know that two votes, and they count four--two off and two on—will turn the scale, and that they will make decisive the fate of this conglomerated bill, and that without the least regard to what is to happen to New Mexico or California ? They are all tied together, and the whole bill is to pass, or not to pass, precisely according to the amount of money paid to Texas. Don't we know this ? Don't we see it ? Does not every body see it? And does it not present one of the most flagrant instances of the enormity of joining incongruous matters that the history of all legislation has ever presented to the world?

“ The senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) is deeply penetrated with a sense of injury to himself, the committee of thirteen, and the senate, from what I said yesterday. He characterizes it as an aspersion upon them. In that he turns off the contest from the true point. I made no allusion to him, or the committee. I spoke of their bill--their omnibus bill--and its effect—its shocking, revolting effect. I struck there, and I challenge a contest there.

“ I said that those who were anxious for the passage of the whole conglomerated measure, must, upon every principle of human action, vote the sum necessary to command the Texas vote-vote the millions so carefully concealed here, and so well known elsewhere. It can not be a question with them how much it was right and proper to pay to Texas, but how much will command the vote of Texas ? To secure the vote of Texas on this floor is what they are obliged to do on every principle of human action. This is certainly voting on a vicious principle. I admit that, by voting to put nothing there, I am voting viciously. But where lies the blame? It lies in the position that I am forced to take, in the false position in which I am placed, where I must vote money to a third party in order to carry a measure for three other parties; I must either sanction a great parliamentary enormity, or rebuke it. I will not bring in California by money to Texas. I will not vote the money. I will not bid. I shall vote not a farthing to Texas, as well because she gets land enough without money, as because of the bill itself, and because I believe purity of legislation' requires such a bill to receive the condemnation of the senate and the country. I shall vote nothing. And then what a scene we shall have in the American senate. Some voting a high amount to carry the vote of Texas; some voting a low amount in order to prevent it. That is the position, and that is the scene which the senate will exhibit; real jockey voting, to command two votes, and without the least regard to the amount that ought really to be voted; no party having any regard to what in justice and right should be paid to Texas. And why all this? Because of unparliamentary tacking; because of putting incongruous measures together."

In the midst of the discussion of this question, the death of President Taylor took place. This event occurred on the 9th of July, 1850, a year and four months after his inauguration. The shock upon the public mind produced by this sudden calamity, was similar to that experienced in 1841, on the occasion of the death of President Harrison. Expressions of sincere and deep regret from all parts of the union, bore testimony to the high estimation in which Gen. Taylor was held by all parties and all classes of the people. On the 10th, Mr. Fillmore, in a mes sage to both houses of congress, and in appropriate terms, announced the death of the president, and proposed to take the oath of office as president that day at 12 o'clock, in the presence of both houses of congress. Brief eulogies on the late president were pronounced in the senate by Messrs. Downs, of Louisiana, Webster, Cass, Pearce, of Maryland, King, of Alabama, and Berrien, of Georgia. In the house, the same office was performed by Messrs. Conrad, of Louisiana, Winthrop, Baker, of Illinois, Bayly, of Virginia, Hilliard, of Alabama, John A. King, of New York, McLane, of Maryland, and Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky.

The remains of Gen. Taylor were interred in the congressicual burial ground at Washington. They were subsequently taken up and conveyed to Louisville, Kentucky; and thence to the place of their final interment, seven miles from the city, which had been selected by himself as a family burial place. It is upon a farm formerly owned by his father, and still owned by the heirs of his deceased brother, Hancock Tay. lor, Esq.

Mr. Fillmore having become president, Mr. King, of Alabama, was chosen president of the senate, pro tem., July 11th.

A few days afterward, Mr. Fillmore reconstructed the cabinet. Daniel Webster was appointed secretary of state; Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, secretary of the treasury; Charles M. Conrad, of Louisiana, secretary of war; William A. Grabam, secretary of the navy; Alexander H. H. Stuart, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the interior; Nathan K. Hall, of New York, postmaster-general; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, attorney-general. The

passage of the Texan boundary bill was accelerated by a message from the president, (August 6th,) transmitting to the senate a copy of a letter from Governor Bell, of Texas, addressed to the late president, complaining that the state commissioner, in attempting to extend civil jurisdiction over the unorganized counties, had encountered opposition from the military officers employed in the service of the United States, stationed at Santa Fe. And he wished to be informed whether the issuing of a proclamation by Col. John Monroe, the civil and military commander of the territory, had been done under the orders of the government, or with the approval of the president. Gov. Bell was informed that, in November, orders had been given not to thwart any manifestations of the people of New Mexico in favor of forming a state constitution. Such action was a mere nullity until sanctioned by congress, and whether approved by congress or not, it could not prejudice the territorial claims of Texas. The late president, it was believed, had desired to manifest no unfriendly attitude or aspect towards Texas or her claims; and the present executive certainly did not wish to interfere with that question, as a question of title.

