press it again but for the fact that the amendment has been offered, and but for the farther fact that I have heard, to my surprise, the doctrine that the people, when they come to form a state government, have a right to do as they please in moulding their domestic institutions questioned in some quar ters. "If it is questioned, I see no reason why we should not express, when it comes in our way, what we believe to be the true constitutional doctrine. I believe the people have a right to do as they please when they form their Constitution, and, no matter what domestic regulations they may make, they have a right to come into the Union, provided there is nothing in their Constitution which violates the Constitution of the United States. Believing that, I shall vote for the amendment, in order that the Senate may express its opinion in this bill. I have always held that the people have a right to settle these questions as they choose, not only when they come into the Union as a state, BUT THAT THEY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO SO WHILE A TERRI TORY. "If I have ever recorded a vote contrary to that principle, even as applicable to Territories, it was done under the influence of the pressure of an authority higher than my own will. Each and every vote that I have given contrary to that principle is the vote of those who sent me here, and not my own. I have faithfully obeyed my instructions, in letter and in spirit, to the fullest extent. They were confined to the prohibition of slavery in the Territories while they remained Territories, and leaving the people to do as they please when they shall be admitted into the Union as states. The vote which I am now about to give is entirely consistent with those instructions. I repeat that, according to my view of this subject, all these vexed questions ought to be left to the people of the States and Territories interested, and that any vote which I have given, or may give, inconsistent with this principle, will be the vote of those who gave the instructions, and not my own." The part of the bill proposing terms to Texas for the adjustment of the boundaries between that state and the Territory of New Mexico was the most embarrassing and perplexing. It was debated almost every day. As Mr. Rusk said, it was the first thing discussed each morning, and the last at night. Mr. Clay had left a blank in the bill for the amount of money to be paid to Texas, and he was questioned and assailed in every way to name the sum with which he intended to fill that blank. He parried all efforts to draw him out on that subject, declaring that, when the bill had reached its last stage, he would move to fill the blank. As a matter of history, it may be here stated that the proper time never arrived, and the "omnibus broke down" with that blank unfilled. On the 19th of June Mr. Underwood moved to strike out all the sections of the bill relating to the Texas Boundary, and to insert a provision authorizing the determination of the boundary by a suit in the Supreme Court. This was eventually rejected. On the 20th Mr. Berrien moved to limit the representation of California in the House of Representatives to one member, and providing that that representative, as well as the senators, should be chosen after the passage of the bill. Upon this proposition Mr. Douglas vindicated the justice of allowing California her two members in the House, and of admitting them at once to their seats upon the passage of the bill. The motion was lost-yeas 12, nays 28. / On June 24th and 25th Mr. Soulé advocated with great power and eloquence an amendment postponing the admission of California until that state had by an ordinance relinquished all title or claim to tax, dispose of, or interfere with the primary disposal of the public domain by the United States within her limits; that she would not interfere with the United States in the control of the mining regions, etc.; that the navigable waters should be open and free to all citizens of the United States; and that the southern boundary of the state shall be restricted to the line of 36° 30′ north latitude. On the 26th, and again on the 28th, Mr. Douglas replied to this speech of Mr. Soulé, demonstrating that the argument that, unless this ordinance was adopted by California previous to her admission, the public lands and mines would escheat to that state, was wholly unsound. His speech was thorough and complete. It reviewed the entire history of the policy, as well as the possessory right of the government of the United States to the public domain, wherever situated, whether in state or territory. The limits of this work will not admit the publication here of this speech in full, and to abbreviate it would destroy its force. The speech was deemed so conclusive upon the points embraced in it that it was printed in pamphlet, and thousands of copies of it were circulated, particularly in California. The amendment was rejected-yeas 19, nays 36. Mr. Jefferson Davis about this period offered an amendment proposing to repeal or annul all the Mexican laws, customs, etc., which, existing previous to the acquisition of the territory, prohibited or abolished slavery. This was rejected-yeas 18, nays 30; every northern Democrat who voted voting in the negative. On the 9th of July-the intervening time having been occupied in speeches mainly against the bill-Mr. Butler was addressing the Senate, when he was interrupted by Mr. Webster, who, in appropriate terms, announced the dying condition of President Taylor. The Senate adjourned, and the consideration of the Compromise Bill was not resumed until the 15th of July. On that day it was taken out of Committee of the Whole and reported to the Senate, and the amendments were concurred in. Mr. Benton then commenced an active war upon the bill by proposing amendments, particularly to that part relating to the adjustment of the boundary of Texas. On July 17 Mr. Webster made an elaborate speech in favor of the bill -the last speech delivered by him in the Senate. On the 22d the Senate was notified of the resignations of Messrs. Webster and Corwin, who had accepted places in Mr. Fillmore's cabinet. They were soon succeeded by Messrs. Winthrop and Ewing, both opponents of the bill. Mr. King, of Alabama, moved to amend the bill by making the admission of California conditional with the establishment of her southern boundary on the line of 35° 30′ north latitude. Mr. Jefferson Davis moved to make the line 36° 30′. Both propositions were rejected-36° 30′ by a vote of 32 to 23, and 35° 30′ by a vote of 37 to 20. Mr. Bradbury, of Maine, on the 23d of July moved to strike out of the bill all relating to the adjustment of the Texas boundary, and to insert a section providing for the appointment of commissioners by the United States and by Texas, who were to ascertain and agree upon a boundary, and report the same, which, if agreed to by the United States and by Texas, was to be binding