Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE SOUTHERN SENTINEL Is published every Thursday Morning, IX COLUMBUS, G.V. BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBERS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. To whom all communications must be directed, post paid Office on Randolph Street. Terms of Subscription. One copy twelve months, in advance, - - £2 50 “ “ ‘ “ “ Not in advance, -3 00 •• “ Six “ “ “ - 150 Where the subscription is not paid during the year. 15 cents will be charged for every month’s delay. No subscription will be received lor less than six months, and none discontinued until all arrearages are paid, except at the option of the proprietor. To Clubs. l ive copies twelve months, - - - 810 00 Ten “ “ 1G 00 ZW The money from Clubs must in all eases ac company the names, or the price ot a single subscription will be charged. Rates of Advertising. One Square, first insertion, - - SI 00 “ Each subsequent insertion, - 50 A liberal deduction on these terms will be made in favor of those who advertise by the year. Advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub lished till forbid, and charged accordingly. Monthly Advertisements will be charged as new Ad vertisements at each insertion. I/Ogal Advertisements. N B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Ex ecutors, or Guardians, are required by law to be held on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 in the forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court House in the county in which the land is situated. No tices of these sales must be given in a public gazette sixty days previous to the day of sale. Sales of Nf.or>f.s must be made at a public auction vni the first Tuesday of the month, between the usual hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the county where, the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship, may have been granted, first giving sixty days notice thereof in oneot the public gazettes of this Mtute, and at the door ol the Court House, where such sales are to be held. Notice for the sale of Personal property must be given in like manner forty days previous to the day of sale. Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must be published forty days. Notice that application will be made to the Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published for FOUR MONTHS. Notice for leave to sell Negroes must be published tor four months, before any order absolute shall be made thereon by the Court. Citations for Letters of Administration, must lie pub lished thirty days—for dismission from administration, monthly six months —for dismission lioin Guardianship, Rules for the foreclosure, ol a Mortgage must be pub lished MONTHLY for FOUR months—for establishing In<t papers, for the full space ot three months—tor com pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a Bond has been given by the deceased, the full space ot THREE MONTHS. . , .. Publications will always Ire continued according to these legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered. SOUTHERN SENTINEL Job Office. HAYING received anew and extensive assortment of Jok Material, we are prepared to execute at this office, all orders for JOB WORK,in a manner which can not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms, and at the shortest notice. . We leel confident of our ability to give, entire satisfac tion in every variety of Job Printing, including Hooks, Business Cards, Pamphlets, Bill Heads, Circulars , Blanks of every description, Hand Bills, Bills of Lading, Posters, <s-c. <Spc. In short, all descriptions of Printing which can be ex ecuted at any office in the country, will be turned out with elegance and despatch. Marble Works, East side Broad St. near the Market House, COLUMBUS, GA. HAVE constantly on hand all kinds of Grave Stone'; Monuments, Tombs and Tablets, ot American, Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving done on stone in the best possible manner ; and all kinds of Work a, ,1,0 c „ MADWtN . l\ S. I’laister of Paris and Cement, always on hand for sale. __ Columbus, March 7, 1850. If* NORTH CAROLINA Mutual Life Insurance Company. LOCATED AT RAT.HIGH, N. C. r pul’, Charter of this v.ompany gjyes important advan- L ta‘ T o** to tha a-sSftWsd* over most other companies. The husband dn insure bis own life for the sole use and benefit of his wife and children, free from any other claims Persons who insure for Me participate in the Mpbtus which are declared annually,and when the pre mium exceeds S3O, may pay one-hall in a note. Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value ior one or for Risks may be madeto Agent, Columbus, Ga. f rs” Office at Greenwood Co.’s Warehouse. Nov. 15,1849. U TO KENT, rjx[LL the first day of January next. The old printing .L office room ol the “Muscogee Democrat Apply at this office. “• Coimtv Surveyor. ’ PHE undersigned informs his friends and the Planters I „f Muscogee county, that he is prepared to make official surveys in Muscogee county. loiters addressed to Po t Office,Columbus, will meet w **h prompt atten ,lon WM. F. SERRELL, County Surveyor. Office over E. Barnard & Co.’s store, Broad St. Columbus, Jan. 31,1850. o ly MRS. BARDWELL, WOULD inform the Ladies of Columbus and its vicinity, that she has just returnedl from New V ork with a handsome stock ot MILLINLKA , I.Af E CAPES, Ac., and trusts the Ladies will give her an x.irlv call. She opened on Wednesday. April 11, 1850. ” TEAS! TEAS! | XIRKCT from the “Canton Tea Company,” just re -1 ’ i REDD, Feb. 7,1850. 6 “ NOTICE. rPHE firm name of “M .11. Dessau. Agent A is ebanged, 1 from this date, to _ M. H. - • Columbus, Feb. 7, 1S;>0. Williams, Flev/ellen & Williams, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. May 23, 1850. 21 - J. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY AT LA IV, RANDOM!! STREET, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. ■tx TILL practice in the Chattahoochee Circuit and > V the adjacent counties in Alabama. Columbus, June 13, 1850. -4 4t ■ x Globe Hotel, -A- 8. BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA. BY J. WILLIAMS. March 11,1850. 