Some days after, viz., the 7th of March, while the same motion was pending, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate, at great length.

Mr. Webster was followed by Mr. Seward, on the 11th, in a speech of remarkable power and eloquence. See page 19.

On the 12th of March, Mr. Foote, of Miss., moved that a series of resolutions presented by Mr. Bell, of Tenn., be referred to a committee of thirteen, six from the north, six from the south, and one to be by them chosen.

Gen. Cass spoke at great length upon this motion, reviewing the whole series of subjects in controversy.

On the 8th of April, Col. Benton took part in the debate, strenuously opposing the plan of co-mingling so many important and various matters in one bill.

Mr. Clay replied to Mr. Benton with great earnestness.

Mr. Foote's resolution was amended so as to embrace Mr. Clay's resolutions, and passed on the 18th of April.

AYES-Atchison. Badger, Bell, Borland, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote. Hunter, King, Jones, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood. Whitcomb, Yulee-30.

NAYS Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Chase, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Walker, Webster-22.

On the following day, the compromise committee of thirteen was elected by ballot, viz. Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Bright, Webster, Phelps, Cooper, King, Mason, Downs, Mangum, Bell and Berrien; seven from slave States-six from free States.

On the 8th of May, 1850, Mr. Clay presented a report from the committee, which embraced substantially the following provisions.

1. The admission of any new State or States, formed out of Texas, to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas by admitting such new State or States.

2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed.

3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California.

4. The combination of these last two mentioned measures in the same bill.

5. The establishment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent. And the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California, and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico.

6. More effectual enactments of law, to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another State.

7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery: but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Mason, Mr. Berrien, Mr. Clemens, Mr. Yulee, and others opposed the report, at first, while Messrs. Bright, Downs, Cass, Dickinson, and others sustained it. During the debate which followed, it was vigorously opposed by Messrs. Benton, Seward, Davis, Smith, Dayton, Hale, and others, and powerfully supported by Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Webster, Mangum, Foote, Douglas, and others. On the last day of July, it had become, by a series of amendments, divested of all its original features, except the portion relating to Utah, so that Mr. Benton created considerable merriment by comparing the Senate to the woman described by Homer, who every night unravelled what she had wove during the day.

Separate bills, however, were subsequently passed, in a disconnected shape, embodying all the main features of the compromise.

Eight months having thus been passed, principally in the discussion of these bills, the two Houses were at last brought to a vote on each bill by itself.

The Texas boundary bill passed the Senate, August 10th, 1850, by a vote of 30 to 20, as follows:

AYES-Badger, Bell, Berrien, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Clark, Clemens, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dickinson, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Foote, Green, Houston, King, Norris, Pearce, Phelps, Rusk, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Whitcomb, and Winthrop―30.

NAYS-Atchison, Baldwin, Barnwell, Benton, Butler, Chase, Davis of Mi., Dodge of Wis., Ewing, Hale, Hunter, Mason, Morton, Seward, Soule, Turney, Underwood, Upham, Walker, and Yulee-20.

In the House, it passed Sept. 6th, by a vote of 107 to 97.

AYES-Albertson, Alston, Anderson, Andrews, Bay, Bayly, Beale, Bokee, Bowie, Bowlin, Boyd, Beck, Briggs, Brooks, W. J. Brown, Buel, C. Butler, E. C. Cabell, G. A. Caldwell, J. P. Caldwell, Carey, Chandler, W. R. W. Cobb, Debeny, Dimmick, Disney, Duer, Duncan, Denham, Edmundson, Eliot, Ewing, Fitch, Fuller, Gentry, Gerry, Gilmore, Gorman, Green, Grinnell, Hall, Hammond, Isham. G. Harris, J. L. Harris, Haymond, Hilliard, Hoagland, Houston, Howard, A. Johnson, J. L. Johnson, Jones, Kauffman, Kerr, G. G. King, Leffler, Levin, Little

field, Job, Mann, Marshall, Mason, McClelland, McDonald, McDowell, McKissock, McLanahan, McLane, McLean, McMullen, Morehead, Morton, Nelson, Outlaw, Owen, Parker, Peaslee, Phoenix, Pitman, Potter, Richards, Robbins, Robinson, Rose, Ross, Savage, Schermerhorn, Shepard, Scanley, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, Strong, Taylor, Thomas, J. Thompson, J. B. Thompson, Thurman, Toombs, Underhill, Walden, Watkins, Wellborn, White, Whittlesey, Wildrick, Williams, Wilson, Young-107.

