tution. On the contrary, the instructions given by my orders were that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of California must originate solely with themselves; that while the Executive of the United States was desirous to protect them in the formation of any government republican in its character, to be at the proper time submitted to Congress, yet it was to be distinctly understood that the plan of such a government must at the same time be the result of their own deliberate choice, and originate with themselves, without the interference of the Executive.

"In advising an early application by the people of these Territories for admission as States, I was actuated principally by an earnest desire to afford to the wisdom and patriotism of Congress the opportunity of avoiding occasions of bitter and angry dissensions among the people of the United States.

Under the constitution, every State has the right of establishing, and from time to time altering, its municipal laws and domestic institutions, independently of every other State and of the general government, subject only to the prohibitions and guaranties expressly set forth in the constitution of the United States. The subjects thus left exclusively to the respective States were not designed or expected to become topics of national agitation. Still, as under the constitution, Congress has power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territories of the United States, every new acquisition of territory has led to discussions on the question whether the system of involuntary servitude which prevails in many of the States should or should not be prohibited in that Territory. The periods of excitement from this cause which have heretofore occurred have been safely passed; but during the interval, of whatever length, which may elapse before the admission of the Territories ceded by Mexico as States, it appears probable that similar excitement will prevail to an undue extent.

"Under these circumstances, I thought, and still think, that it was my duty to endeavor to put it in the power of Congress, by the admission of California and New Mexico as States, to remove all occasion for the unnecessary agitation of the public mind.

"It is understood that the people of the western part of California have formed a plan of a State constitution, and will soon submit the same to the judgment of Congress and apply for admission as a State. This course on their part, though in accordance with, was not adopted exclusively in consequence of any expression of my wishes, inasmuch as measures tending to this end had been promoted by the officers sent there by my predecessor, and were already in active progress of execution before any communication from me reached California. If the proposed constitution shall, when submitted to Congress, be found to be in compliance with the requisitions of the constitution of the United States, I earnestly recommend that it may receive the sanction of Congress.

Texas to a very large portion of the most populous district of the Territory, commonly designated by the name of New Mexico. If the people of New Mexico had formed a plan of a State government for that Territory, as ceded by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and had been admitted by Congress as a State, our constitution would have afforded the means of obtaining an adjustment of the question of boundary with Texas by a judicial decision. At present, however, no judicial tribunal has the power of deciding that question, and it remains for Congress to devise some mode for its adjustment. Meanwhile I submit to Congress the question, whether it would be expedient before such adjustment to establish a territorial government, which, by including the district so claimed, would practically decide the question adversely to the State of Texas, or, by excluding it, would decide it in her favor. In my opinion, such a course would not be expedient, especially as the people of this Territory still enjoy the benefit and protection of their municipal laws, originally derived from Mexico, and have a military force stationed there to protect them against the Indians. It is undoubtedly true that the property, lives, liberties, and religion of the people of New Mexico, are better protected than they ever were before the treaty of cession.

"Should Congress, when California shall present herself for incorporation into the Union, annex a condition to her admission as a State affecting her domestic institutions contrary to the wishes of her people, and even compel her temporarily to comply with it, yet the State could change her constitution at any time after admission, when to her it should seem expedient. Any attempt to deny to the people of the State the right of self-government in a matter which peculiarly affects themselves will infallibly be regarded by them as an invasion of their rights; and, upon the principles laid down in our own Declaration of Independence, they will certainly be sustained by the great mass of American people. To assert that they are a conquered people, and must, as a State, submit to the will of their conquerors, in this regard, will meet with no cordial response among American freemen. Great numbers of them are native citizens of the United States, and not inferior to the rest of our countrymen in intelligence and patriotism; and no language of menace to restrain them in the exercise of an undoubted right, substantially guarantied to them by the treaty of cestion itself, shall ever be uttered by me, or encouraged and sustained by persons acting under my authority. It is to be expected that, in the residue of the territory ceded to us by Mexico, the people residing there will, at the time of their incorporation into the Union as a State, settle all questions of domestic policy to suit themselves.

"No material inconvenience will result from the want, for a short period, of a government established by Congress over that part of the territory which lies eastward of the new State of California; and the reasons for my opinion that New Mexico will, at no very distant period, ask for admission into the Union are founded on unofficial information, which, I suppose, is common to all who have cared to make inquiries on that subject.

"

Seeing, then, that the question which now excites such painful sensations in the country, will, in the end, certainly be settled by the silent effect of causes independent of the action of Congress, I again submit to your wisdom the policy recommended in my annual message of awaiting the salutary operation of those causes, believing that we shall thus avoid the creation of geographic parties, and secure the harmony of feeling so necessary to the beneficial action of our political system. Connected as the Union is, with the remembrance of past happiness, the sense of present blessings, and the hope of future peace and prosperity, every dictate of wisdom, every feeling of duty, and every emotion of patriotism, tend to inspire fidelity and devotion to it, and admonish us cautiously to avoid any unnecessary controversy which can either endanger it or impair its strength, the chief element of which is to be found in the regard and affection of the people for each other.