11 Williams & Howard, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. ROBT. K. HOWARD. CHAS. J. WILLIAMS. April 4, 1850. 14 ts J. D. LENNAKD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, TALBOTTON, GA. WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent i aunties. All business entrusted to his care will meet with prompt attention. •April 4, 1850. 14 ly KING &. VVINNEMORE, Commission Merchants, MOBILE, ALABAMA. Dec. 20,1849. [Mob, Trib ] 15 ts THIS PA PER IS MANUFACTURED BY THE Hock Island Factory, NEAR THIS CITY Columbus, Feb. 23,1959. J ts VOL. I. SPEECH OF MR. M. J. WELLBORN, OF GEORGIA, Iu the House of Representatives, Monday, June 10, 1850, In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the President’s Message transmitting the Constitution of Cali fornia. Mr. WELLBORN said: Mr. Chairman: It may be remembered that at an early stage of this debate I sub mitted to the committee, as a mode of set tling the issues in hand, the revival and ex tension to the Pacific ocean, of the Missouri compromise line, with such a modification of its terms as would have brought it to bear the same relation in effect to the subject of slavery in our present territories as it bore to it in the territories of Louisiana and Texas on the several occasions of its application to them, with the exception of that portion of California which lies north of 3(5 deg. 30 min. In respect to the latter section, my proposi tion was to leave it subject to the lately adop ted constitution of California, with a view to her admission into the Union. The leading idea was, the prohibition of African slavery, north, and the express recognition of it, south, of the parallel indicated, to the Pacific. I propose to offer now some arguments ad ditional to those hitherto urged in behalf of that scheme of adjustment. It is to me, sir, a matter of regret, that the plan under notice has not been kept more distinctly in view during the protracted strug gles of the session. That it has not been more generally urged by representatives from the slaveholding States, has been owing, as 1 think, to the hope entertained by them that some other mode might he substituted for it which would meet with less opposition, and at the same time prove acceptable to the na tion at large. This motive, then, 1 submit, but (lie more strongly recommends the plan, now that all other methods proposed have failed to give the desired satisfaction. As the constitutional authority of this Gov ernment to prohibit slavery in the public ter ritories, involved in the passage of the Mis souri compromise line, has been generally denied by the slaveholding States, and that denial is now made the foundation of actual opposition to some extent, a brief reference to that subject would seem to be demanded. In alluding to it, however, I propose, rather to bring forward those aspects of the question oi jurisdiction in which opposing opinions have been, ott former occasions, blended in legislation founded on the affirmative of it, than to extend the vast train of argumenta tion which has been drawn out in the effort to reach a satisfactory solution of it. Two separate sources have been relied on by those who affirm that the power in view exists. It is by many supposed to rest on (he grant to Congress, of the authority “to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other public property belong ing to the United States.” It is sufficient for our present purpose to remark here, that able and well informed minds who have stood for years on this clause as the source of plenipo tent political authority, on a closer scrutiny of the context with which the power to pass “rules and regulations” is connected—a more cautious study of the probable import of these somewhat equivocal terms, “rules and regu lations,” as they are related in the Consti'u tion, and a more comprehensive survey of tne relation of the States to the general subject of public or common territory on the adop tion of the Constitution, have abandoned it. Others see in the power to acquire, hold, and dispose of, the unrestrained power of govern ing. They see in it that broad authority by which the Congress may do with their acqui sitions as they will : and statesmen are not wanting, who, pursuing, as they suppose, a process of fair reasoning, reach the conclu sion that certain limitations on the powers of Congress usually regarded as universal, such as the disability to establish a national reli gion, to give out titles of nobility, etc., have respect only to the action of Congress within the States and territory on hand when the Constitution was adopted, and that in respect to subsequently accruing territorial acquisi tions this Government stands in the relation of a simple despotism. But to recur from this extreme of opinion: it is alledged by more moderate reasoners, that the power to acquire includes those general powers of gov ernment, of which that to prohibit slavery is but a particular. The reasoning runs some what thus. When this Government became the as signee bv conquest and purchase of Califor nia and New Mexico, what, relative to these provinces it is inquired, was embraced in the transfer l Did we receive but the title to the soil, and Mexico retain in the whole or in part, the right to govern ( Are we not agreed that we acquired these Territories in all their attributes and susceptibilities, political as well as territorial ( Does the power of self government inhere by the law of nature, or otherwise, in the provinces themselves ? It is deemed by many a sufficient answer to that to sav, that we are discussing political and not natural rights. We have conquered and purchased them. But may not certain of the greater proprietary rights, the authori ty, for example, to give them the outlines ol political organization, reside in this Govern ment, and the right to regulate their more im mediately municipal affairs including the reg ulation of labor, remain in them ? 