thousand freemen upon the Salt Lake. For my own part, I have not the face to do it. I cannot undertake to do it. This is not a small or immaterial portion either of country or of human beings— an extent of country that probably exceeds ours some fifty times, and in population probably onehalf of our own-a reasonable estimate; and yet, sir, this is the country and this the people over whom we propose to extend our laws. Suppose this thirty thousand people of the Salt Lake were to send to Congress a remonstrance, which, if they have the souls of freemen, they will do, am I to be told that their remonstrance will not be listened to? They have had no part in the formation of this Constitution. Do you mean to say it would form no valid claim upon the Congress of the United States, so far as to extend their protection over them as not to give to this Constitution their sanction? If it be true that those are the real natural limits of California, I say dissolve this Convention, call another, and summon from every portion of it delegates to be elected by the people of those portions. Is not that fair? Is there a man within the sound of my voice that will not say it is just and proper. I was struck with the remarks of a gentleman on this floor this evening, who argued as a reason for extending our Government over that country, that it must remain for the five or six years next ensuing without a government at all. Let us see what it is you propose to do for this people. If an individual upon or near that eastern line should be charged with a crime, as I un derstand it, he will be dragged some six hundred miles from his home, across barren wastes and dreary mountains, to your courts of justice, to be tried upon the charge, for it seems it is not proposed to establish courts of justice in that country. Sir, it is not to the tender mercy of such a gentleman I would commit friends of mine. It is the mercy that the wolf shows to the lamb. I will not detain the House by either repeating the very powerful arguments that have been addressed to them on this subject, or by adding others that might have been advanced. I will simply remark that I have received no high authority to speak the sentiments of the Administration, or of this great man or that great man. I deny their right to be heard here either directly or by proxy.

But, sir, I tell you what I will propose to speak, and that is the sentiments of the Southern people of this Union; not because I have had any letters from that portion of the country, or any other, intimating what course I should pursue, but because I know the character and feelings of the peo ple. I know their hatred of oppression, and determination to insist upon their rights at all hazards. And I tell you, sir, that if you send a Constitution to the Congress of the United States with that eastern boundary line, together with the doctrine avowed upon this floor of your determination to settle the question of slavery for that entire territory as well as the portion that properly comes within your limits as a State, you will wake up indignation in every Southern breast that you will find it impossible to extinguish. I have but one word more. It is in respect to a brief allusion of my own to the creation of this new firm, (Messrs. Gwin & Halleck.) Why, sir, the gentleman, my colleague, is much too sensitive on this subject. It was the Chair, if I am not mistaken, that first announced the resolutions under the firm of Messrs. Gwin & Halleck. That was the first in timation I had of this copartnership, coalition, corporation, confederacy, or bank. I never meant to impugn the motives of the sources whence this resolution came. I said not a word about it. I did not know myself that there had been, until the gentleman told me, former hostility between these parties. I see one of the gentlemen is here who is capable of responding, if necessary. Now, I simply want to know this: If the firm were originally united in argument and opinions upon this subject?

Mr. GWIN. Mr. Chairman, after the long discussion we have had this evening and throughout the day upon this question, I confess I am thoroughly exhausted, and will offer but very few remarks. Before I commence I should like to ask the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Shannon) what was the remark that he made in regard to Louisiana and Missouri-whether he stated that the State of Louisiana picked out her own territory, and that Missouri was admitted without having had a Territorial Government?

Mr. SHANNON. I said that the people of Louisiana, in defining the boundaries of the State, took from the whole territory, as obtained by treaty from France, a portion sufficient for the State of Louisiana; and I referred to the first article of the constitution of that State as affording a precedent of the right of States to establish their own boundaries. I said that in the State of Missouri no portion of the territory had been rejected by any act of Congress previous to the State organization.

Mr. GWIN. I thought it probable I might have misunderstood the gentleman; I merely made the inquiry because I have some knowledge on that question that differs from the gentleman's first statement, which I think he has now modified.