upon both parties. Mr. Benton and other senators proposed various amendments to Mr. Bradbury's proposition, all of which were rejected, and finally that proposition, on the 29th of July, was rejected-yeas 29, nays 29; both senators from Texas voting in the negative. Mr. Seward submitted an amendment admitting New Mexico as a state, and supported it in a long speech which provoked an angry and excited debate. This was rejected-yeas 1, nays 42. Mr. Bradbury then renewed his amendment, having slightly modified it. The debate was renewed, and proceeded with great feeling, the bill evidently having approached a crisis. Mr. Walker moved, on the 30th, that the bill be laid on the table; lost-yeas 25, nays 32. Mr. Dawson moved to amend the proposition of Mr. Bradbury by providing that during the proceedings of the Boundary Commission the territorial government provided in the bill should not go into operation in that part of the Territory lying east of the Rio Grande, being the territory in dispute. This proviso was agreed to, and Mr. Bradbury's proposition, as amended, was then inserted in lieu of the sections of the bill containing the proposals to Texas for the adjustment of her boundary-yeas 30, nays 28. POWER OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES-AGAIN. At this stage of the bill Mr. Norris moved to strike out the words which prohibited the Territorial Legislature from passing any law "establishing or prohibiting African slavery," the object of the amendment being to leave the Territorial Legislature as free to pass laws upon that question as upon any other "rightful subject of legislation." In order to show that the object in placing in the bill the restriction was to deny the power and the authority of the Territorial Legislature to legislate upon that matter, and the object in moving to strike it out was to recognize and admit such a power and authority in the Legislature, and that these objects were fully understood by all parties, and also to show what was the final decision of the Senate upon this point, which has become so important in the political discussions of the present day, extracts from some of the speeches delivered upon the subject are here inserted. FROM THE DEBATE ON MR. DAVIS'S AMENDMENT-MR. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS. I wish to say one word before this part of the bill is voted upon. I must confess that I rather regretted that a clause had been introduced into this bill providing that the territorial governments should not legislate in respect to African slavery. The position that I have ever taken has been, that this and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and that we ought to be content with whatever way they may decide the question, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions suit them than we, who have never been there, can decide for them. I would, therefore, have much preferred that that portion of the bill should have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slavery the one way or the other; and I do hope yet that that clause in the bill will be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill; I am satisfied, even if it did give strength to it, that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle-A VIOLATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH WE HAVE ALL RESTED OUR DEFENSE OF THE COURSE WE HAVE TAKEN ON THIS QUESTION. I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have taken (that of non-interference), and have argued in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we urged in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable senator from Michigan in that letter which is known as the "Nicholson Letter." We are required to abandon that platform; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine, and what for? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the people of the North or South. Besides, it settles nothing; it leaves it a matter of doubt and uncertainty what is to be the condition of things under the bill; and, whatever shall be ascertained to be the condition in respect to slavery, it may turn out that, while the law is held to be one way, the people of the Territory are unanimous the other way. And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in opposition to their unanimous opinion? Or are the people, by our action here, to be deprived of a law which they unanimously desire, and yet have no power to remedy the evil? I, for one, think that such ought not to be the case. In my own opinion, I have no doubt as to what the law would be under that provision; but if I were left to the exercise of my own judgment and to carry out my own principles, I desire no provision whatever in respect to the institution of slavery in the Territories. I wish to leave the people of the Territories free to enact just such laws as they please in respect to this institution. On this one point I am not left to follow my own judgment nor my own desire. I am to express the will of my constituents which has been solemnly pronounced. My vote, sir, will be in accordance with their instructions; but I desire that that vote shall be given upon the direct question; to come fairly up to these instructions, and not to this indirect mode, which settles nothing, whether it is adopted or rejected. A word now to the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). It is to his argu ment that I address myself. The difference between that senator and myself consists in who are a people. The senator says that the inhabitants of a Territory have a right to decide what their institutions shall be. When? By what authority? How many of them? Does the senator tell me, as he said once before, from the authority of God? Then one man goes into a Territory and establishes the fundamental law for all time to come. It would then be unquestionably the unanimous opinion of what that law should be; and are all the citizens of the United States, joint owners of that Territory, to be excluded because one man chooses to exclude all others who might come there? That is the doctrine carried out to its fullest extent. I claim that a people having sovereignty over a Territory should have power to decide what their institutions shall be. That is the Democratic doctrine, as I have always understood it, and under our Constitution the inhabitants of the Territories acquire that right whenever the United States surrender the sovereignty to them by consenting that they shall become states of the Union, and they have no such right before. The difference, then, between the senator from Illinois and myself is the point at which the people do possess and may assert this right. It is not the inhabitants of the Territory, but the people as a political body-the people organized-who have the right; and on becoming a state, by the authority of the United States, exercising sovereignty over the Territory, they may establish a fundamental law for all time to |