derived from the Constitution of the United States, and not from an act of Congress. We possess those powers, and those alone which the Constitution confers, and they can neither be enlarged nor diminished, by an ordinary act of legislation. Suppose that the last Congress had declared that no more States should ever be admitted into the Union, or that every State should be admitted upon its applica- tion, no matter what might be its population or its boundaries; would such a declaration have been obligatory upon us? Most assuredly not. And why? Because, each Congress has the right to pass all such laws, and to exercise all such powers, as the Constitution authorizes. Any other doc- trine would make every new Congress the mere agent — the mere servant of those which preceded it, and impair, if not utterly destroy, the usefulness of this Government But precedents have been .appealed to. We are told that the precedents are all against the admis- sion of California. Let us examine some of these precedents, and see what they are. On the 11th day of July, 1795, the Legislature of the then Territory of Tennessee, passed " An ' act providing for the enumeration of the inhabit- ' ants of the territory of the United States of ' America, south of the river Ohio," by which it was enacted, " that if, upon taking the enumera- ' lion of the people in the said territory, as by that ' directed, it shall appear that there are 6U,000 ' inhabitants therein, counting the whole of the ' free persons, including those bound to service for ' a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, ' adding three-fifths of all other persons, the Gov- ' ernor be authorized and requested, to recommend ' to the people of the respective counties, to elect ' five persons from each county, to represent them ' in convention, to meet at Knoxville, at such time ♦ as he shall judge proper, for the purpose of form- ' ing a constitution, or permanent form of govern- ' ment." The census of the territory of Tennes- see having been taken, as directed, and there ap- pearing to be G0,000 free inhabitants therein. Gov- ernor Blount, in accordance with the request of the act which I have recited, issued his proclamation on the 23ih day of November, 1795, from which I desire to read a brief extract. After certain reci- tals, he says: " Now I, the said William Blount, Governor, &c., do rRcoiuiiicnrl to the people of tlie respective counties, to elect five persons for each county, on the 18tli and 19lh days of Dioeinher next, to represent them in a convention, to meet at Knoxville, on the 11th diiy of January next, for the pur- pose of formins a constitution, or pirmanent form of gov- ernment. And to the end, that a perfect uniformity in the election of the members of the convention may lake place in the respective counties, I, the said William Blount, Gov- ernor, &c., do further reeommend to the sheriffs, or their deputies, respectively, to open, and hold, polls of election f'lr nieinbers of convention, on the 18lh and litlh days of December, as aforesaid, in the same manner as polls of election have heretofore been held, for members of the Gen- eral Assembly, and" [now listen] "that all free males, twcnty-onc years of a^e, and ujiward, lie considered as entitled to vote hy liallot for fioc persons, for members vf convention." At the time this proclamation was issued, the provisions of the ordinance of 1787, re'ative to the right of suffrage, was in force in the Territory of Tennessee. That ordinance provided, " that a ' freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, ' having been a citizen of one of the States, and ' being a resident in the district, or the like I'ret- ' hold, and two years'residence in the district, shall ' be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a ' Representative." Yet, in the face of this provis- ion. Governor Blount advised the right of suffrage to be exercised by " all free males, twenty-one years of age and upward," whether freeholders or non-freeholders, citizens or aliens, white or black, residents or strangers. The people of Teimessee adopted the Governor's recommendation, formed a constitution, and applied for admission into the Union as a State. And how was their applica- tion received .' Was it rejected .'' Were they re- manded back to a territorial condition, as has been recently asserted ? No, sir! no. They were not so remanded, but they were admitted into the Union, in conformity with their request. On the 8th day of April, 1796, President Washington transmitted to Congress a copy of the constitution of Tennessee, and certain papers accompanying the 1 same. On the 12lh of the same month, Mr. Dear- j born, from a committee of this Hou.se, reported a resolution, admitting Tennessee into the Union. ] A few days thereafter, the Flouse passed the res- olution. On the 5th day of May, 1796, Mr. King, of New York, made a report to the Senate of the United States, in which the opinion was ex- pressed, " that the inhabitants of that part of the territory south of the Ohio, ceded by North Car- olina," were not at that time, " eiititled to be re- ceived as a new State into the Union." The Senate accordingly passed a bill, providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants of Tennessee, and their future admis.?ion into the Union. The House amended the Senate bill in its title and in substance, so as to make it a bill admiitine Tennessee into the Union, with one Representative in Congress, until the general census then next ensuing. Tlie Senate non-concurred in the House amendments. A committee of conference was appointed, who reported in fwor of the Plouse amendments. The report of the committee was adopted by both Houses of Congress, and on the 1st day of June, 1796, the bill was presented to the President: on the same day it received his signature, and thus it became the law of the land. Such are liriefly the facts connected with the admission of Tennessee into the Union, as I gather them from the public records of the country, as contained in the Amer- ican State Papers, Vol. XX., Miscellaneous, Vol. I, pages 146, 147, and 150, and in the Senate and House Journals, for the year 1796. This history shows, that neither the first and most illustrious of our Presidents, nor the Congress of 1796, be- lieved an act of Congress necessary to authorize the people of a territory to form a State govern- ment. It may not be unworthy of remark, also, that General Jackson was a member of the con- vention wliich prepared the constitution of the State of Tennessee; and he, surely, would not have participated in the deliberations of that body, had he believed its proceedings to be contrary to law, and in violation of the Constitution of the United State."?. Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, and Inwa, were also admitted into the Union, without any act of Congress being passed, authorizing the people of those States to form constitutions — at least, after the most diligent search, I have been able to find no such law. But the case of Michigan deserves especial notice. One of the allegations most con- stantly introduced, and most zealously urged against the admission of California is, that her people were not an organized political community, by act of Congress, at the time they formed and adopted their constitution. Precisely the same difficulty existed in the case of Michigan. At the time the people of that State formed their constitu- tion, and for some years previous, the Territory of Michigan embraced all the territory that is now included within tlieStates of Michigan, Wisconsin, iowa, and the Territory of Minnesota. Hence, the people who resided within the boundaries of the present State of Michigan, were not, at the time referred to, an organized political community, by virtue of any law of the United States. They were only a part of such a community. Under these circumstances, the Territorial Legislature of Michigan, not only without the consent of Con- gress, given for that purpose, but after such con- sent had been twice refused, passed an act, which was approved by the Governor of Michigan, Jan- uary 26, 18.35, authorizing a portion of the people of that territory to form a constitution and Stale government. At the time of the passage of this act, the right of suflTrage within the Territory of Michigan, as fixed by Congress, was confined to free white male citizens of the United States, who had resided within the territory one year, and had paid a county, or territorial tax. Yet ihe Terri- torial Legislature, disregarding the laws of Con- gress, enacted, in the second section of the statute which I have recited, "that the free white male ' inhabitants of the .said territory, above the age of ' twenty-one years, who shall reside therein three ' months immediately preceding Saturday, the ' fourth day of April next, in the year one thou- ' sand eight hundred and thirty-five, be, and they ' are hereby authorized to choose delegates, to form ' a constitution, &c.'' The people of a portion of the Territory of Michigan— the people, I reiterate, who v.'pre not a political community, under any act of Congress, then in force — approving the pro- visions of the territorial law, adopted a constitu- tion, applied for admission into the Union, as a State, and were conditionally admitted on the 15th of June, 1836. They having, by a convention of delegates, elected for that purpose, given their assent to the conditions of the act of June 15th, 1836, were unconditionally admitted on the 26th of January, 1837, during the Administration of President Jackson. From this review of facts, it appears to me, that every objection urged against the admission of California', on the ground that her people were not an organized political commu- nity, and that the right of suffrage was not estab- lished by an act of Congress, applied with full force in the case of Michigan. Yet these objec- tions were then overruled as captious and unsub- stantial, and I trust that they will be so regarded now. Mr. Chairman, in considering the question be- fore us, we should bear in mind the recent history of California. We should remember, that the American citizens, resident there, had revolution- ized all the country around the Bay of San Fran- cisco, and north thereof, before we attempted to take possession of it. As soon, however, as our flag was run up in California, the people who 6 lived in that country, cheerfully recognized our authority, because tlicy loved our Union, and the institutions under which they had been reared. About the time that the peoiile of Calirornia com- menced their revolution, war broke out between the United Slates and Mexico. Our operations were so active, durinic that war, that Mexico was unable to send any troops to Californiu, while hostilities continued with us. Indeed, she made no elTiirt to do so. A lew months after Commo- dore Sloat had iioisted our flae: at Monterey, the Mexican population of California attempted to re- take the country. As soon as this revolt was known, five hundred of our emiijrants hastened to supress it. They marched several hundred miles in Califor- nia, drivin;; all opposition before them; and, but for some unfortunate delays, they would have re- duced the enemy, before Kearney and Stockton had been able to strike a Ijlow. Tiie bare state- ment of these facts — facts within the knowledge, doubtless, of every gentleman here present — must satisfy all that, but for our interference, California would, at this time, have been an independent State. It is true, that if we had not acquired Cal- ifornia, Mexico might have atteni|Ued to recon- quer it; but, when we reflect upon the zeal v/ith ■which our citizens would have rushed to the relief of their brethren in California, and upon the mul- titudes which the recent discoveries in that coun- try have drawn to it, we can scarcely believe that the etiorts of Mexico would have been successful for a sini^le moment. I therefore reassert that, but for our interference, California would, at this time, have been an independent State, owning, in fee, all the public domain within her limits, indu- ing her exhaustless mines of gold. But for the purpose of promoting our own interests, we chose to interfere. We therefore occupied a country, which our citizens Imd, without our aid, already conquered. As soon as our Government took j possession of California, military contributions were levied upon her people, and military rule ' was estaljlished over them. While war lasted, these evils were borne, as temporary in their char- acter, and as necessary incidents to a state of hos- tilities. It was hoped, that when peace v/as es- tablished, military rule and exaction would both cease. This hope was disappointed. Military rule and military exactions still continued the por- tion of California; and yet, her peojile still ac- quiesced; and still they hoped for relief. The action of the last Congress, however, but loo clearly announced to them that they must expect no aid from us, under the prestnt state of excite- ment, relative lo the question of slavery. We not only failed to give them a territorial organization, but we extended our revenue laws over them in this way, subjecting them to the burdens, while we denied them the benefits of government. Thus situated, the people of California thought it to be their duty to take rare of themselves — to protect their lives, and to secure their properly. They accordingly met in convention, established a gov- ernnient, and feeling themselves able to support a State organization, they have applied for admis- aion into the Union. And fortius they have been denounced. These denunciations sound strangely in my ears. Have gentlemen forgotten the course of events in Oregon .' In 1)545, the people of that territory established a government and adopted a constitu- tion. For some years they lived under the laws enacted by themselves. We heard no charges of usurpation airainst the people of Oregon for their conduct. Every one seemed to acquiesce in the propriety of their action. The late President of the United Stales, in one of his official commu- cations to Congress, alluded lo the course of the people of Oregon, in the strongest terms of com- mendation; and Congress, in the 17th section of the act organizing the Oregon Territory, endorsed the action of the people thereof, in the fullest and most emphatic manner, by declaring, " that all ' suits, processes, and proceedings, civil and crim- ' inal, at law and in chancery, and