Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

so far north, that the sphere of the globe will sufficiently shorten the distance--and the work must be constructed from a plan of means, which will secure an adequate reduction in the cost of transport. The route must pass through a wilderness, with as great an extent as possible of agricultural country, to be brought into settlement and production. The work itself to be the cheap means of transit from and to the great markets of the world.

A change of route for commerce can benefit no interests, particularly, unless the saving of time and of cost of transport be sufficient to increase the consumption of the articles which constitute that commerce: Or unless it opens to settlement and production a new country, which before had been inaccessible and useless.

Now we will suppose that the commerce which is carried on around the Cape of Good Hope could be changed by a canal or railway across by Suez. It would certainly shorten the distance very much; but what interest would be benefitted by it? or would commercial exchanges be increased?

Though time and distance would be lessened, still the expenses of transhipment and transit, the dangers of navigation, and damage by climate, would be such that no material reduction in the cost of transit would be effected,

and the condition of the surplus population of both Europe and Asia would remain precisely the same, inasmuch as no means would be created to enable one to consume more of the products of the other.

These are the questions which should be considered by both the statesman and the merchant. It is the position of the surplus population of Europe, with the heavy tax imposed on labor to meet the interest on the enormous debts of the European nations, and other burdens, together with the surplus population of Eastern Asia, particularly China, that must occupy the minds of the statesman and philanthrophist of all the world, and especially of Europe and America--and the construction of a new highway for the commerce and intercourse of Europe with Asia, must be a basis on which to found a system to provide for, and make useful to all mankind, the European and Asiatic surpluses of population.

This is a subject in which the whole world, and particularly England and the United States, is interested. If, gentlemen, you can give this a place in your valuable journal, I shall feel myself greatly indebted and honored, as I am already for your favorable notice of my project.-Most respectfully, your obedient servant, ASA WHITNEY.

NOTE. For a tolerably full account of Mr. Whitney's plan of operations for the construction of a rail road to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific coast, see article in the namber of this Journal for July, 1849.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY.

THE Senate having under consideration the resolutions of Mr. BELL, of Tennessee, and the motion of Mr. FOOTE to refer them to a select committee of thirteen,

Mr. BALDWIN spoke as follows: He had listened to the discussions in the Senate on these subjects with deep interest. He had seen in their tone much to admire, much to regret, and it had been his endeavor to preserve his own mind from any undue excitement or bias, so as to be governed alone by the spirit of the Constitution in any legislative act he might be called upon to take a part. That sacred instrument dealt in no sectional language. The voices of the whole American people spoke there harmoniously. It was adopted, in a spirit of liberality to conflicting interests and sentiments; tolerating, no doubt, some institutions then thought temporary, and some compromises now regretted. But they are there; and he could speak with authority, in the name of the people of his own State, that they were prepared to abide by the letter and the spirit of these compromises.

Such, Sir, said Mr. BALDWIN, are the instructions of the State of Connecticut, passed by a nearly unanimous vote of both Houses of the Legislature. But they have also instructed their Senators and requested their representatives in Congress, to oppose in all constitutional ways, every measure of compromise which shall yield any portion of free territory to the encroachments of slavery, or by which the people of the United States shall be made responsible for its continuance. He did not believe in the principle of instructions, but these instructions fully concorded with his own judgment, and he should readily and gladly conform to them.

The resolutions now before the Senate, and the proposition to refer them to a committee of compromise, did not meet with his approbation. The question of California, in his opinion, should be connected with no other question whatever. The people of the State are here claiming a right; a right guarantied by treaty. The question of that right should then be judged and disposed of by itself, biased by

no motives but that of justice. These propositions also assumed an antagonism in the interests of the North and the South, which was unwarranted by fact, unsound in principle, and unconstitutional if carried into legislation. The Constitution knew no North or South or East or West; it proceeded from the people of the United States, and it was to their collective interests that as legislators they were called upon to attend. This body should acknowledge no antagonism, no divided interests; they should know of only one constituency, and that was the whole of their common country.