"Z. TAYLOR. "Washington, January 21, 1850."

SENATE.

On the 16th of January, Mr. FooTE, a Senator from Mississippi, who has made himself conspicuous by his ultra Southern doctrines, his apparent anxiety to settle the slave question before any other business shall engage the attention of Congress, and by degrading

the Senate Chamber into a theatre for a kind of charlatan oratory, introduced a Bill to "provide for the organization of a Territorial Government in California, Deseret, and New Mexico, and to enable the people of Jacinto, with the assent of the State of Texas, to provide a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union,

upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever."

On the 22d, the same subject came up as the order of the day, when Mr. CASS delivered a very long and elaborate speech, which occupied the greater part of the time for two days. There are two principal questions, he said, in the controversy respecting the Wilmot Proviso, as indeed there are in all the legislation of Congress: first, whether the measure is constitutional; and next, if constitutional, whether it is expedient. He proposed chiefly to argue the constitutional question, though, before closing, he should offer a few remarks on the expediency of exercising the power, provided the power exists.

In the discussions which have taken place on the subject, formerly and recently, all those who have contended for the power of Congress to pass this Wilmot Proviso, have contended for a general and unlimited power of legislation over the Territories. The right to institute governments, and the right to legislate over their internal concerns, are used as convertible terms. This is true, both in Congress, and on the judicial bench. He quotes

from Sargent, Story, Rawle, and others, who entertain this opinion. It was precisely this claim of unlimited legislation which led to our separation from England. He had listened, he said, with amazement to the long and subtle metaphysical inquiries into the rights of sovereignty, and the powers it brings with it, as if the rights of sovereignty were everything, and the rights of man nothing.

A great principle is involved in this controversy--the inseparable connection between legislation and representation. And what paramount necessity calls for its violation? Are not the people of the territories competent to manage their own affairs? Are they not of us, and with us? The same people, with the same views, habits, and intelligence-all, indeed, which constitutes national identity? Cannot such a people administer their own government safely and wisely? Experience says they can. It is clear there is no necessity for Congress to legislate for the Territories. They have never legislated exclusively, and the very few instances of the exercise of such a power upon the statute-book, were not only unconstitutional, but were acts of supererogation.

He considered that it was no objection to the application of this argument to the new Territories, to say, that they contained a very large for eign population, who were ignorant of our political institutions; for, he thought, in all of them there would be a majority of the active population, who are American citizens, emigrants from the older States, that would exercise a preponderating influence on all public affairs. He then referred to the late proceedings in California for organizing a Government, as an evidence of their ability to manage their own concerns, and of their devotion to republican principles.

There is no clause in the Constitution, giving Congress express power to pass any law respecting slavery in the Territories. Every construction which would give to Congress such a power, would equally give it jurisdiction over every department of life, social and political; over the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, as well as over the relations of master and servant; it would embrace the whole circle of human rights-life, liberty, and property-in all their various modes of enjoyment. If Congress possesses the power to abolish or exclude slavery, it has the power to institute it. If, as many speakers contend, said Mr. C., this right of Congress is derived from that clause of the constitution, which provides “that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory and other property be longing to the United States," then is the phraseology employed but little creditable to

the person who prepared it, or to the body who adopted it. Those who assume that this phrase, so limited, confers a power so unlimited, are bound to explain why similar language was not used to grant similar power, in other parts of the same instrument. No man has done this no man has attempted to do it; and it is an obstacle, in limine, which, till removed, is insuperable. He then enumerates a dozen other provisions of the Constitution, under which different persons have sought to justify the exercise of this power. Among these are the war and treaty-making powers; the right to admit new States; the right to sell the public lands; the right of ownership; the right or duty of settlement; the right of Sovereignty; the nature of government; nationality; the principles of agency and trust, &c.