all indictments ' and informations, which shall be pending and 'undetermined in the courts established by author- ' ity of the provisional government of Oregon, ' within the limits of the said territory, when this ' act shall take effect, shall be transferred to be ' heard, tried, prosecuted, and determined, in the ' district courts hereby established, which may ' include the counties or districts, where any such ' proceeding may be pending. All bonds, recog- ' nizances and obligations of every kind whatso- ' ever, valid under the existing laws within the lim- ' its of said territory, shall be valid under this act; ' and all crimes and misdemeanors againsi the laws ' in force within said limits, may be prosecuted, ' tried and punished in the courts established by ' this act, in V\ke manner as they would have been ' umler the laws in force v.'ithin the limils compos- ' ing said territory, at the time this act shall go ' into operation." It may not be improper to re- mark, that this section, which so fully sanctions the action of tlie people of Oregon in establishing a government, v.'ithout the previous assent of Con- gress, was not objected to by a single gentleman in this or the other end of the Capitol. And yet we are told that the people of Calitornia for doing that which was so highly applauded in the people of Oregon, have been guilty ofa most unpardonable usurpation 1 It is true that the people of Oregon did not apply for admission into the Union as a State. The reason is obvious. Their population was so small, and their means were so scanty, that they were not able lo sustain a govern- ment. Hence they asked us for assistance, and petitioned us for a territorial organization. The situation of California is far different. The peo- ple of that country are numerous and wealthy; they are al)le lo sustain a State government; they therefore ask us for no pecuniary aid; they de- mand no appropriation out of our treasury to enable thein to administer their local government. All they request is that they may be permit- ted to govern themselves at their own expense. Now, surely, sir, if the people of Oregon were jus- tifiable in establishing a government and adopting a constitution, wiihout the authority of Congress, the people of Califi)rnia must be justified for doing the same thin^, unless it can be made appear, that the superior tiumbers and wealth of the latter, deprive them of ihe rights and privileges that were for years exercisf d bv the former. S:ill, it is said, that we should remand California to a territorial condition, condemn the entire course of her people in forming a government, and sternly reject tlu-ir application for admission into tlie Union as a State. It may be well for us to consider the wisdom and policy of such a pro- ceeding on our part. Time will not permit me to examine this subject at length. I must content myself by calling the attention of the committee to remarks of certain greatly-distinguished gentle- men of the South, upon a very similar question, which was mooted here some years since. Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in his able speech on the Missouri question, used this language: " If you refuse to admit Missouri vvitliout llie proliibition, and slie refuses it, and proceeds to form a constitution fjr herself, and tlis n applies for admission, what will you do ? Will you compel them by force.' By wlioni or by what force can this be effected? Will the States in the neighbor- hood join in the crusade ? Will they, who to a man think Missouri is right and you are wron?, arm in such a cause ? Can you send a force from the eastward of the Delaware ? The very distance forbids it, and distance is a powerful aux- iliary to a country attacked. If, in the days of James the Second, English soldiers, under military discipline, when ordered to nfarch against their countrymen, contending in the cause of liberty, disobeyed the order and laid down their arms, do you think our free brethren on the Mississippi will not do the same thing .' Yes, sir ! they will refuse, and you will at last be obliged to retreat from this measure, and in a manner that will not add much to the dignity of your Gov- ernment." — National Intelligencer, June 2G, 1820. The languase of Mr. Pinckney, a little changed, applies with full force to the case before us. 1 leave it to gentlemen to make the change for themselves, and beg them to ponder and reflect upon the views of that eminent southern states- man and patriot. Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, than whom this country has produced no better man, and the soundness of whose judgment, and the genuineness of whose republicanism, are now proverbial, thus expressed himself with reference to " the Missouri controversy:" "All governments, no mauer what theirform, want more power and more authority, and all the governed want less government. Great Britain lost the United States by at- tcmptingto «ovcrn f,oomuch,and tointroduce new principles of governing. The United States would not submit to the attempt, and earnestly endeavored to persuade Great Britain to abandon it, but in vain. The United States would not yield ; and the result is known to the world. The baule is not to the strong, nor the race to the swift. What reason have we to expect that we can persuade Missouii to yield to our opinion that did not apply as strongly to Great Britain .' They are, as near akin to us, as we were to Great Britain. They are ' flesh of our flesh and hone of our bone,' t * * every free nation has had some principle in their government, to which more importance was attached than any other. The English were not to be taxed without their consent given in Parliament: the American is to form their own Slate government, so that it be not inconsistent with that of the United States. * * * It would have been very gratifying to me to have been informed by some of the gentlemen who support the amendment, what is intended to bedone, if itbe adopted, and the people of Missouri will not vield, hutao on and form a State government, (having the requisite number agreeably to the ordinance,) as Tennessee did, and then applv for admission into the Union. Will she be admitted as Tennessee was, on an equal looting with the original Stntes, or will the appliciUion be rejected, as the Brilish Government did the petitions of the old Congress ! If you do not admit her, and she will not return to the territori;il government, will you declare her people rebels, as Great Britain did u^, and order them to be conquered for contending for the same ri-ihti that every State in the Union now enjoys'! Will y(m for this, order the father to ujarch aoaiii't the son, and brother against brother? God forbid I *" * * If vou should declare them rebels, and conquer them, would that attach them to the Union ? No one can expect this. ' * If the United States are to make con- quests, do not let the first bc#in at home. Nothing is to be got by American conquerini American. Nor ought we to forget that we aro not legislating for ourselv>^s, and that the American rliaracter is not yielding when rights are con- cerned."