I desire to make a few remarks in answer to the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) in regard to the extent of this territory, and the objection which he urges that the representation in this Convention does not cover this boundary. If the gentleman was at all familiar with the history of ail the new States, where there are Indian tribes, he would know perfectly well that nearly every constitution and every State was formed where there was not, in some instances, one-half of the territory included in the regularly organized counties of the State. It was so in the State of Mississippi. For fifteen years more than half of her territory was unrepresented, and not regarded as within the organized limits of the several counties of the State. So also with the State of Alabama; and nearly every Western State occupied the same position. They formed State Governments

including tribes of Indians, without that portion of the population being represented in the Conventions of the States. If I have been correctly informed, there are a hundred tribes of Indians in the gorges of the Sierra Nevada, speaking forty or fifty different languages. I am told there are vast numbers of Indians in the southeast portion of California, somewhat under the control of the authorities of New Mexico. Now, sir, I believe it has been the practice of all the States heretofore, when they formed their State limits, never to have any reference to that portion of the territory occupied by the Indian tribes, but to extend the government over them as they would over those portions which were represented in Convention.

In regard to the extent of this territory, as proposed to be included, a great deal has been said, especially by the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts.) Now that gentleman knows perfectly well that the "Old Dominion" formerly occupied a great deal larger territory than this. The State of Virginia at one time covered an extent of territory far beyond that which California will contain within the whole boundary which has been proposed. So far as the extent of territory is concerned, we can suffer no inconvenience. As it populates, provision may be made for the inhabitants who will occupy those portions now unsettled. I do not intend to occupy much time in the discussion of this question, but will proceed briefly to answer some remarks in regard to the Mormon settlements. Gentlemen proclaim against the injustice of forcing a government upon them. Great stress is laid upon the fact that they are not represented here. Why, sir, there is no proposition on the part of the State of California to force the Mormons to become a part of this Government. We do not propose to extend the laws of the State or any district to them. We do not propose to send tax collectors or government officers there. We await their own action. If they wish the benefits of the Government we are about to establish, let them send a petition to have representatives allotted to them, and judicial districts established. If they desire the protection of our laws, let them send to us, and it will then be a matter of inquiry on the part of our State Government.

But have they any right to complain? Are we not the majority? Does any one pretend to say, in this House or elsewhere, that the districts of California established under the proclamation do not contain a population that is not here represented? Have not thousands reached the country since we were elected? As a minority are they not bound to submit to the will of the majority? Sir, are we not here forcing a State Government upon a portion of the people of California whose delegates have, by their recorded votes, stated the fact that their constituents are unanimously against a State Government, and in favor of a Territorial organization. Do you not expect and require that they shall sustain this Government and become a part of it? If not, let us require their delegates to retire from this Convention, apply to Congress for a Territorial Government, and exclude them from our State boundary. Gentlemen affect to believe that in taking in a large extent of territory not represented here, and from which no opposition to our action has become known to us, we are doing a great act of injustice to those people; when, at the same moment, we have here before us the direct protest against a State Government of a portion of the inhabitants. of this territory who are represented. But do we stop-do we refrain from committing this act of injustice No, sir; we go on and include them; we never think of excluding them. They bear the expense of a State Government, while they prefer a Territorial Government; but rather than submit to a separate organization, or run the risk of getting no Government at all, they waive their objection and act with us.

The constitution of Michigan was formed by a political party. The Democratic party of Michigan determined to form a State Government; the Whig party protested against it. This is my recollection of the case. If I am in error I hope some gentleman will correct me. Thus a single party formed a State Government, the other party refusing to go to the polls or participate in it. Yet it was recognised as a legitimate Government by the Congress of the United States; and their Senators and Representatives took their seats. What was the result? The minority, upon whom a State Government was forced, acquiesced. It was not the less binding upon them because they did not participate in its formation; nor was it the less binding because they actually took part against it.

Sir, it is a new doctrine that every man must be represented within the borders of the new State; a new doctrine, never known or preached before. It is said here, and I have been informed myself, that the Mormons have petitioned Congress to give them a Territorial Government I take it for granted that this is true. I admit, and argue from it. If they have petitioned for a Territorial Government, have they any right to complain of the Government which we are about to establish? They want the benefit of government; and do they suppose that if the Congress of the United States had established the Government that it was proposed to create here, at the last session, that they would have given them a separate Government? There never was more than one proposition on the subject, and that was to give a Territorial Government to all California; one Territory, not a western one for us, and an eastern one for them. If the people of California could not get a Territorial Government, how can the Mormons expect to get it? What superior claims have they? All they ask for is the protection of government. What injury do we inflict upon them in forming a State Government, which, if they want protection, affords it to them as well as to us. Especially, if we are to judge from what has occurred at the two sessions, it is impossible for

them to get a Territorial Government from Congress. But if they are more fortunate than we have been, then Congress will alter our boundary, excluding them from our limits, which we would greatly prefer.