NAYS--Alexander, Allen, Averett, Baker, Bennett, Bingham, Booth. Bowden, A. G. Brown, Burrows, Burt, T. B. Butler, Cable, Calvin, Campbell, Carter. Clark, Clingman, Colcock, Cole, Conger, Corwin, Crowell, Daniel, Dickey, Dixon, Doty, Durkee, N. Evans, Featherston, Fowler, Giddings, Gott, Halloway, Haralson, Harlan, S. W. Harris, Hibard, Henry, Holladay, Holmes, Home, Hubbard, Hunter, Inge, J. W. Jackson, W. T. Jackson, R. W. Johnson, Julian, J. G. King, John A. King, P. King, La Sere, Horace Mann, Mattison. McGaughey McQueen, McWillie, Meacham, Meade, Millson, Moore, Morris, Morse, Newell, Ogle, Olds, Orr, Otis, Peck, Phelps, Powell, Putnam, Reed, Reynolds, Rockwell, Root, Rumsey, Sackett, Sawtelle, Schenck, Schoolcraft, Siddon. Silvester, Sprague, Thad. Stevens, Stetson, Sweetser, Jacob Thompson, Tuck, Van Dyke, Venable, Vinton, Waldo, Wallace, Wentworth, Woodward-97.

The bill for the admission of California, passed in the Senate, Aug. 13th, by a vote of 34 viz.:

to 18,

AYES-Messrs. Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dickinson, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, Jones, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Winthrop, Whitcomb.-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Foote, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee.-18.

It passed the House, Sept. 17th, by a vote of 150 to 56. Those whe voted Nay, were,

Messrs. Alston, Ash, Averett, Bayly, Beale, Bowdon, Boyd, A. G. Brown, Burt, Cabell, G. A. Caldwell, Clingman, W. R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Daniel, Deberry, Edmunson, Green, Featherston, Haralson, S. W. Harris, J. G. Harris, Hilliard, Holladay, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, R. W. Johnson, Kaufman, La Sere, McDowell, McMullen, McQueen, McWillie, Meade, Millson, Morse, Morton, Orr, Outlaw, Owen, Parker, Powell, Savage, Seddon, Sheppard, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, Thomas, J. Thompson, Toombs, Venable, Wallace, Wellborn, Woodward.

On the 14th of August, the Senate passed the bill organizing the Territory of New Mexico, by a vote of 27 to 10, as follows,

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Berrien, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Norris, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Whitcomb.-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Chase, Davis of Mass., Dodge of Wis., Greene, Hamlin, Miller, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Winthrop.-10.

In the House, it was united, and passed with the Texas boundary bill, by a vote as before stated.

When this bill was before the Senate, Mr. Chase moved to add the Wilmot Proviso, which was lost by a vote of 20 to 25, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Bright, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dodge of Wis., Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Shields, Smith, Upham, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop.-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Cass, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales.-25.

Messrs. Dickinson and Seward on this, and several other votes paired off, owing to the necessary absence of one or the other.

On the 23d of August, the Fugitive Slave Bill was passed in the Senate, by a vote of 27 to 12, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Miss., Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston. Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Wales, Yulce.-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Greene, Sinith, Upham, Walker, Winthrop.-12.

Senators Douglas and Dickinson, both subsequently declared that they approved the bill, and would have voted for it if they had not been prevented, the former by absence, and the latter by having paired off with Mr. Seward.

On the 12th of September, the House passed the bill, without debate, under the action of the previous question moved by Mr. Thompson, of Pa.