1 his in terrogatory is replied to by the inquiry, TV ho divided the attributes of government between us and them l In what map of political ge ography shall we trace the boundary line be tween our power to acquire, hold, and settle California or New Mexico, and the pow er of California or New Mexico to dictate to us the terms and conditions on, and in which, we can alone acquire, hold, or settle them l Again: the individual citizens of the several States cannot, as an aggregate mass, govern these Territories. The States cannot, sepa rately, nor in simple convention, govern them. In someone or the other of the views thus briefly pointed to in these inquiries, perhaps a majority of the people of the Union have been accustomed to claim plenary political government over the Territories, and on three several occasions —under protest and by com promise, however —the precise act ot inter dieting slavery in portions of them has been j executed by the concurrence of the different branches of the General Government. On the other hand, it has been urged with a zeal certainly as honest, and I must think with a stronger display of justice, that a pow er not expressly granted in the Constitution to this Government, cannot be rightly implied, or inferred, by virtue of it, in precise op post- fflje (Tioutljcni Sentinel. tion to its principles and spirit, as this is be lieved to be. Is it allowable to search the general grants of power in the Constitution in quest of a latent or incidental faculty, which, put forth, proves to be at variance alike with the relations of the parties to the instru ment, the object of their union, and to observ ance ol the most common-place ideas of jus tice and equality among them ( Especially, is it insisted that- it cannot be said to be, in any just sen e of the term, “constitutional” for the Federal Government to hamper or bridge the enjoyment of right of property of the cit izens of the States, secured to them by the laws of their States respectively, and guar antied by the fundamental law of his own be ing. Such, it so happens, is slavery as it stands related to both the laws of the slavehold ing States and Constitution of the United States. And must it not be conceded, on all sides, that if such a power have found way in to the constitution it can only have been con veyed thither as an unobserved ingredient of a main power, having not the remotest design ed bearing on the point in controversy, and never resolved in the thoughts of the framers of the Government in connection with such an exercise of it ? Could it be, then, satis factorily shown to be an involved or resulting power or faculty in our hands, so gross a per version of it to purposes of injustice as would be its universal application to our common territories, would not only justify, but demand, the sternest resistance. I have thus but pointed to the leading sources of the diversity in judgment that has ever existed on this mooted point. Multipled and involved, as investigation has only prov ed it to be, in its windings, as were the la barynths of old, unlike them it seems to have no sure clue to an escape. It is related, xMr. Chairman, that when Alexander the Great found himself unable to disentangle the knot which the kingly Gordius tied in the harness of his chariot as the test of the skill of him who, lay oracular interpretation, was to be the future conqueror of the world, he cut it assunder with his sword, and advanced on the objects of his grand contemplations. Let us, like others who have preceded us here, avoiding the errors of his ambition, profit by the courage and wisdom of this ex ample. Nor am I able to perceive any great weight in that standing charge of inconsistency with which we are assailed, for disputing in argu ment the constitutional authority of Congress to prohibit slavery, and yet consenting to the passage of the Missouri compromise line. Is it incomprehensible that we should feel justi fied in drawing arguments from well-founded doubts as to the existence of a power against an extortionate and oppressive use of it, and, availing ourselves of the authority of the his tory of legislation, be at the same time w ill ing to unite with its advocates in such an ap plication of it as will subserve at once the public justice and the demands of a great pub lic emergency ? Wise and good men it seems, have on occasions heretofore borne this crit icism. And now, one word more, sir, as to the effect of the line, on the supposition that the denial of the right to pass it should he well founded. Obviously it would be this, that south of the lino the act passed here would take effect in protecting the slavehold er, because passed in execution of the constitu tion, wdiile north of it, it could not harm him, because, being opposed to the Constitution, it would he simply null and void. Argument can scarce make this proposition plainer: for if the Constitution, exproprio vigore, convey slavery into these territories, the argument is manifestly but the stronger for the passage of legislation here, to secure the convenient use of it there, which no law of this Congress proposing to abridge a light guarantied by the constitution can have any validity. Nor could such a discovery justifiably excite any other feeling than that of universal regret that a large portion of the citizens of the country had not been supplied w ith legal remedies and social securities commensurate with their fun damental rights. It is thus seen that I totally disagree with certain reasoners who insist that the power of this Government to protect the institution of slavery in the territories, involves with it either by necessary connection or rational an alogy, the power to prohibit it there. On the contrary, the power of Government to pro hibit it, in the premises, so far from being in its nature the counter part of, or logically connected w ith, the power to protect it, w ould be more aptly described as its opposite. The two may, like other dissimilar powers, coex ist in the same hands, but can be by no means