It is well known that the Mormons are a peculiar class of people; that they are a religious sect, professing principles peculiar to themselves. They sought their present location for the express purpose of getting out of the reach of government; to establish a system of their own; and they have located at an isolated point which cannot maintain a large population. We do not ask them to pay taxes or support this Government. We do not ask them to send their representatives here. If they remain there peaceably, if they want protection from the Indians, let the Government of the United States send its forces and protection to them. If, they want representation, let them send their memorial here and ask for it.

If I understood the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple,) he stated this morning, that if we establish no boundaries, Congress will be forced to admit us with the boundaries we now have. I cannot admit the argument. I do not look upon it, that if we were to send our constitution to Congress they are forced to give us all of the boundary that we have described, or that they are forced to give it to us if we do not describe it. I think gentlemen are laboring under a great mistake in regard to the power of Congress on this subject when they assume that, if we pronounce a certain line as the boundary of California, it shall be the boundary, notwithstanding any objection of Congress. I have not the remotest idea that the Congress of the United States would give us this great extent of boundary if it was expected that it should remain one State. And when gentlemen say that they never will give up one inch of the Pacific coast, they say what they cannot carry out. So far as I am concerned, I should like to see six States fronting on the Pacific in California. I want the additional power in the Congress of the United States of twelve Senators instead of four; for it is notorious, sir, that the State of Delaware, smaller than our smallest district, has as much power in the Senate as the great State of New York. It is not the passage of a bill through the House of Representatives that makes a law; that bill has to go through the Senate, and in that body the State of Delaware has as much power as the State of New York. And the past history of our country, sir, developes the fact that we will have State upon State here-probably as many as on the Attantic side-and as we accumulate ¡States we accumulate strength; our institutions become more powerful to do good and not to do evil. I have no doubt the time will come when we will have twenty States this side of the Rocky Mountains. I want the power, sir, and the population. When the population comes, they will require that this State shall be divided.

Mr. BOTTS. Will the gentlemen who propose this line tell us what proofs there are on record, anywhere, that it was ever adopted or ever known as the original boundary line of California-that it has ever been recognised as such by the Congress of the United States?

Mr. GWIN. The only information I have on the subject is that which I obtain from the official documents of the United States, the great umpire to whom we must submit this question. They have published officially certain maps and laid down certain boundaries. I take it for granted that Congress will recognise them. They are official, so far as the Government of the United States is concerned, and I have conversed with gentlemen in California who tell me that it is the precise boundary laid down by Mexico.

Mr. Borts. I have conversed with the oldest inhabitants, and they have assured me that no such line exists.

Mr. GWIN. I care not what the Mexican authorities say the boundary is; but I know what the United States say it is-one branch of Congress, at least, and the other branch will not deny it. It is laid down in three different and distinct maps-one accompanying the President's message, giving the area and extent of every State of the Union; and the other printed by order of the Senate. All the official information from our own Government makes this the boundary of California. There was some reference made in the course of debate to the case of Maine and Massachusetts, Kentucky and Virginia, as affording a precedent for the division of California into smaller limits than her entire boundary. That was a mere question between States. It did not concern the Government of the United States, except so far as to ratify the action of the States. For instance, Massachusetts contained within its borders the present State of Maine. By mutual consent they agreed to separate. It was the same with Kentucky and Virginia. Congress merely gave its assent, as provided under the fourth article of the Constitution. But the whole Territory of California belongs to the United States. We should bear it in mind that the General Government bought this country, and paid for it. Not to take into consideration the hundred millions of dollars expended out of the public treasury in carrying on the war, the sum of fifteen millions has to be paid for the Territory of California and New Mexico. It is not to be supposed that the General Government is to be controlled or forced into any course of policy to meet our inordinate demands. We say within a certain amount of territory negotiation shall be open; but we do not say we will refuse to accept any other proposition on the part of Congress. If we do, we throw the gauntlet down to a power that has the control of this question. Congress has the power to say what our territory shall be; and when we say, you shall come only to such a line, we make an issue which we cannot sustain.