Much of the confusion, he said, which accompanies this subject, has arisen from the use we now make of the word "territory" by applying it to those political communities which are organized under the name of Territorial Governments, and considering it as so applied in the Constitution. He argued that the term originally designated the public domain, or land, and had merely a geographical meaning, and not a political one; and he refers to Acts of Congress of 1785 and 1787, in which it was repeatedly so considered and used. In the ordinance providing for the Government of the Western territory, it was in many places denominated a "district." Had those local communities, which we now call territories, preserved the term district, as descriptive of their political organization, we should probably never have heard of the extended construction now given to this power of making needful rules for territory or land, and other property. The use of the term territory was unknown in its present sense, at the time of the adoption of the constitution. He maintained that territory, as it is employed in the constitution, means property, and that the clause already quoted, gives no right of legislation for the inhabitants. He arrayed many eminent authorities who have taken the opposite ground, and endeavored to show the fallacy of their reasonings. He combated every right to legislate for the territories supposed to be supported by constitutional authority, in an argument of great length-evincing much research and ingenuity. The whole constitutional part of the speech may be summed up in the statement, that the constitution confers on Congress no power of any kind to give laws to the people inhabiting a territory; that it does not even confer the right to organize a government or do any other act of sovereignty; and, that if Congress may exercise such a right at any time or under any circumstances, it is not derived from the organic laws,

but from the necessity of circumstances. The power to interfere, in any manner, is not one that can be justified by the plain provisions of the constitution, but only by moral reasons that render some form of government essential to the happiness and well-being of the people who are living without law or order. If Congress ventures to take even this step, it does it at its own peril, and must throw itself upon the people to obtain indemnification for thus exceeding its legitimate authority.

He then proceeded to examine the expediency of passing the Wilmot Proviso. There are at least, said he, fourteen States in the Union which see in this measure a direct attack upon their rights, and disregard of their feelings and interests. No man can shut his eyes to the excitement which prevails there,manifested in legislative proceedings, popular assemblies, and in every way that can express public opinion-or be insensible to the evil day that is upon us. He believed that the Union would survive all the dangers with which it might be menaced, and that it is not destined to perish until long after it shall have fulfilled the great mission confided to it, that of example and encouragement to the nations of the earth who are struggling with the despotism of centuries, and groping their way in a darkness once impenetrable, but where the light of knowledge and freedom is beginning to disperse the gloom. Sad will be the day when the first drop of blood is shed in the preservation of this Union. That day need never come, and never will come, if the same spirit of compromise and concession by each to the feelings of all, which animated our fathers, continues to animate us and our children. As a mere practical question, is the legislative adoption of this Proviso worth the hazard at which alone it can be secured? There should be great advantages, inestimable indeed, to be gained, before such a measure is forced upon the country. No good, under the most favorable circumstances, could result from this Congressional interference with the rights of the people of the Territories. Can slavery go there if left without this prohibition? There are very few persons anywhere who think it can. Considerations of profit would control the question. The contest is not worth the cost. The Proviso is urged on the ground of its expediency. It is opposed upon the ground of its unconstitutionality. Those who urge it may well abandon it when circumstances show that the measure is dangerous in itself, or profitless in its result. Mr. CASS concluded by saying, that he was precluded from voting in conformity with his opinions. He had been instructed by the Legislature of Michigan to vote in favor of the measure, and he was a believer in the doctrine of instructions, when fairly exercised and under proper circumstan

ces.

When the time comes that he should be required to vote upon the question, as a practical one, in a bill providing for a Territorial Government, he should know how to reconcile his duty to the Legislature and duty to himself, by surrendering a trust that he could no longer fulfil.

On the 29th of January, Mr. CLAY presented himself before the Senate in the same character in which he appeared thirty years ago -the pacificator between the slave and the free States-and introduced the following Resolutions, accompanying each one with proper explanatory remarks:

1st. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought upon her application to be ad mitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries.

2d. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into or exclusion from any part of the said territory; and that appropriate Territorial Governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.

3d. Resolved, That the western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that

river.

4th. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of that State contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of $- in consideration of the said duties so pledged having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States; and upon the condition also that the said State of Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature, or of a convention, relinguish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.

5th. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

6th. But resolved, That it is expedient to pro

hibit within the District the slave-trade, in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

7th. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union.

And 8th. Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slave-holding-States, but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.

Although Mr. C. desired, on submitting these Resolutions, to avoid bringing on a general debate, and proposed that they should be made the order of the day, some days ahead, when he intended to enter into a more elaborate argument than he designed on that occasion, there was, nevertheless, a pretty sharp onset made upon them by several members from the South, and some undue warmth of language was indulged in.

Mr. FOOTE and Mr. DAVIS, the two Senators from Mississippi, were particularly vehement in their onset, and most eager to engage in the conflict. Mr. MASON, Mr. RUSK, MR. KING, MR. DOWNS, MR. BERRIEN, and Mr. BUTLER, all from the slave States, thought it necessary, lest their silence might be construed into an assent, to interpose their objections without any delay. Passing by the first speech, we shall offer a sketch of the second, -the more elaborate one,-that was delivered on the 5th of February, when the Resolutions came up in order.