dependent on each other. One other objection to this mode is, that it would be a harsh use of power on the part of this Government, to repeal existing laws, if such there be, in these territories, prohibito ry of slavery therein, or otherwise to interfere with the policy in this respect, present or future, of the inhabitants of them. Is not this objection rather plausible than substan tial ? On what principle of public law, or of public justice, sir, can the Mexican inhabit ants of these provinces claim to exclude our institutions and forms of labor I I repeat it, in no sense of idle triumph or levity —wc have conquered and purchased them. And what, after all, is the nature and extent of the pro posed interference w ith them ? It is, in effect, that in order to accommodate and serve cer tain conflicting interests among the proprie tors of these domains, a particular form ofla bor be forbidden to enter certain portions of them, and permitted to enter certain other por tions of them, until the occasion for the forma tion of State constitutions shall arrive—that period when general causes shall have matured their judgments respectively as to their more permanent wants —at which time the whole subject is, by the plan proposed, to pass into their own hands exclusively. M ould it not be a stretch of sensibility itself to persevere in this objection ? And I must insist that the duty in this particular goes along with the right. Justly, humanely, as 1 hope w T e shall act on this, on all occasions, it must still re main true that the first and highest obligation we owe is to the great body of the people of this Confederacy, in whom the true and sub stantial ownership of these territorial posses sions lies. Perhaps the most inveterate objection to this plan is, that its application would divide the boundaries of California. And why, sir, is it, that the reception of California without terms, into the Union, should be deemed irre sistable ? Is there an overwhelming necessi ty upon us to admit her, and without terms ? It has ever been engreed to by the most zeal ous defenders of popular sovereignty, that the supervision, bv thU • revernment, el die boun COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 11, 1850. i daries of territorial applicants for membership in the Confederacy is, in all circumstances, but the performance of a plain duty. On the | contrary, to admit California in her present : circumstances with the modification propos- I ed, even, is, manifestly, in the exercise of a discretionary authority to waive great irregu | laritics in her procedure. Meaning no dis respect to her, she can only be received on her present motion, by the generous forbear ’ ance of the Government. And, sir, all the sources of that just jealousy of large States which has ever characterized the lesser ones exist in the vast and various monopolies em braced in the assumed limits of this youth ful ami ambitious aspirant. National rea sons come in to argue for a curtailment of them—and, seetionally regarded, how easily may not the non-slaveholding States meet the policy of the South in this particular. They would certainly seem to believe that the effect of the partition proposed by this line would be to throw a majority of chances for an ad ditional free State into their hands. To the South it would, however, extend the benefit of all those reasons which are common to the Confederacy, and will, seetionally, confer up on her an opportunity regarded as justly de mandable, and a right of value to her, of hav ing the question of the suitableness to slave labor of the southern portion of California more deliberately tested than it has been. And with all due deference to contrary opin ions, I cannot think that any arguments drawn from the simple inconvenience of it to California, and postponement to the Confed eracy of those advantages anticipated from her immediate presence in it, ought to prevail against the mode of procedure now r suggest ed to the committee. Indeed, it may be well argued, that the proposed subjection of the bold, unprecedented, and hitherto unchecked movements of California to the controlling jurisdiction of this Government in the manner proposed, while it will be free from all just imputation of harshness, may be not without a certain salutary effect upon that sense of respect among the territories and people of the Union for a necessary public authority, the importance of w hich but increases with the extension and variety of the interests and objects of Government. I pass now, Mr. Chairman, from the defence of this measure against certan prevalent, ob jections, to the presentation of a few of the leading arguments which have occurred to my mind in its behalf. Coining, as it does, from the slaveholding States, it has a strong claim on the justice of the non-slaveholding States. Not to enlarge on a plain point, it is settled by the map that it lenders the latter not only much the largest share of the property in dispute, but it assigns them a share very disproportionate to their greater numbers as compared with those of the slaveholding States—that share, too, it may be added, which includes the most fruit ful known sources of commerce, wealth, and population. Indeed, it would seem scarcely allowable to predicate of cupidity itself, that it could go in quest of a plan of settlement fraught with more extensive prospects of sel fish aggrandizement and gain. Sir, the proofs of existing, 1 fear, of increas ing distrust and alienation between the two classes of States that are now vainly seeking some common path of progress and peace in the threatening future, sufficiently admonish us of the value of some such mode of settle ment, as, in view of certain prevalent quali ties of human nature, is the precise one now in view. In 1820 a similar contest, involving then, as now, reciprocal jealousies of political sectional predominance, the same active ani mosity to slavery and alarms for both the security es the latter and the duration of the Union, which now exist, were merged in the remedy