He did not sustain the admission of California from any supposed advantage to the people of his own portion of the country. He saw no such advantage. He saw no way in which the introduction of her Senators and Representatives in Congress could conduce more to the promotion of the interests of his constituents than to the interests of any other section. It was on the score of justice to the people of California that he advocated her admission. At the time of the cession of these territories, we pledged ourselves to protect and maintain the inhabitants in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and the full exercise of their civil rights. This pledge we have failed to keep. It is true, the old Mexican and departmental laws continued in force, but these laws were notoriously insufficient in the altered circumstances of the country, to shield them from disorganization and private wrong. "Had California continued as it was, composed of a few sparse settlements, the laws in force at the time of the cession would have been ample for their protection. Their interests were small; their transactions with each other were comparatively few; their temptations to crime were slight; but under our authority, by our invitation, a vast influx of population from all parts of the world have migrated to California. Ships from Europe and Asia and Western America, as well as from our own coast have entered their magnificent harbors, richly laden with the products of every climate. Mines of gold of unsur

passed richness have allured adventurers of every description, and given a new impulse to labor in all the departments of industry. Towns and cities have arisen among them, as by magic; thousands of people are clustered together from different nations, of dissimilar habits, differing in their usages, and the systems of law to which they had been accustomed in the places from which they migrated-differing not merely from those of the Mexican inhabitants but of each other. We all know that, in a remote country like that thus newly settled by those who are strangers to each other, who come with habits thus dissimilar, the ordinary restraints of society, which stand in the place of law in older countries, have but a feeble hold upon the population. What, then, was the necessary result? That liberty and property were in a great measure unprotected. Crimes were committed, and there were no adequate tribunals to try and punish the offender. Contracts were made and broken, and there were none to administer justice. Rights of property were violated with impunity. Who was responsible for all this? The old Mexican laws, the old departmental officers, were entirely inadeqnate to the purposes for which Government was now needed. What, then, should be done? They appealed to Congress. Congress representing the supreme power of this Government, to whose dominion they had been transferred by Mexico, refused to interfere-refused to aid them with a system of laws adequate to the circumstances in which they were placed. Even the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury were vainly attempted in this body, at the last session, to be conferred upon this distant people. Mexico had relinquished her dominion to a power that refused to exercise it efficiently for their protection. The greater portion of the people were our own citizens, our own kindred, our sons."

Driven thus by necessity, they have framed laws and a Constitution for themselves, and it is not for us to cavil at any irregularities in their formation, irregularities forced upon them by ourselves, but to inquire in good faith whether the casus fæderis has arisen, whether the time has come for her admission as a State. If we cannot deny that these requisites are fulfilled, what right have we to allow sectional feelings and questions to be mixed up with and delay her admission?

These resolutions, the Senator continued, propose that Congress shall renew the assent given by the joint resolution of 1845, for the formation of three or four new slave States out of the present territory of Texas, and assert that the faith of the Government is already pledged for their admission. If this be so, no act of ours can strengthen or impair that obligation. Whether it be so or not, it surely

is a question which this Congress is not competent to solve. Assuming it to be the true construction of the Constitution, as in his judgment it was, that foreign territories can be annexed by the treaty-making power alone, it would follow that the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas was simply void. If so, it was the acquiescence of the people of the United States in the Union of Texas, and not the joint resolution, that placed her on the footing of the other States of the Union. Texas of course knew, when negotiating for admission, the rights she should thereby acquire, and the obligations she should come under. She had perfect knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. He might, therefore, when this question comes practically before Congress, feel unwilling to admit the binding force of this pledge. He was not now called upon to decide, but he protested against its being sent to a committee of compromise along with other subjects which he might feel bound to sustain, and thus give rise to an imputation of bad faith.

Moreover, this is a question which no State but Texas has a right to raise; and, hitherto, she has manifested no desire to take it into consideration. He thought that Congress should address itself to those duties of legislation which called for action, avoiding discussion productive only of agitation.

With regard to the questions connected with this subject, said Mr. BALDWIN, the only constitutional and proper mode of treating them, is to act upon them as they arise. The question of the extension of slavery over free territory admitted no compromise. It involves a deep-seated principle. Slavery was not a natural law. It could exist only by positive enactment, and the majority of the people of the United States, he was satisfied, were averse to assuming the responsibility of any legislation that might lead to its extension.