Mr. CLAY began by saying that never, on any former occasion, had he risen under feelings of such painful solicitude. He had witnessed many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of danger in this country, but never before had he risen to address any assemblage so oppressed, so appalled, and so anxious. He had, again and again in his chamber, implored Him, who holds the destinies of nations, as of individuals, in his hands, to bestow upon our country his blessing, to calm the violence and rage of party, to still passion, and to allow reason once more to resume its empire; and he hoped it would not be out of place to make the same supplication there. He attributed all the present dangers and difficulties to party-spirit, that was busy in the North, the South, in Congress, and in State Legislatures. The House of Representatives had felt its influence so strongly, that it had spent a whole week this very session, in the vain endeavor to elect a door-keeper, and the only question was, whether he entertained

opinions upon certain great national measures, coincident with this or that side of the House. Nearly eight years since he had taken his final leave, as he had supposed, of the Senate. He had not conceived the possibility of his ever returning to it, and if his private wishes and inclinations, his desire, during the short remnant of his days, to remain in repose and quiet, could have prevailed, he would not be seen occupying the seat which he now occupies on that floor. But the Legislature of the State to which he belonged, unsolicited, had re-elected him and he had come there in obedience to a sense of stern duty, with no personal objects, no private views, now or hereafter, to gratify. He begged to assure all who might hear him, or any persons out of the Capitol, who hope in the race for honors and elevation, for higher honors and higher elevation, that he, at least, would never interfere with them in their pursuits; and if his wishes could prevail, his name should never be used in competition. When his service was terminated in that body, his mission, so far as respects the public affairs of this world, and upon this earth, would be closed, he hoped, forever. It is impossible not to perceive that party-spirit affects all our affairs. At the moment when the White House is itself in danger from conflagration, instead of all hands uniting to extinguish the flames, we are contending about who shall be its next occupant. It is passion-passion, party, party, and intemperance, that he dreaded in the adjustment of the questions, which unhappily divide our distracted country. At this moment, besides the legislative bodies of the Capitol, there are twenty-odd furnaces in full blast, emitting heat, and passion, and intemperance. Two months ago all was calm, in comparison with the present. Now, all is uproar, confusion, and menace to the existence of the Union, and to the happiness of this people. He conjured senators, by all their hopes now and hereafter, to repress the ardor of these passions, to listen to the voice of reason. He had cut himself off, he said, from all the usual enjoyments of society during this whole session, and had confined himself, almost entirely, to his own chamber, anxiously meditating on some plan of accommodation, which would restore the blessings of concord, harmony, and peace to this great country.

The first Resolution relates to California. There is no concession by either party. If slavery is interdicted within the limits of California, it is done by California herself, and not by Congress; and has it not been the doctrine of all parties, that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, it has a right to decide for itself, whether it will or not tolerate slavery within its boundaries. He then referred to the introduction of Missouri

into the Union. The great argument used by those contending for its admission was, that she had all the rights of any pre-existing State, and was legally as competent to decide whether she should have slavery or not as New York, or any other of the old thirteen were. No one doubts now that those Northwestern States to which the ordinance of 1787 applied, have just as much right to introduce slavery within their borders, as Virginia has to maintain the existence of it within hers. If, then, in the struggle for empire between the two classes of States, a decision in California has taken place, adverse to the wishes of the South, it is a decision respecting which they can utter no complaint towards the General Government, for it is made by California, who unquestionably had the constitutional right to make it.

Respecting the second resolution, he said he knew that every one of the free States in this Union, without exception, had by its legislative body, passed resolutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives to have the restriction of the Wilmot Proviso incorporated in any Territorial Government which might be established under the auspices of Congress. He knew how much they had set their hearts upon the adoption of this measure. In the second resolution he asked them, for the sake of peace, and in the spirit of mutual forbearance to the other members of the Union, to give it up. As a compensation for doing so, he felt bound to offer something in return, though it was not by any means an equivalent. What he offered was what he considered two indisputable truths; the first is, that slavery no longer exists, by law, in any part of the acquisitions made by us from Mexico; and the second is, that according to all the probabilities of the case, slavery never will be introduced into any portion of the territories so acquired from Mexico. It is said that these two are tantamount to the Wilmot Proviso. But he did not think so, as the one was a positive enactment prohibiting it, while the other was the simple expression of an opinion. He then adverted to the condition of the territory while it was still Mexican. At that time, slavery had been formally abolished, whether regularly done or not was no question for this Government to settle. The last act of Mexico, when arranging for a surrender of jurisdiction, showed the abhorrence with which she would regard the introduction of slavery into any portion of the territory that she should cede away. This was sufficient, he thought, to prove that slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty was ratified by the two parties, under the operation of the Constitution of the United States. This idea he declared was irreconcilable with any comprehension of rea