it is now proposed to adopt. We are acting for the present, sir, on the theory of a continuance of the Union—a Union so intricate and involved as to be capable of be ing perpetuated alone by a cement in which w hatever may be said of the cohesive power of the grossei interests, sentiments of brother hood and attachment must, on known law sos the human mind, enter as component parts. — The soldier remembers with affection and love his associate in arms, by their common participation in alike the perils and the deliv erances of the battle-field. If we shall bear the burdens with which we are again oppress ed to this, now national neutral ground of thir ty-six degrees thirty minutes, may it not have a certain effect for good in our future inter course to have thus revived in this connection the memories of 1820? There is a certain moral appropriateness in the proffered remedy to present evils ‘The reassertion of this line will, in the na ture of it, tend to check the progress of that headlong unrelenting, and, it may be added, unfeeling spirit of evil which, w hether we de nominate it by one or another name, is the source of our present perplexities. It will in some degree stun Abolitionism, to arrest it at the precise point to which it had advanced thirty years ago and force it to feel, if feel it can,sir, that on full stretch of its present pow er it is not. able to pass it. And what a tri umph for honorable minds who are reluctant ly pushed forward, on the representative principle, in a line of political conduct here it were strange it were not as unpleasant for them to pursue as it is injurious to the pros perity and harmony of the Union that it be pursued, to find that they have courage and strength to escape a responsibility for possible disasters w hich their ancestors under similar temptation and pressure, dared not incur. In the precise degree and for the same reasons the reaffirmance of this line will have the im portant effect of restoring, in a good degree, the wavering confidence of the South in the justice of this Government and her ultimate security in the Union. Is it likely that we shall, by another mode furnish her so satis factory proof that her relative strength in the councils and defences of this Government is not being diminished by the lapse of time ? I press the inquiry on those who, secure them selves, may be less capacitated to comprehend how others can be in danger, who situated to fear no harm, may regard all fears of others as groundless, if it be not their sacred duty as it is their plain interest, to thus dispel, if possible, the grave apprehensions of one section and the distractions of the whole country ? This method has lesser advantages wdiich should not be overlooked. It has the desira ble qualities of simplicity and invariability. It requires little beyond the simple extension through a few degrees of latitude of one of its parallels already deeply scored in the history of the republic—one, the recorded testimony of which can never be obliterated however hu man passions mav beat upon it—and which, if it cannot stay the aggressive tide of Aboli tionism, can at least measure its progress and mark its ravages and its responsibilities. A gain,sir, so far as it is possible to fix contem plated results by any plan within the compass of our power, it may be affirmed of this me thod that it possesses that faculty. Though an act of legislation in its technical nature it has, to some extent, the moral attributes and sanctions ofa contract. Viewed in this complex relation, it will serve to assure us, as best we may be assured, that what is designed by it relative to the condition of coming States will in due time transpire. It would have strength to pervade those vague and common-place sentiments of opposition to, or regret of slave ry, which really can be hardly said to be pe culiar to any one, much less to any section, and would probably be held to in the future by all except those anomalous few’ w ho, with ostensible consistency, betake themselves to the highest and holiest conceivable source of human obligations, the Bible, to cover the most startling infidelity to engagements. — Adopting it, then, may w e not hope that the States, slave, or non-slaveholding, which may be evolved from these territories by the lapse of time, will be received into the Confedera cy on their application in terms of the Con stitution, with no considerable opposition. This compromise is now presented by the South —the numerically weaker and only en dangered section. It is the offering of a pa triotic and enlightened body of men recently assembled to consider of it and its alternatives in one of our leading cities, Nashville. It is shadowed forth, in not to be mistaken terms, in the pending debates. And I must beg per mission of the committee here to lay before them the sense on this point ofa meeting of the people in a primary assembly in the city of Columbus, Georgia, a few days ago. A mong certain resolutions adopted at the meet ing 1 find the following: “That in the compromise on the Missouri line, solemnly made between the North and the South thirty years ago, the South surren dered her right to hold slave property north of 3(5 deg. 30 min.