But it is said that slavery being purely a domestic institution of the States, the Government of the United States has no concern with it. This he admitted so far as slavery in the States was concerned. But he denied that Congress had no right to legislate on this subject in the territories. Congress must act in the government of the territories precisely as a State Legislature acts within its own limits. The Government and the Territories belonged to the people of the United States, and not to the several States. The treaty-making power negotiates for the nation-not as the agent of the States. The territory is acquired for the Union. The constituencies of the nation are the people, not the States.

With regard to the subject of fugitives from the Southern States, Mr. BALDWIN contended that the safety of the class of colored citizens of the Northern States, demanded that ques

tions of the kind should be heard and decided by the permanent judicial tribunals of the Government, that the colored freemen of the North are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States to which they have occasion to go. He thought that all that was needed upon the subject of fugitive slaves, was to amend the existing act of Congress, so as to confine the exercise of the powers conferred to the judges of courts of the United States, and to secure to those who allege themselves to be free, the advantage of an impartial jury to aid the courts in the ascertainment of facts.

Respecting the other alleged grievances, the burden of the complaint seems to be the petition for the abolition of the slave-trade and slavery in the District of Columbia and whereever the jurisdiction of Congress extends. But is this any interference with the rights of any State ? Is it any real grievance, if these petitioners confine their request to the action of Congress, where Congress has the entire and exclusive power of legislation? Senators may not be willing to grant these petitions, but have they any right to say that they or their constituents are aggrieved by their presentment?

"In conclusion," said Mr. BALDWIN, "I will only say-and I say it with great deference to the opinions of others-that there is, in my opinion, but one course to be pursued to calm the agitations that now surround us, and prevent their recurrence. It is to place ourselves firmly on the platform of the Constitution, adhering faithfully to its compromises, and administering, in the spirit which animated our fathers, and in the light of their admonitions and example, the powers confided to us by the people. No compromises of principle are required for our security. No sectional concessions should be asked, or expectations encouraged; but even-handed justice secured to all. Pursuing such a course, I fear no danger to the Union. Its foundations are too deeply laid in the interests and affections of the people, and in their cherished recollections of the past, to be easily disturbed. It is emphatically their government; and its powers, though wisely and carefully limited, are amply sufficient, if beneficently directed, o lead us to a higher degree of national glory and happiness than has fallen to the lot of any other people." April 17.

The same subject being before the Senate, and the pending question thereon being Mr. BENTON'S instructions to the Committee, to the effect that Congress has no power over slavery in the States, nor the slave-trade between the States, and that Congress cught not to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, nor in the forts, arsenals, and navy-yards of the United States, Mr. CLAY moved to

amend this proposition so that it should read,

[ocr errors]

'Provided, that the Senate does not deem it necessary to express in advance any opinion, or to give any instructions either general or specific, for the guidance of the Committee."

Mr. BENTON said, in reply, that the proposition to which this amendment was offered, was in fact only an amendment to his original proposition, and which he had accepted in a spirit of compromise, and at the suggestion of Mr. CLAY. As the Senator from Kentucky now wished to recede from it, he would withdraw it altogether.

The proposition being thus withdrawn, Mr. CLAY'S amendment fell with it.

Mr. BENTON then moved his original proposition, providing that the Committee shall not take into consideration the question of slavery in the States, the internal slave-trade, slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the forts, arsenals, and navy-yards of the United States.

Mr. CLAY again moved his former amendment, namely, that the Senate does not deem it necessary to express in advance any opinion, or to give any instructions, either general or specific, for the guidance of this Commit

tee.

Mr. BENTON objected that this was not an amendment, but in direct conflict with his own proposition, and consequently unparliamentary. He regretted the obstacles thrown in the way of the admission of California. In fact, he saw nothing but long delay and imminent danger to that bill, in proceeding ny farther with this motion to refer to a committee. We have no need of this committee, he said. We have the bill already, brief and explicit. He therefore moved, before the pending amendment is gone into, to lay the subject of raising a committee on the table, for the purpose of taking up the bill for the admission of the State of California.