The vote stood, ayes 109; nays 75, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Albertson, Alston, Ash, Averett, Bay, Bayly, Beale, Bissell, Bowdon, Bowie, Bowlin, Boyd, Breck, A. G. Brown, W. J. Brown, Buel, Burt, J. A. Caldwell, J. P. Caldwell, Clingman, W. R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Daniel, Deberry, Dimmick, Dunham, Edmundson, Eliot, Ewing, Featherston, Fuller, Gentry, Gerry, Gilbert, Gorman, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Haralson, J. G. Harris, S. W. Harris, T. L. Harris, Haymond, Hibbard, Hilliard, Hoagland, Holladay, Holmes, Houston, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, A. Johnson, J. L. Johnson, R. W. Johnson, Jones, Kaufman, Kerr, La Sere, Leffler, Littlefield, Job, Mann, Marshall, Mason, McClernand, McDonald, McGaughey, McLanahan, F. S. McLean, McMullen, McQueen, McWillie, Meade, Miller, Millson, Morton, Orr, Outlaw, Owen, Parker, Peaslee, Phelps, Powell, Richardson, Robbins, Jr., Ross, Savage, Seddon, Shepperd, Stanley, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, Taylor, Thomas, Jacob Thompson, John Thompson, James Thompson, Toombs, Venable, Walden, Wallace, Watkins, Wellborn, Wildrick, Williams, Woodward, Young.-109.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Baker, Bennett, Bingham, Booth, Briggs, Burrows, T. B. Butler, J Cable, Calvin, Campbell, Carter, Chandler, Cole, Corwin, Cowell, Dickey, Disney, Dixon, Doty, Duncan, Durkee, N. Evans, Fitch, Fowler, Freedly, Giddings, Gott, Gould. Halloway, Hampton, Harlan, Hay, Hebard, Henry, Howe, Hunter, W. T. Jackson, Julien, G. G. King, J. G. King, J. A. King, Preston King, Horace Maun, Matterson, McKissock, Meacham, Moore, Morris, Nelson, Otis, Pitman, Putnam, Reed, Robinson, Root, Rumsey, Sackett, Sawtelle, Schumaker, Schoolcraft, Silvester, Sprague, Thad. Stevens, Stetson, Thurmen, Tuck, Underhill, Vinton, Waldo, Wentworth, Whittlesey, Wood, Wright.-75.

The next bill considered in the Senate was that for abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Mr. Seward proposed a substitute abolishing slavery itself in the District, and advocated its passage in a speech of remarkable boldness and eloquence.* His substitute was rejected. Ayes 5-Nays 46.

AYES-Chase, Dodge of Wis., Hale, Seward, and Upham-5.

NAYS-Atchison, Badger, Baldwin, Barnwell. Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bright, Butler, Clay, Davis of Mass., Davis of Miss., Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Ewing, Felch, Fremont, Greene, Gwin, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk. Sebastian, Shields, Smith, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Wales, Whitcomb, Winthrop, Yulee-46.

The original bill passed on the 14th of September, by a vote of 33 to 19, as follows:

AYES Baldwin. Benton, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Fremont, Green, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Norris, Jones, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop -33.

NAYS-Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien. Butler, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Downs, Hunter, King, Manguin, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Yulee-19.

The bill passed the House, Sep. 17th, by a vote of 124 to 59. The Nays, were:

Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Ash, Averett, Bayly, Bowdon, Bowie, A. G. Brown, Burt, E. C. Cabell, G. A. Caldwell, J. P Caldwell, Clingman, W. R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Deberry, Edmundson, A. Evans, Ewing, Featherston, Green, Hamilton, Haralson, J. G. Harris, S. W. Harris, Holladay, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, A. Johnson, Jones, Kaufman, Kerr, La Sere, Marshall, McDowell, R. McLane, McMullen, McQueen, Millson, Morse, Orr. Outlaw, Parker, Phelps, Powell, Savage, Seddon, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, A. H. Stephens, Thomas, J. Thompson, Venable, Wallace, Watkins, Williams, Woodward.-59.

The several acts of Congress embraced in this series of measures were five in number. 1. An act proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said State of all territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her claim upon the United States, and to establish a Territorial Government for New Mexico.-[September 9, 1850.] In the fifth clause of the first section of said act is the following proviso, introduced on the motion of Mr. MASON, of Virginia, viz.

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify any thing contained in the third article of the second section of the 'joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,' approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas or otherwise."

In the second section, establishing the Territory of New Mexico, is the following proviso: "And provided, further, That when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe." 2. An act to establish a Territorial Government for Utah.-[September 9, 1850.] This act contains the same provision in regard to slavery as the preceding.

3. An act for the admission of the State of California. This has no reference whatever to slavery; the Constitution of the State, however, prohibited it.

4. An act to amend and supplementary to the act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12, 1793.-[September 16, 1850.]

5. An act to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia.-[September 20, 1850.] These five acts constitute what are called the compromise measures of 1850. They renew the Missouri compromise in regard to the territory north of 36° 30'; agree to admit New Mexico and Utah as States when prepared, with or without slavery, as the people thereof may determine in their respective State Constitutions; admit California with her Constitution as presented, prohibiting slavery within the State; abolish the slave trade within the District of Columbia; and enact more stringent measures for the recovery of fugitive slaves.