— iVa^wnai Intelligencer, February 12, 1820. The extract I have just read, is full of wisdom. It appeals to the North not to trespass upon the rights of the South— it appeals to the South not to" trespass upon the rights of California— it ap- peals to the majority not to trespass upon the rights of the minority, but to practice liberality and jus- tice, and thus to gather the afl'ections of all around the Union — giving strength to our Government, and perpetuity to our institutions. But 1 go further. I not only say that the peo- ple of California have acted properly, and that we may properly admit them into the Union, but that It is our duty so to admit them. Nothing, it seems to me, would be more repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, than an attempt to retain the people of the territories forever in a state of terri- torial vassalage. Suppose that the original thirteen States had steadily refused to admit any other States into the Union, and had thus sought to keep the people who inhabit the mighty Valley of the Mississippi, in a territorial condition forever: would such a course have been in accordance with the genius of our Government .? Would it have been jimerican to exclude the millions who livein the new States, from all participation in the affairs of this Governrnent, while they are subjected to a full share of its burdens ? Would it have been exactly republican to retain Ohio, and Indiana, and Illi- nois, and Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the other great States of the West, down to the present time, as mere colonies of the original parties to the Constitution? No one will venture to answer these inquiries affirmatively. If, then, the charac- ter of our institutions requires that an end should be put to the territorial condition of our people, when is the period at which the state of depend- ence .should cease ? It is the very moment when the citizens of the United States, living wiihm convenient boundaries in any of our territories, are numerous enough to form a State, and are de- sirous of assuming Uiat condition. This subject was well and ably discussed on the proposition to authorize the people of Missouri to form a State sovernment, some thirty years ago. The opponents of the " Missouri restriction at that day, boldly proclaimed the very doctrines that I have here laid down. Mr. Holmes, then a mem- ber of this House for the State of Massachusetts, said : " New States may he admitted, and no difference is au- thorized. The authority is to admit or not, hut not to pre- scribe conditions. What would be a fair construction of this ' Surely not that Congress might hold a territory in a colonial condition as long as they choose, nor that they might admit a new State with less political rights than an- other but that the admmion should be as sooji as the people needed, and were capable of supporting a State government. —National Intelligencer, Feb. 19, 1820. Mr. J. Barbour, at that time a Senator in Con- gress from the State of Virginia, said: « What tlien, is vour power ? Simply whether you will- admit or refuse, this is the limit of your power. And even this power is subject to contiol. whenever a territory is-. sufficiently large, and its population snfficiently numerous : your discretion ceases, and the oUigation becomes imperious that you forthv.'ith admit; for I hold that, according to Ihe sp pi of the Constitution, the people thus circumstanced are entitled to the privilege nf self-government."— National Intelligenccry, March iS, 1820. Mr Philip P. Barbour, late one of the judges of the'Supreme Court of the United States, and in 1820 a member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, said; 'endence of the territory, at pleasure— to perpetuate its minority and their regency. And this is denied without anvrelerence to com- pact or treaty. It is true, the Con.tiluiioii gives a power to ili>pose ol, and make all neeilliil rules and recnlalions for the pover eiit of its territories ; but powers may bj restrained, in the same manner that lliev may be enlarged hy "nphcation ; and if there he an irresistible implication, limiuiie any grant of power, it is believed that lliia grant is wi limited. It can never be believed, thai an association of free and independent Slates, formed for the purposes of Rcneral defence, of e'itahtishinz justice, and of securivg the tlesHnss oflihcrtijlo thcmseUcs and thrir jxisleritii, ever coii- teiijplated the ac(|uisilion of lerrilorv lor ihe purpose of ps- tiil.lirhinB. ami perpetuating for oihers and Iheir posterity that e-doni.il hondage agaiiisl which they themselves ha.l so lalely rev., hid. 'I'l,,^ provision, tbr the admir-sion of new HUleB into the Union, is a cloar inditaliou of Uic destiny J intc^nded for tlio acquired territories. It being foreseen, however, that circumstances might occur to control this destination, or that experience might prove it unsafe or un- wise, a discretion was given to refuse or admit the new States— there being embraced in the power to dis|inse of the territories, Ihe means of entitling lliem to imlepeiKlence. The territories of the United States are riL'litlnlly held in pupilage, as long as their infancy unfits them for self-gov- ernment, or adinissiiin into the Union, but unjustly detained in bondage, whenever their maturity arrives. M that period thc;ihava a rii^ht to demand udniillancr into the political family as cquah, or the enjoyment of liberty as iiidcjiendent States. Power may enslave them longer, but ike hiim of nature ami of justice— the genius of our political imlitutiom, and our ovm example— proclaim their title to break their bonds and assert their freedom. — Laws of Virginia, 1819-20. What the Legislature of Virginia meant by the people of a territory arriving at maturity, is not a matter of conjecture. The report from which I have just read, was upon, and in favor of, the prop- osition to authorize the people of Missouri to form a State constitution. The Legislature, therefore, considered the territory of Missouri as having ar- rived at maturity. But Missouri at that time con- tained only about sixty thousand inhabitants; and, as the present population of California much exceeds the population of Missouri in 1820, the people of California are, according to the old Vir- ginia doctrine, entitled to admission into the Union, or to absolute independence. " Power," to re- peat the language of the report, "may enslave 'them longer, but the laws of nature and of jus- ' tice, the genius of our political institutions, and 'our own example, proclaim their title to break 'their bonds and a.ssert their freedom." But it may be said that I over-estimate the number of people in California. In order to decide this ques- tion, let us appeal to facts. The report of one of the United States officers at San Francisco, states that the number of immigrants who arrived at that port by sea, between the first of April and the first of December last, was upward of twenty- nine thousand.