The proviso of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Halleck,) was added at his suggestion. I prefer sending my proposition as I offered it. We should not mutilate our Constitution on this subject. We send it to a great power. Gentlemen deny the right of Congress to interfere with the subject of our limits. If Congress has not the power to designate what we shall be, why do we send our constitution there? I was opposed to any other boundary but that of California as recognised by the Governments of the United States and Mexico, for another reason, and I consider it a very important one, that if we leave a portion of territory out, we would necessarily open a question which we here should not interfere with. We all know what 36 deg. 30 min. is. It is the great bone of contention. North of that there is no contest. South of it there is a contest. If gentlemen will look where this line strikes the Pacific, they will see that not a solitary vote was cast by a delegate in this Convention south of that line, except those cast against a State Government. The Representatives here from that region are unanimous in their votes against the establishment of a State Government. If we include the Territory these Delegates represent on the coast, why exclude the barren waste beyond, where no white man lives? We take away the substance and leave the shadow. Let us take the whole terrirory or stop at that line. If we stop at that line, we mutilate the Convention by excluding the members south of it. When we speak of the necessity of having the whole Pacific coast, and especially my friend from Sacramento, (Mr. McCarver,) who says we must have it all, we should take into consideration this question. The gentleman (Mr. McCarver) speaks of the miserable waste land which it is proposed to include, as a great objection. Sir, having been to Oregon, he ought to have borne in mind that there is a good deal of territory between this and Oregon unexplored-some of the most difficult country to pass through this side of the Rocky Mountains. If you send to Congress a constitution fixing limIts to this State, and not including California as it has always been recognised, it is more probable that Congress may look at that portion of the map and also at the votes represented in favor of a Territorial Government. They would cut off all the northern line down to 39 deg., add it to Oregon, and all south of 36 deg 30 min., and make a Territorial Government of it. Gentlemen who want all the Pacific coast should look to this, that if the slave question is not settled by our meeting here, Congress will say, such are your boundaries and you must abide by them.

Sir, the gentleman alluded to Iowa this morning, and stated that the Government of the United States had been compelled to grant her eventually such boundaries as she demanded. The quesion with Iowa was this: She formed a State Constitution and laid it before Congress. Now, >ear it mind, that most of the new States came into existence by express authority of Congress. We have none. The very authority that was granted to Iowa, and which was asked for in the Congress of the United States to permit us to form a State Government, was refused. Sir, sixty out of ninety days of the last session was occupied in the discussion of this great question, and hey refused to pass a bill to permit us to do what we are sitting here now to do-to form a State Government for California. In regard to Iowa, by authority of the Congress of the United States, he formed a State Constitution, defining certain limits. What did she do? She rejected those imits. Then what did she do? Did she come in in defiance of Congress? By no means; she waited quietly under her Territorial Government until Congress thought proper to admit her; then, and not until then, did she come in as a State. That is the way they do things on the other side of the mountains. When Louisiana came up, what did Congress say before she permitted her to talk about a Constitution at all? That State, sir, was admitted in the Union by act of Congress n 1812. Before her admission, conditions were prescribed, requiring that the laws which the State should pass, and its records of every description, should be preserved in the English language. You will see something of that kind when you go there, because there are portions of California whose records are published in a different language from our own. They will require that these records shall be in the same language as ours. Congress may require us to insert the same provision in regard to the public lands. Sir, if we look through the history of Territorial Governments and the States that have been admitted from Territorial Governments, you will find that the Congress of the United States assumes a power and control which that body will not lightly surrender. know, sir, that we are in a peculiar situation; and as my friend from Sacramento (Mr. McCarver) stated this morning that Congress is in a tight place, and to get clear of the difficulty will proba ly go farther than they ever did before. But there is a certain point beyond which they cannot to and do justice to the people of the United States whom they represent. Sir, a gentleman from Bacramento (Mr. McDougal) stated this morning that probably there were parties on this floor who wished to make boundaries so objectionable, including territory so large, that Congress would eject it; that these gentlemen had friends who have negroes over the way, to whom they were nxious to extend the opportunity of bringing them out here. Did the gentleman allude to me in hat remark?

Mr. McDOUGAL. I am not aware that the gentleman has any friends who own negroes that they wish to bring here.