—that she is content to abide by that line, extended to the Pacific, but will take no less.” I leave out of view’ other matters embraced in these resolutions as being not material to the issue before us. It can scarcely be im portant to guard the committee against what w ould be an erroneous reading of the reso lution cited. The members of this meeting comprehended belter what was due to them selves than to send to this committee the ap parent dictation of arbitrary terms. Hence it is not said by them that they w ill take noth ing else than the Missouri compromise line. ‘Fhe language is they “w ill take nothing less.” The fair construction, as I take it, is, that it was the sense of that meeting that the South is not in circumstances to be aide to acquiesce in a settlement less favorable to her than would be the Missouri compromise line reap plied. And now', Mr. Chairman, as reluctant as I feel to allude in complimentary terms to the virtues of any constituent of mine, 1 must take occasion to say that among the names subscribed to that resolution, are to be found those of three gentlemen who, in the two Houses of this Congress have given to the country an order of talents and a degree of devotion to the prosperity and harmony of the Union which have brought them to be know n and respected throughout the States of it, while in respect to them all (for it so happens sir, that I can speak with some confidence on this point) no equal number of citizens else where can be found to excel them in a just comprehension of the duties w’e all owe to a common government. I have said, sir, that this compromise is offered now by the weak er party; shall it be construed to provoke the resentments of pride ? It is rather to the more honorable emotions of that sentiment 1 now appeal, confessing that it is with some mortification that I feel constrained to remind the force of numbers that it is a high prerog ative of theirs to be able, justice and modera tion in view 7, to consult the terms of minori ties. And I know of no act by w hich this committee could more usefully to the Union, not to say more gracefully to themselves, at test that careful and considerate respect for both the rights and apprehensions of (lie ex posed States—so befitting the times —than to promptly accede to this hitherto tw ice ap proved and now as ever moderate demand in behalf of the South. Will we not thus pro ceed to execute our duty’, so long delayed, to our dependent provinces and merge the dis putes which are being so warmly, not to say harshly, waged over all those measures which have been hitherto suggested for the same purpose ? Especially, will those to whom it is seen to be so favorable—to whose accept ance it is tendered—and on whose will its fate depends—incur the responsibility of re jecting it ? I have not, Mr. Chairman, overlooked the fact that this mode of sett lement leaves out of view the pending contest touching the boun dary line of the present State of Texas and New Mexico. 1 propose, for several reasons to enter now’ a little into the subject. Both the bill of the Senate—reported by its lately raised Committee of Thirteen—and that pre sented to the House by the able and public spirited chairman of the Committee on For eign Relations, [Mr. MgCleknand,] provides for the affirmance to New Mexico, Texas con senting, of not only her capital and native settlements, but embrace an additional ces sion of territory by Texas to this Government, in consideration ofa certain pecuniary equiv alent to be paid in the extinguishment ot cer tain debts of Texas. This proposed cession of territory is a measure which meets w ith much opposition from the South. lam not insensible, sir, of the delicacy ot our relations to the creditors of Texas, more especially to that class of them who held pledges of Texas, at the date of annexation, of the taxes deriva ble from her customs, which, by her incorpo ration into the Union, were transferred to us. And I am free to add that I shall cheerfully unite with others of the committee in any proper effort that may be made to provide for that class of claims. Nay, I will go further, speaking for myself alone on this point, and concurringwith what w'as so properly said by j the honorable member from Tennessee, [Mr. j Stanton,] in opposition to so extensive a ces sion by Texas of her territory, add. that it the genera! character of anv adjustment we may make shall be of a kind to mete out justice to the South, I shall feel something akin to sur prise should she prove uutractable in the matter of preserving to the ancient and now depend ent province of New Mexico her capital and contiguous nati v settlements Indeed, hold- ing the consent of Texas in view always, and with the connected object of disembarrassing the honor and good faith of a nation not only able to be just, but bound to sedulously guard its good name—l am tree to sav that should ; the exactions or intolerance ot the non-slave* ! holding States coerce the slaveholding States ! into an extreme tenacity in respect of the threatened deprivation of New Mexico of her j capital and contiguous settlements with a I view to what they may deem paramount con ! siderations of self-security, 1 can but reason j that a heavier weight of responsibility will I rest upon those who could have averted it.— j It would be more acceptable, then, doubtless, I to the South generally that any payments we ! may feel called on to make the creditors of I Texas, in view of our interposition between them and the resources to which they looked before annexation—now lost to them —rest on other grounds than the conveyance by her to us of the large portion of her territory pro posed to be made. Sir, I take pleasure in an nouncing that I regard the simple matter of a few millions of money, be they more or less, as little, compared v ith the great and absorb ing issues in hand—public justice—-justice to others—-justice to ourselves—and the final pacification, if it be practicable, of all com plaints. Fanaticism and its guilt and folly expired, sir, and the once more concentrated genius and energies of the American people bent in united hopes on the elaboration of their stupendous resources, no mere pecunia ry item in any just settlement we may make can, by the intnest degree of the nation’s sensibility to expense, be felt. We can, too, well trust the security lying in the valuable and increasing products and to be felt in the beatings of the warm and American heart, of Texas, for repayment, in the swelling ratio of an “hundred-fold,” for any amount which cir cumstances may render it proper for us to ex pend in this connection—while the generous caution, not to say magnanimity of the nation M ill have been handsomely illustrated by a suitable general adjustment of all these kind red topics in which the particular provisions touching the claims of the ci editors of Texas and the preservation