* We know, from evidence that is as good as official, that about seven thousand emi- grant wagons left the western part of Missouri, last Spring, for California, by the way of the South Pass. Many emigrants went the same route at that time, with pack-mules. If, however, we throw out of consideration the latter altogether, and allow four persons to each wagon, we have twenty-eight thousand as the number of those who emigrated to California last season by the northern * Since this si)eecli was delivered the following statement has been received : The number of vessels arrived at the port of San Fran- cisco, from the 12th April to the end of January last, is shown in the following statement from the records of the harbor master's oliicc : Amount of to7inage arrived since Jipril 12, 1849, until date, January W,lSoO. American 223,499 Foreign 55,809 Total 264,238 Number ofpasscniicrs arrived during llic same period. Female. Male. American 919 29,840 Foreign 502 8,627 Total 1,421 38,467 Number of ship^ that have arrived during that period. American 487 Foreign 318 Total 805 The above is e.xelusive of United States ships and trans- ports, and the mail steamers. overland route. A large number of emigrants also went to California by the way of Santa Fo, Fort Smith in Arkansas!, Texas, and Mexico. The number who went by all the routes last mentioned, has never been estimated at less than ten thousand. These data give sixty-seven thousand as the num- ber of emigrants to California during eight months of last year, of whom three-fourths at least were American citizens. But many persons were in California before the first of April last, and many liave gone there since the first of December last. Taking all these facts into consideration, I think it will be difficult for any one to believe, that there are not one hundred thousand people at this mo- ment in the new State of California. But there is another mode of estimating the population of Cali- fornia. Her recent popular vote stood as follows: For the Constitution 1-2,0S1 Against the Constitution. ... 811 Total 12,872 For Governor. Votes. PetPf H. Burnett 6,783 S. A. Suiter 2,201 Win. M. Stew:irt 619 W. Scott Sherwood 3,220 John W. Geary 1 ,358 Scattering 32 Total n,213 Now, it may be said with safety, that this vote is larger than that given by any of the new States at the time of its admission into the Union, except the Stale of Wisconsin. Louisiana was admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812. The first popular vote given in that State, of which I have been able to find full returns, was at the elec- tion for Governor, in 1820, which resulted as fol- lows: Votes. Thomas Boiling Robertson, received 1,903 Peter Derligny " 1,187 Abnrr h. Duncan " 1,031 J. N. Destrelian " 627 Total 4,748 Niles's Register, December 2G, 1820, Vol. 19, page 280. Indiana was admitted into the Union on the 11th day of Deceml)er, 1816. According to Niles's Register, Vol. 13, page 111, the whole number of votes given at the Congressional election in that State, in 1816, was six thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. Mississippi was admitted into the Union on the 10th day of December, 1817, and Illinois on the 3d of December, 1818. The earliest vote given in either of those States, of which I have found any authentic account, was cast in 1822, and is thus reported in Niles' Regis- ter: "7Hino!s.— Edward Coles i-^ reelected Governor of, an" Daniel P. Cook reelected the Representative from lliis State- Mr. Cook had 4,764 votes, and his opponent, John MiLean, 3,311."— [A''i'es's Register, vol. ^3, page 43 ] « Mississippi.— The. vote lately taken for a Representative in Congress, Ptnod thus: For Mr. Rankin, 4,811 ; for Mr. Poindexter, •3,6-04." — [Niles's Register, vol. 23, page 9G1.] It is true, that the ratio for apportioning mem- bers of this House, was only 35,000 at the time the States I have mentioned were admitted into the Union, and that it is now 70,680. Yet, if we make a proper allowance for the increase of the vote in the Stales of Illinois and Mississippi, from the date of their admission, until the year 1822, we will still find that the vote of California is aa large, compared with the present rjitio, as the vote of either Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or Il- linois was, at the period of their admission, com- pared with the ratio which then existed. Let us now come to a later period: Arkansas and Michigan were admitted into the Union in 1836. At the Presidential election, in the autumn of that year, the popular vote in those States was as follows: ARKA.NSAS. Van Buren. Ml others. Total. 2,400 1 ,238 3,638 Michigan. Van Buren. Jill others. Total. 7,360 4,000 11,360 Since 1836, the ratio for a Representative in Congress has been increased about fifty per cent, while the vote of California is nearly four times as large as that of Arkansas was at the time of her admission, and is considerably larger than that of Michigan, although in the latter State for- eigners were entitled to the right of suffrage. But let us come to a still later peiiod: Florida was admitted into the Union on the 3d day of March, 1845. The vote at one of her first Con- gressional elections stood thus: For Brokenbrough, 2,GG9; for Cabell, 2,632. Total, 5,301. Iowa came into '.he Union in 1846. The vote at her first State election was: For Gorerrior. Votes. Ansel BriUL'es 6,689 Thomas McKnight 6,582 Total 13,271 {Niles's Register, vol. 71, page 296.) At this election, it should be remembered, that Iowa elected two members of this House, Leffler and Hastings, both of whom were adinitted to their seats. The ratio for apportioning Represen- tatives in Congress, has not been changed since 1845, and yet, though California has polled more than twice as many votes as Florida did at her first State election, and a larger vote than Iowa did at her first State election, when she chose two members of this body, we are told that Cali- fornia has not a sufficient population for a State. Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi. Will the gentleman inform us how many foreign votes were polled in California ? Mr. HALL. With pleasure. The constitu- tion of California confines the right of suffrage to " white male citizens of the United States, and white male citizens of Mexico, who have elected to become citizens of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at duere- taro, on the thirteenth day of May, 1848, of the age of twenty-one years," &c. None but such persons were entitled to vote at the late election in California. What is the precise number of the latter class I do not know; bull can approximate pretty near to it. In the first place, IVlcCulloch tells us in his Geographical Dictionary, that the white population of California, Mexican and for- ei"-n, in the year 1832, did not exceed five thousand. If^we suppose that the Mexican population in California doubled themselves in the last eighteen years, and that the whole of them elected to become citizens under the treaty, we would have not more than sixteen hundred Mexican voters in that State. In the next place, in the year 1847, there was a revolt of the Mexican popu- 10 lation in Ciilifornia, against our authority, in whicl) revolt, almost every arm-bearing Califor- uian was engaged. Tlie Californians estimated their forceat about five hundred men — we estimated it at about seven hundred. If we suppose that only one halt' of the adult male Californians par- ticipated in the insurrection, this would give four- teen hundred, as the greatest possible number of that class of voters now in the State of California. Finally, the representatives