Mr. DOUGLAS, in his amendment to the Nebraska bill now pending, declares that this legislation is "inconsistent with the Missouri compromise of 1820," and therefore "inoperative and void." And upon this issue the debate is proceeding in the Senate.

* See Works of W. H. Seward, Vol. I. J. S. Redfield, Publisher.

SPEECH OF THE HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

IN THE SENATE, MARCH 11, 1850.

ON THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.

THE resolution, submitted by Mr. BENTON, proposing to instruct the Committee on Territories to introduce a bill for the admission of California, disconnected from all other subjects, being under consideration

MR. SEWARD rose and said:

MR. PRESIDENT: Four years ago, California, a Mexican Province, scarcely inhabited and quite unexplored, was unknown even to our usually immoderate desires, except by a harbor, capacious and tranquil, which only statesmen then foresaw would be useful in the oriental commerce of a far-distant, if not merely-chimerical, future.

of Mexican States, and stipulated, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territory should be admitted by States into the American Union as speedily as possible.

But the letter of the objection still holds. California does come without having obtained a preliminary consent of Congress to form a Constitution. A year ago, California was a mere military de- But Michigan and other States presented themselves pendency of our own, and we were celebrating with in the same unauthorized way, and Congress waived unanimity and enthusiasm its acquisition, with its the irregularity, and sanctioned the usurpation. Calinewly-discovered but yet untold and untouched min-fornia pleads these precedents. Is not the plea suferal wealth, as the most auspicious of many and un- ficient? paralleled achievements.

To-day, California is a State, more populous than the least and richer than several of the greatest of our thirty States. This same California, thus rich and populous, is here asking admission into the Union, and finds us debating the dissolution of the Union itself

No wonder if we are perplexed with ever-changing embarrassments! No wonder if we are appalled by ever-increasing responsibilities! No wonder if we are bewildered by the ever-augmenting magnitude and rapidity of national vicissitudes!

an

But it has been said by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that the Ordinance of 1787 secured to Michigan the right to become a State, when she should have sixty thousand inhabitants, and that, owing to some neglect, Congress delayed taking the census. This is said in palliation of the irregularity of Michigan. But California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and Congress, instead of giving previous consent, and instead of giving her the customary Territorial Government, as they did to Michigan, failed to do either, and thus practically refused both, and so abandoned the new community, under most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a Constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuously, as Michigan did. She made a Constitution for herself, and she comes here under the law, the paramount law, of self-preservation.

SHALL CALIFORNIA BE RECEIVED? For myself, upon my individual judgment and conscience, swer, Yes. For myself, as an instructed representative of one of the States, of that one even of the States which is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial and political rivalry by the new Commonwealth, I answer, Yes. Let California come in. In that she stands justified. Indeed, California Every new State, whether she come from the East is more than justified. She was a colony, a military or from the West, every new State, coming from colony. All colonies, especially military colonies, whatever part of the continent she may, always are incongruous with our political system, and they welcome. But California, that comes from the clime are equally open to corruption and exposed to opwhere the West dies away into the rising East-pression. They are, therefore, not more unfortunate California, that bounds at once the empire and the continent-California, the youthful queen of the Pacific, in her robes of freedom, gorgeously inlaid with gold-is doubly welcome.

And now I inquire, first, Why should California be rejected? All the objections are founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and in the organic law which she presents for our confirmation.

1st. California comes UNCEREMONIOUSLY, without a preliminary consent of Congress, and therefore by usurpation. This allegation, I think, is not quite true; at least not quite true in spirit. California is here not of her own pure volition. We tore California violently from her place in the Confederation

in their own proper condition than fruitful of dangers to the parent Democracy. California, then, acted wisely and well in establishing self-government. She deserves, not rebuke, but praise and approbation. Nor does this objection come with a good grace from those who offer it. If California were now content to receive only a Territorial charter, we could not agree to grant it without an inhibition of slavery, which, in that case, being a Federal act, would render the attitude of California, as a Territory, even more offensive to those who now repel her than she is as a State, with the same inhibition in the Constitution of her own voluntary choice.

A second objection is, that California has assigned

I answer, 3d: States, nations, and empires, are 1st. The boundaries assumed; and I have consid-apt to be peculiarly capricious, not only as to the ered that point in this case already.