In his message of the 6th of August, the president declares his determination to maintain the existing order of things in New Mexico. He would protect the inhabitants in the enjoyment of their liberty and property, within the territory possessed and occupied by them as New Mexico at the date of the treaty, until a definite boundary should be established. And he recommended to congress a speedy settlement of the question of boundary.

On the 13th of August, the governor, in his message to the legislature, which he had convened in extra session, expressed his repugnance to any compromise of the boundary of Texas on the part of congress, without her consent, and evinced a disposition to resist by force any infringement of her territorial rights. The people of the state appearing determined to stand by their executive, a collision between the two powers, state and federal, was for a short time apprehended.

A few days after the passage of the Utah territorial bill, Mr. Pearce, on the 5th of August, introduced into the senate a bill defining the boundaries of the state, ceding to the United States all her claim to territory exterior to these boundaries, and relinquishing all claims upon the United States for liability for the debts of Texas, and for compensation or indemnity for the surrender of her ships, forts, custom-houses, revenue, and other public property ; in consideration of all of which the United States agreed to pay $10,000,000. The existing crisis demanded prompt action; and the bill was passed by the two houses on the days and in the manner already stated.

The passage of the Utah territorial bill-all that remained of the “ omnibus” bill—on the last day of July, and the subsequent passage, separately, of its other parts, have been mentioned. The Texas boundary bill passed the senate the 10th of August, by a vote of 30 to 20; and on the 14th, the bill to organize the territory of New Mexico passed the same body, 27 to 10. In the house these two bills were united, and passed September 6th, 107 to 97; and in this action of the house, the senate concurred. Before the passage of the bill, however, a proviso was added, that nothing in the bill should impair the joint resolution of

1845 for annexing Texas “either as regards the number of states that might be formed out of the state of Texas, or otherwise."

The bill to admit California as a state, passed the senate, August 13th, 34 to 18; the house, September 17th, 150 to 56.

The fugitive slave bill passed the senate August 23d, by a vote of 27 to 12. In the house, the bill was passed under the action of the previous question, without debate, 109 to 75.

The remaining bill was that for abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia; for which Mr. Seward proposed a substitute abolishing slavery itself in the district. The proposition, after a speech in its favor, was rejected; ayes, 5; noes, 46. On the 14th of September, the bill passed the senate, 33 to 19; and on the 17th it passed the house, 124 to 59.

The debates upon these bills, especially the fugitive slave bill, in both houses, were animated and of great interest; but the appropriation of the liberal space already assigned to this discussion, forbids its farther extension.

The compromise acts were the principal measures adopted at this very long session. At the next session, also, (1850–51,) although several important measures in both houses made considerable progress, few of them became laws. Perhaps the act of the most general interest was the existing postage law, reducing the rates of postage to three cents on prepaid single letters, for a distance of 3,000 miles, and five cents if not prepaid; and double these rates for any greater distance.

CHAPTER LXXIII.

THE

COMPROMISE OF 1850, CONTINUED.-SPEECHES OF MESSRS. SEWARD

AND CASS.

In the senate, on the 11th of March, 1850, the president's message transmitting the constitution of the state of California being under consideration, Mr. Seward addressed the senate in a speech of about three hours. As Mr. S. touched upon all the principal topics embraced in the general question of slavery as presented at this session, and as the subject is one of immense and lasting importance to the union, it is thought proper to transfer to our pages a large portion of the speech, as follows:

Shall CALIFORNIA BE RECEIVED ? For myself, upon my individual judgment and conscience, I answer, 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. Every new state, whether she come from the east or from the west, every new state, coming from whatever part of the continent she may, is always welcome. But California, that comes from the clime where the west dies away into the rising east; 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 and New Mexico violently from their places in the confederation of Mexican states, and stipulated, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territories thus acquired should be admitted as 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. But Michigan and other states presented themselves in the same unauthorized way, and

congress waived the irregularity, and sanctioned the usurpation. California pleads these precedents. Is not the plea sufficient?

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

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.

In that she stands justified. Indeed, California is more than justified. She was a colony, a military colony. All colonies, especially military

a

census.

a