Mr. CLAY, in reply, said, that no one wished for the speedy admission of California more than himself, and with due deference to the Senator from Missouri, he suggested that the chief obstacle was the course taken by Mr. BENTON. Let this opposition to the appointment of a committee cease; let the committee be raised, and then, if necessary, let the bill for the admission of California be reported and acted upon in the Senate. In that case, he had already intimated, he should propose as an amendment to the bill, provisions to give territorial governments to the two new Territories without the Wilmot Proviso. He thought the bill faulty. The brevity that the Senator from Missouri so recommended, would result in losing for the United States, the public doman of California.

The question being taken on Mr. BENTON'S motion to lay on the table, it was negatived by yeas 24, nays 28, as follows:

YEAS Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Chase, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass, Dayton, Dodge of Iowa, Dodge of Wis Douglass, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Walker, Webster-24. NAYS--Atchison, Badger, Bell, Borland, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Miss, inson, Downs, Foote, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Whitcomb, Yulee, 28.

consideration may be amended." If this were a bill, could it contain a proposition that it should not be subject to amendment? or could it be moved in amendment to it, that this bill should be carried through the Senate without any proposition to amend?

Mr. CLAY rejoined that here was a proposition to refer certain subjects to a committee. The Senator from Missouri proposed certain amendments to that proposition. They had a Dick-right to vote these amendments down one by one. His own proposition went little farther than that.

Mr. BENTON, then commented on Mr. CLAY'S amendment. It asked the Senate, he said, to cut itself off from all its parlimentary rights of offering amendments to bills and resolutions while going through that body. The attempt is impotent. We have a right to offer instructions after instructions, and if the Senate will not adopt them, its only way is to reject them when presented; to vote them down. This right of offering instructions he meant to exercise to its full extent.

In reply, Mr. CLAY said, that there was nothing extraordinary in giving a subject to a committee without instructions. It happened every day; two or three times a day. When a joint committee was appointed in the instance of the Missouri compromise, no instructions were given; they were left free as air, to devise the best mode of settling that unhap py question. Senators had a right beyond doubt to instruct if they wished, or to leave the cottee without restraint. This resolution will be adopted; and who was it, he /asked, that wished to check the free exercise of their rights by the Senate? Why those who by their amendments, against the emphatic expressions of opinion by the majority of that body, would produce embarrassment and delay. I have framed this resolution deliberately, said Mr. CLAY, and for the express purpose of getting rid of the unnecessary instructions which the Senator from Missouri has proposed, and to dispose of any other instructions which his ingenuity, and no man possesses a greater amount of it than he does, might suggest to be brought before this body. Let my amendment be adopted, and let the Senator offer his other instructions from one to ninety-nine, if he pleases, and we shall see if the question of order will not silence them all.

Mr. WEBSTER cared little how this matter of a committee should be decided. He felt no interest in it, for he thought no great benefit would result from it. But the motion of the Senator from Kentucky he considered irregular. It is in direct reversal of the standing rule of the Senate that "the proposition under

At the suggestion of Mr. MANGUM, Mr. CLAY modified his amendment by inserting after the word "necessary," the words "and therefore declines."

The question being then taken, the amendment was adopted. Yeas 25, nays 22, as follows:

YEAS-Atchison, Badger, Borland, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis (Miss,) Dickinson, Dodge (Iowa), Douglass, Downs, Foote, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Yulee.

NAYS. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Chase, Clark, Corwin, Davis (Mass), Dayton, Dodge (Wis), Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Walker, Whitecombe.

April 18.

Mr. BENTON moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the California bill.

Mr. CLAY moved to lay the motion on the table, which was agreed to-Yeas 27, Nays 24, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs Atchison, Badger, Bell, Borland, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Downs, Foote, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Whitecomb and Yulee.

NAYS-Messrs Baldwin, Benton, Chase, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Iowa, Dodge of Wis, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Morris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Walker and Webster.

The question was then taken upon Mr. BENTON'S amendment instructing the committee not to connect California with any other measure. The amendment was rejected. Yeas 25, Nays 28.

The question was then taken seriatim, upon the thirteen propositions of Mr. BENTON, all of which were rejected. It was then taken upon a proposition by Mr. HAMLIN, excepting the admission of California from the reference. This also was rejected. Mr. WALKER moved to except from reference to the Committee, the subject of the arrest of fugitive slaves. This proposition was rejected.

The final question was then taken upon the motion to refer the resolution of Messrs CLAY

« ZurückWeiter »