from California es- timate the whole number of Mexican voters in that State, at about thirteen hundred. Now, if we sup- pose that all of these persons, whether thirteen iiundred, fourteen luindred, or sixteen hundred, voted at the election in California, still we have a greater American voting-population in that State, than was polled by any new State at the time of its admission, except Iowa and Wisconsin, each of which chose two Representatives in Congress at its first State election. " But no census has been taken of the popula- tion of California." That is true. And I am not aware that an enumeration of tlie inhabitants of a State is necessary prior to her admission — at least I have not been able to find any clause in the Constitution, which points to such an enumer- ation as a prerequisite to the admission of a State. No census was taken of the population of Texas, I believe, when she came into the Union, and no census was taken of the population of Illinois at the time of her admission. Mr. Rufus King, of New York, did, indeed, object in the United States Senate to the admi.ssion of Missouri, on the ground that no proper enumeration of her inhabitants had been made. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, re- plied to that objection, and here is a portion of what he said on that occasion: '• \Vlien Illinois wa? admitted, it was on tiie doulitfiil evidence of forty thousand of a population. He would read t!ie mei.orial upon which that State wa? adnitted, as far as re^;pecled ihe ainomit of population. It was as follows : 'Within the boundaiie.s of this territory, there are, in the 'opinion of your ineiuorialists, not less than forty thoUfand 'souls.' "This is all Ihe evidence you had before you when you admitted Illinois. Did the western and southern niemliers require a survey of this territory, or a census of the popula- tion, before they consented to the admission of thai State .' Did the honorable geiitlenian from New York ever think of such a thins, when he voted for the admission of Illinoi.*.' Xo, sir ! not one member of the Senate ever dreamed of ask- in? for a census, or survey. Such a thing was unprece- dented, until Mi-souri came before you." — National Inlel- li'encer, March 23, 1820. It is, however, objected, that the people of Cal- ifornia are incapabJe of self-government. Who are the persons thus denounced — for the charge is a denunciation? Who are tliey? Why, sir, they are our own brothers and relations — our old neigh- bors and acquaintances. They have been reared up under our Government, and have been taught from childhood the principles of our instiluiions. Many of them are distinguished for tlicir wisdom and learning — for their virtue and patriotism. Every gentleman under the sound of my voice can testify, that much of ihe very best part of our population has gone to California. Amonu; the emigrants to that State, are ex-members of Con- gress, ex-governors of Slates, and ex-judges of our courts, as well as many of the most inltlli- pcnt of the masses. And are tiiey not capable of self government? For one, I am willing to intrust them with that privilege. I wish to make them free — free, sir, as your State and my State are f,-ee — free to enact their own local laws, to estab- lish their own institutions, and to regulate their internal affairs, according to the dictates of their own judgment. It IS true that there are foreigners in California; but they are not perinitted to interfere with the government — the right of sufiVage being confined, as I have already said, to our own citizens, and those Mexicans who, according to treaty stipula- tions, are entitled to the privileges of citizens. The number of the latter, as has been shown, does not exceed a few hundred — so that California is as much under the control of our own people as Mis- souri, or any other State in the Union. It is an easy matter to say that any people are unfit for self-government; but if we look to facts, we shall find nothing to warrant such a conclusion with regard to the population of California. For the last two years and more, they have been almost without a government; yet they have maintained a degree of order which, under all the circumstances, is truly astonishing. I think it might be said, without fear of contradiction, that there is no State in the Union which, under the same circumstances, would present a more gratify- ing spectacle of decorum than this very California, whose citizens have been so fiercely denounced in this discussion. Have gentlemen read the Cali- fornia constitution? It is a work of which any body of men might be justly proud. Its thorough republicanism, and the guaranties it contains of the rights of the people, will compare well — nay, sir, they will brigntly contrast — with the constitutions of some of our States that stand high for intelli- gence. But it is charged that the people of California are not permanently settled — that they are mere va- grants, adventurers, gold-hunters, without fixed habitations, and will, in a little while, return to their old homes. In order to sustain this sneering accusation, no proof has been adduced. That some of the people of California will return to their forrner places of residence, I am free to admit; but that a rnajority of them, or even that a large minority of them will so return, I do not be- believe. Cast your eyes over that country, and what will you see? Why, sir, you will see cities springing up is if by magic — fanns opening and multiplying— multitudes engaged in almost every branch of useful industry — and commerce crowding all the avenues of trade. Upon inquiring into the condition of things, you will learn that a mechanic earns from sixteen to twenty-five dollars a day ; that a common laborer's wages are more than the per diem of a member of Congress; and that prnfessional skill and well-directed enterprise are rewarded there as they are rewarded nowliere else. It is scarcely credible, that men so situated, will choose to remove to the older States, where the exertions that, in California, yield them thous- ands annually, will afford them little more than a bare livelihood. It is true that the extraordinary .state of things which nov/ prevails in California, will not be yiermanent. It must end sooner or later; but when it terminates, I do not believe that California will be deserted. Her pleasant valleys, her delightful climate, and Iter iiicalculable commercial advantaoes, will alway.s retain within her borders a numerous, active, and thriving popu- lation. 