from final overthrow of an old and subdued province wdiich the for tunes of war have placed in our power, shall be embraced. It will be seen, however, that I refer guardedly to these delicate topics— sufficiently distrustful of any suggestions of mine respecting them—to the committee. I part from this feature in our public affairs w ith the confident hope, however, that if we shall succeed in applying the terms of the Missouri compromise line to the territories west of the Rio Grande and disposing of the general sub jects on hand in other respects suitably, w r e shall find the adjustment of the now threaten ing boundary question on terms satisfactory to all and creditable to the nation itself—not impracticable. It is useless, Mr. Chairman, to repeat, that, in the present posture of the public affairs, the different sections must bo prepared to make respective sacrifices. The South, on the pro posed basis, repeats the waiver of an opinion which, whether well or ill-founded, concerns a substantial and highly important claim.— i Would it not be remarkable that she were not j sanguine of her right—constitutional and oth j erwise—to go with her accustomed property into all parts of the public domain of the Un ion? She waives this right, on the basis now proposed, let it be remembered, and at a cost to her—all things considered—vastly dispro portionate to any gain that can accrue to oth ers by her loss of it. It may be possibly in convenient for, or, in a certain sense repug nant to, white labor to mingle on the same theatre with slave labor—on the other hand, the privilege of expansion is, in its nature, vi tal perhaps to the existence, certainly to the prosperity and the security of the South.— Yet, sir, the opinion has been expressed with in a few days.past, by w ell-informed members of this committee, that the Wilmot proviso or principle of the universal interdiction, by ex press mandate of this House, of slavery in all the territories on hand, w ill be enacted the i present session. The principle of the univer sal restriction of slaves to the same area in the bosom of the States holding them, to be asserted as a rule or postulate of Federal Councils! I ask that the import and stress of such a proposition be deliberately w-eighed. Had it been acted upon from the beginning of the present Government only, in what a peril ous if not ruinous strait, would not the more j central slaveholding States of the Confedera jcv be this day predicamerited. And, sir, it ; has been said, in justification of the policy i now threatening us of the universal territorial ! restriction of slavery, that without it the slave holding States will be tempted to endanger the peace and character of (he nation with a view to extending the area of slave labor as an object . It has been objected, lam aware, by grave and reflecting statesmen of the North, j that the free States are now being forcibly rendered, from time to time, but subsidiary to the extension of slavery. I bring the argument with less reluctance into review-, for really, sir I am conscious that such an opinion is hon estly entertained, North, by many, and be- ‘ ■ cause I am not unconcious that there is a i certain show of plausibility in it. Will gen- j j tlcmen who urge this complaint view the sub ject from another point ot observation ? There j is more truth and utility, I apprehend, in the i following presentation of it. That the dread j of the anti-slavery encroachments of the North may have, in historical instances, contributed to set in motion the instincts of self-preseva tion of the institution and brought them to put forth their secret energies to escape the ! threatening grasp of a dreaded and lawless assailant, is too rational to be incredible. I : know not, no one can know, exactly how that has been. But it is plain that spasmodic and involuntary irruptions of the institution on j contiguous territories must under stress of threatened confinement be the natural expres sions of the laws of its self-preservation—the ! only means, indeed, of escape from evils it is j not in the power ot human courage to delib eratelv confront. And who, sir, is or is to be ! responsible for this; and what, sir, is the prop- ■ er and practical remedy for the uneasy and so much complained of movement southward j and westward of the institution ? Let the j Government of the Confederacy cease its un- j natural war upon it and restore confidence in its security by taking it, to the extent of an v ! power it has over it, under its protection and j care, as it is, on the plainest principles of du ty and interest, bound to do. ‘I his done, sir, and we shall cease to hear of wars gotten up at the South to propagate slavery. I press this view on the counsels of northern states men But to recur, sir, to *he threatened proviso. 1 I snail not affect to believe that it will pas3 this body, even. Should it do so, however, ft cannot fail to sink still lower the tone of southern confidence in the justice and self control of this Government, and embarrass, yet more, well-intended efforts to bring the public dissensions to a favorable solution.—■ Should it, contrary to all hopes, became the law ol the land, my desire will be to see those resolutions which have been so unanimously passed by the • slaveholding States to resist it put into complete and final execution. Can it be expected that the slave-holding States of this Union will submit to such action on the part of their common government as not onlv degrades them from an original historical and a still conventional equality in it, but which in possible not to say probable contingencies, will be substantially impracticable from the very nature of its terms ? Repeal, or immedi ate resistance, at all hazards, should be the prompt and distinct reception South, as it seems to me, of such a measure. Sir, may we not hope that we shall have no such unjust and proscriptive procedure as would be this proviso; and that henceforth it will be remembered by the nation only wrffh condemnation tor the dissensions and mischief the appearance of it lias already produced, and with a stern coneiousness that it has been detenninately and lorever banished from the councils ol the Government ? This point made sir, and it remains for the justice, the wisdom not to say a certain timely caution, of numer ical majorities, to adopt measures of adjust ment suited to the various exigencies of tho public affairs. There can be no exclusive claim, certainly, upon us of any one mode of reaching desired results. Is there another than the one under notice, which, while it will approximate justice and give satisfaction to half of the States of the Union, will exact less onerous terms of the residue ? If so, we ow-e it to each other to adopt it at once. I can but fear that neither of the alternatives now in view is likely to prove to be such a measure. And here, sir, it may be allowable to re mark, that to act wisely, we must bear in thought tor whom we are to act, and on what we are to act. Respect being had to the ro bust and high sense of rights we are accus tomed to regard as a flattering characteristic ot the people of these States—respect being had to the voluntary and unconstrained na ture of their Union, at once its chief value and greatest ornament, we shall comprehend how it is that the very worst settlement of this sectional controversy, capable of being enforc ed, is that which would be with the greatest re luctance endured. We should bear in mind that alienation by a law of the human mind follows on distrust and the sense of danger —and that an alienation, final and complete —is the simple dissolution of the Union. — And if, in the natural w-orld, the strongest cord is broken by the parting of the several fibres of w hich it is composed, and the leaves are freshly green on the branches of the tree, the root of which is cut by the fatal w-orin, we should be the more distrustful of that tes timony, touching our true relations as confed erates, which is furnished by the clumsy tests of occasional prejudiced or superficial obser vations. Sources of union so strictly intel lectual and moral in their nature, may be sap ped and dissolved, we may reason, by covert and stealtldy causes which the profoundest philosophy can only detect, but cannot with accuracy estimate. But our case is consol able. NO. 28. M e hearitsaid that we may ‘part in peace,* and so we may, sir. But will we, sir, part in peace? Shall those who have proved them selves incapable of enjoyment, in union, the most consumate prosperity and happiness ev er alotted to a people since the birth of histo ry, dissevered, endure in harmony and quiet, a thousand points of hourly and trying con tact? No, sir; separated, the sword, look ing to probabilities, will be at once the arbi ter of justice and the punigher of wrong. And we have, too, sir, nicely balanced estimates of our comparative powers of harming each other in a state of angry separation. Aye, sir, we are all, North, South, East and West, sufficiently potent for evil. Beyond a doubt, we may contrive to greatly damage each oth er. Let us have the manliness and courage to not deceive ourselves. If we are, indeed, i losing our present central point of political gravity, to swing off* into new orbits of move ment, without desiring in the slightest degree to exaggerate the importance of our relations ! to other nations, or to indulge the vain and j maw kish sentimentality that the cause of free institutions is to become extinct, as a conse quence of any suicidal folly of ours,it may be j affirmed that Christendom will feel the shocks of our dismemberment and the passing shad ows of the fragments of the Union fall on the disk of the political dial in every civilized country embraced within it. If the object, then, be to perpetuate the Un ion in which we have so eminently and so j happily prospered, it is the familiar dictate of J common prudence to study its exposed points, i and in lieu of testing its powers of enduranco by presuming on the patience of its members, I to strengthen their cohesion by conforming our i action, as best we justly may, to their will. | And if, too, the ideas of the age of human ac j countability be not all a falacy, sir—if thero j be anything in memory worth being preserv ed, or in the prospects of the future which be longs to hope—if it be desirable to press on ; in tried and prospering ways rather than di j verge into unknown and perilous paths—if i unparalleled prosperity be preferable to novel, j not to say portentous, experiments, feeling, sir, as 1 hope I do, a proper share of responsibility ! for whatever transpires here, I must say that there can be no folly more stupendous than wo j shall have displayed, and, lam tempted to add, i no guilt greater than w illhave been perpetrated in our failure to effect a just and satisfactory determination of the existing issues. And does it not become those who—not to indulge 1 reproaches—have brought into the Govern j ment the element which is endangering it and with whom circumstances have peculiarly lodged the remedy, to look well to the vast train of inexplorable consequences and con nected responsibilities which, in the eventof the dissolution of the Union, lie in thereveal ings of the future history of the States w hich now compose it ? It was well exclaimed, sir,... bv an able and eloquent member of this com mittee, [Mr. Toombs, of Georgia,] in discuss ing the mighty theme of the continuance or dissolution of this Union, on a previous day of our sittings. “When the day of retribution comes, let the aggressor tremble.” But, sir, I cannot but turn to more encouraging views of the future fortunes of our Republic. It is our duty, sir, to hope that the sense of the na tion will rise above the mists which, for tho present, obscure its reckonings, and quieting well-lounded complaints, by removing* the cause of them, recover its course es prosperi ty and peace. ‘Did you e-\ #r know any body to b© killed by lightning V ‘Never by lightning, 1 replied Pat. man under tone ‘lt's thunder, shnre, a knocks ‘an to pieces in the cold counthry.’