11 Upon the application of new States forntlmis- sion into the Union, we have never required proof that their population was permanent. Congress has always acted upon the presumption that the people living in a State, for tlie most part, intended to remain there; and this reasonable supposition has not heretofore been disappointed. It is only the hardiest and most enterprising of our people who go to the new States — it is only such who have gone to California. And they are there to remain — to build up, along the Pacific, republican institutions, and to prove themselves, by the wis- dom of their legislation, worthy citizens of this widespread, and vk^ider-spreading, Union. It is further charged, tliat the Slate government of California is not the voluntary work of the people, but has been establislied under Executive dictation. Fortunately, sir, we know the people of California. A little while ago, they were our constituents, and we know that Executive dic- tation would have as little effect upon them, as upon any other portion of our population. Be- side this, there is not the slightest proof to sup- port the charge of Executive dictation. The President did, indeed, dispaich a messenger to California, advising the people to form a State government, in which, I think, he did wrong. That messenger did not, however, reach Califor- nia, until after General Riley's proclamation was issued. But, say gentlemen, General Riley states, in that very proclamation, that the President of the United States, and his Secretaries, advised the formation of a State government. I do not so understand the facts. The last paragraph of the proclamation is as follows: "Th ' method here indicated, viz., a more perfect political or^anizr.tion, is di^eincd the most direct and t-afe that can beaiiOi'iled, and one f idly authorized hy law. It is the course advised hy the President, and hy ilie Secretnii s of Slate and War, of the United States, and is calculated to avoid the innumerable evils which mu^t necessarily result from any attempt at illegal local legislation." What is here meant by " « ??io)'e perfect polilical orgnnizalion?" The exi)lanation is to be found in the fourth paragraph of the proclamation, which is in these words : " As Congress has failed to organize a new territorial gov- ernment, it becomes our imperative duty to provide for the existing wants of the country. This, it is thought, inay be best accomplished by putting in full rigor the adniiuistraiion of the laws as they now exist, and completing the organiza- tion of the civil government ly the election and appointment of all officers recognized by law." Here we are informed what is the meaning of "o more perfect political organiznlio7i." It was " the election and appointment of all officers recog- nized" by the laws which General Riley supposed to exist in California, with a view of giving those laws full vigor, by securing their administration. The remainder of the paragraph strengthens this view. It is as follows: "While, at the same time, a convention — in which all parts of the territory are represented — shall meet and frame a State con.-lilution, or a territorial organization, to be snb- initled to the people for their ratification, and then proposed to Conzress for its approval. Considerable time will neces- sarily elapse before any new gnvernmCHt can he les.ilimaiely organized and put in operation ; In the interim, the exi.-tiiig government, it its organization be completed, will belound »ulficient for all our temporary wants."' General Riley here evidently regarded a State or territorial organiziilion, by the people of Cali- fornia, as of no effect, and illegitimate, until sanc- tioned by Congress. He could not, therefore, have intended such an organization by the phrase " a more perfect political organization," which he says was recommended by the President, and by the Secretaries of State and of War of the United States; for he distinctly asserts that the tnore perfect political organization alluded to by him was " one fully authorized by law" — by law which then existed, and not by law which was to be subsequently enacted. How, then, came Gen- eral Riley to recommend to the people of Califor- nia the formation of a State constitution ? Although I have no certain information upon this subject, yet I think the evidence before us Justifies me in expressing an opinion with regard to it. It ap- pears that various movements had, from time to time, been set on foot in California, with a view of casting off the authority exercised by the chief of our military forces in that quarter, as head of the government de facto. These movements had been successfully suppressed by the American commandant. When the failure of the last Con- gress to establish a government over California was announced in that territory, the public mind was much excited, and public attention was again directed to the project of organizing a government by the people themselves. It can scarcely be doubted that this condition of things had its influ- ence upon General Riley; and, operated upon by the citizens who surrounded him, he issued his proclamation, sanctioning, rather than suggesting, the propriety of a State organization. If I am right in this opinion, the recent movements in California were essentially popular. They orig- inated with the people, and have been conducted by them to their present position. J\lr. Chairman, fault has been found with the boundaries of California. I confess that I would have been better pleased, had the summit of the Sierra Nevada been made the eastern boundary of the new State: yet I know from peisonal observa- tion — from actual travel — that much, if not all, of that part of California this side of the Snowy Mountain is a miserable desert, upon which no one now lives, and u|:ion which, in all probability, no one will ever live. It cannot, therefore, be a matter of much importance, whether that waste be included within California, or be attached to Des- eret. As to the enormous area of California, about which we have heard so much, I have this to say: Much of California is mountain, barren- hill, and desert. The valleys alone are considered susceptible of cultivation at present ; and after having been over the most of California, from San Diego to Johnson's Ranch, forty miles north of Sutter's, in the Sacramento valley, I have no hesi- tation in asserting, that the agricultural resources of Missouri are double those of the proposed State. Besides this, notwithstanding all the coiTiplaints about the great extent of California, it is less than half as large as Texas. Now, sir, I was an early, constant, and active advocate of the annexation of Texas, with her 325,520 square miles of territory, and I shall most assuredly not be inconsistent enough to oppose the admission of California at this ti me "because she has an area of 158,000 square miles. Still, sir, as I am anxious to do all in my power to quiet the existing excitement, I will vote for an alteration of the boundaries of California, if gen- tlemen can tliereby be induced to withdraw their opposition. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons that I have 12 now given, I shall vote for the admission of Cali- fornia into the Union ns a State. By so actinij, I shall carry out, according; to my apprehension, the doctrine of non-intervention — the doctrine in snp- ]iort of which tlie great Democratic party of this country were united a few months since — the doc- trine whicii was Ijoldly proclaimed by our distin- guished standard-liearer in the late Presidential contest, and to whom for his recent eloquent vin- dication in the Senate of the United States of the principles he has heretofore avowed — for his mag- nanimous efforts to do justice to the whole nation, in opposition to tlie prejudices of a particular section, and above all, for his noble and patriotic endeavors to secure, preserve, and perpetuate the union of these States — 1 now tender him my thanks, and tlie thanks of my constituents. Will the gentlemen from the North unite with me on tlie ground of non-intervention? From those who style themselves Free-soilers, I ask nothing and I expect nothing ; but from the majority of the northern Representatives, I think I have a right to look for aid. They say they desire peace and quiet to be restored to the country. They surely cannot be ignorant of what is passing around us. They cannot be blind to the fact, that the Union is agitated, and deeply agitated, by theattempts which have been made by Congress to restrict slavery to its present limits. Never before did so unfortu- nate a state of the public mind exist in the country, as at present. We have heard, day after day, discussions as to the advantages of a dissolution of the Union to a portion of its members •, and how muchsoever we may deprecate such exhibi- tions, they manifest a condition of things most alarming to the friends of our Confederacy. 1 am an Unionist in the most enlarged accepta- tion of tile term; and when I reflect upon the prog- ress we have made in all that constitutes true na- tional greatness; upon theiilessings which our insti- tutions have so widely and so universally diffused among our population — upon the prosperity which is the portion alike of every section of this broad land — upon our advancement in all the comforts and refinements of life — upon our improvement in literature, in the arts and sciences — upon our un- heard-of increase in numbers — upon our unexam- pled accumulation of strength at home, and upon the proud exaltation of our character abroad — I cannot believe that our people will ever, except under the pressure of the most untoward circum- stances, desire any change, and least of all, such a change as disunion would bring them. For myself, I can say with consf ious truth, that I have never attempted to calculate the value of this Union — to compute, in dollars and cents, the pecu- niary advantages likely to accrue to me or to mine, by a disruption of the bonds which hold this Confederacy together, and thus to ascertain the amount of gain that would result to my State or to my section, iiy blotting out the name of my country from the list of nations, and by tearini; to nieces and tranifiling in the dust, that flag which nas led us on from triumph to triumph, until we have become the wonder and the admiration of the world. No, Mr. Chairman, no. .Such pastimes have no attractions for mc. I was born under the Union — I trust Iodic underthe Union. Whenever, therefore, I see any movement calculated to cnd.mgcr the stai)ility of this Government, I can- not but feel the liveliest apprehension, and enter- tain the deepest solicitude, for the welfare of our people. The proposition to ingraft the Wilmot proviso upon the bill establishing territorial gov- ernments, I believe to be such a movement. No constituency in the Union is more conservative upon the slavery question than the one which I have the honor to represent, yet they would regard the passage of the Wilmot proviso as a gross out- rage upon their rights. If my section of the country feels so deeply upon this subject, is it to be wondered at, that the southern Slates feel much more deeply .' It is not to be disguised, that the discussions here, for the last few years, relative to the exclu- sion of slavery, by an act of Congress, from our recently-acquired territories, have aroused the pas- sions of our people, and tended to alienate their affections from one another in an alarming degree. How much longer shall this evil be tolerated.' How much further shall it progress? Shall it go on until the irritation becomes incurable ? Shall it go on until section is arrayed ag-ainst sec- tion, in all the bitterness of civil strife? Shall it go on until the arm of military power is brought in to hold together the distant parts of this Con- federacy ? It does appear to me, that if patriotism be not dead in this hall — that if our professed de- votion to this Union be not an empty boast — that we will settle the differences which divide us, be- fore the present session of Congress is permitted to close. We can settle them upon the principle of non-intervention. Let us admit California as a State, but let us also organize a territorial gov- ernment for the residue of our Mexican territory, without the clause prohibiting slavery. Such aa adjustment, I am aware, will not satisfy the e.x- tremists of any section; but if we wish to pacify the country, we must avoid all extremes; we must cultivate a spirit of concession and compromise in this and the other house of Congress. If we will but do this — if we will but banish from our midst that sectional and party-rancor, which, I fear, some- times too much prevails among us — if we will but call up that spirit, which animated the good and great men who formed this wisest and best of gov- ernments — if we will but forget ourselves a little while, in the effort to serve our country — all will yet be well. That storm of sectional strife which now rages around us, will be rpiieted; the bright sunshine of brotherly love will again break in upon us, and the Union of these States will be but emblematical of that union of kind regard and sympathy, which should prevail among the cit- izens of this greatest of Republics. Mr. Chairman, our constituents expect us to settle the questions which now so fiercely agitate the public mind. They are demanding their set- tlement at our hands. They are calling upon us in the name of our common country, in the name of our common hopes, in the name of all that is nio.=;t glorious in the recollections of the past, and brightest in the anticipations of the future, to set- tle these questions that are so fraught with conse- quences the most fearful — so big with dangers the most alarming. If wc heed this voice, we shall deserve the gratitude of the American people. If we heed it not, we shall merit their CDnilemnation. Entertaining these sentiments, I have viewed with pain — nay, sir, with jirofound regret — the effort of the present Executive to keep the question of slavery in the Territories of New Mexico and 13 Deseret still open, and undetermined. I trust that a majority of this House will not adopt a policy so unfortunate— a policy which must keep up the present excitement — an excitement, which if not quieted, may lead us, God only knows where. If gentlemen from the North — for they must settle the question — cannot stand on the ground of non- intervention, let them bring forward their plan of adjustment. For one, I stand here ready, willing, nay, eager, to vote for almost any proposition which gives a fair and reasonable promise of pacifying our people; and if, by any eflbrts of mine, I shall contribute in the smallest degree, to a satisfactory adjustment of our present difficulties, I shall believe that I have rendered the State some service. If all my efforts shall prove unavailing, to accomplish this end, I shall still have the con- solation of knowing that I have endeavored to discharge my duty to my country, honestly and faithfully, in this, the darkest hour of her peril. W46 ■^u .^' ^: .^v" •^' v-^' *v/» ^^^'^'i o '/S ^'% v-, .-?.' s>. ^.«o' A^ Mrs;.- ^-^ .^'-^-^ •0^ CV « BOOKBINDINC. ..^^ '^