Mr. GWIN. I am glad to hear the gentleman did not allude to me. So far as I am concerned, I have no fear but that the Constitution which we are about to send to Congress will be accepted, if it has no objectionable provisions; if we do not insert in it that which may be offensive in language, or in restrictions upon the Government of the United States, which we have no right to impose, and which may force them to reject it altogether.

I have been called upon, sir, to give my sentiments in regard to the question that caused these difficulties that has prevented California from having a government. The boundary which I have proposed here, I never for a moment thought would be open to question. I would scorn to propose a boundary that would deprive of their rights a portion of the people of this Union. If there is any portion of this country south of 36 deg. 30 min. adapted to slave labor and slave cultivation, I have never heard of it. The mines are all north of it; south of it, except in a few spots, it is a barren waste. If any portion of the people south of that line, or those likely to settle there, favor the introduction of slavery, let it be included. If not, why provide for that which can never happen? I have no fears but if we send our Constitution to Congress with this boundary, and with no other objectionable features, it will be adopted, to include the Pacific coast and to the Sierra Nevada, if not the whole territory.

Sir, I hear great complaints against the Government of the United States here. It does no good. We all know that we ought to have had a government; that such a case never existed before in the history of any Government, that such a great country as this should have been neglected as it has been. But gentlemen should recollect that there must have been great cause to have produced such a result. This question, sir, which agitates the Union, may be looked upon by some here as a mere abstract question; but as has been said by a distinguished gentleman, whose name has been used here: to the North it is a sentiment; to the South, a point of honor." We all know what a point of honor is in Governments. A point of honor may dissolve our Confederacy. It has dissolved nations. If we make a Constitution with unexceptionable features, and send to the Congress of the United States a State Government for the Territory of California as she is known and recognised, I am not afraid of injustice being done us. We may be cut down in our eastern boundary to the Sierra Nevada. I do not expect, nor do I desire that California shall contain all the territory which we include in our boundary. I want to see many States in it as our population increases.

Mr. Chairman, I have stated that we should have had a Government; that we have been treated as no civilized people ever were before by any free Government. But there have been causes, uncontrollable, to have produced this; and for remarks to emanate from this body, all of which will be published, denouncing the Government of the United States, is not the way for us to obtain that action there which I hope we will obtain. I believe the time has arrived to settle the question that agitates the Union, or it is in danger. I believe we can do it if wisdom and moderation govern our action; and I have made it my object, while participating in the formation of this Constitution, to make one that would have that tendency in the Congress of the United States. As to gentlemen quoting high authorities in the United States, and reading partisan newspapers to prove that there is no excitement on the question of slavery, no man who looks deliberately at the state of feeling at home can be blind to the fact that the whole public are aroused on this question; that they are preparing for a conflict. Let us allay this excitement; leave no room to bring it up in the consideration of your Constitution.

This has been the cause of my taking so deep an interest in this boundary question, believing it to be one of transcendent importance. As to the celebrated partnership between the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Halleck) and myself, it was by the merest accident I made any proposition at all. I had no knowledge of the proposition which the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Halleck) was about to present. I came into this whole discussion very unexpectedly to myself. I have not at any time urged my views upon the House. Not liking any of the propositions which had been submitted, I offered this as a substitute for a part of the proposition of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Halleck,) believing that it would accomplish the object had in view, and he accepted it. This is the beginning and the end of the copartnership or coalition between us. Mr. SHANNON. I did not expect to have said one additional word on this question; but, sir, there is a secret out. I wish to say something in relation to it, but not to night. I rather would urge the committee to rise. Before doing so, however, I would ask the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) if there has ever been an instance in which the Constitution of the State, or the boundaries of the State, were not finally admitted by the Congress of the United States, not even excepting Iowa? For it seems to me that, after all, it was Congress that submitted to include her boundaries. I shall content myself for the present by moving that the committee rise and report progress.

The motion was decided in the negative.

Mr. SHANNON. I introduced this morning a proviso against dividing the State of California north and south, which I afterwards withdrew. The gentleman (Mr. Gwin) has just held it out that if we do not include this entire territory, Congress will have the right to run Mason and Dixon's line, or any other line, through our territory. That is another strong argument why we should define a particular boundary. The gentleman can point to no instance in which the boundaries of a new State, particularly defined within the Constitution presented to Congress, has not finally been accepted by Congress. He made one reference and failed in that, for he admitted that Congress had finally to admit the State of Iowa as she at first defined her bouudaries. Now, sir, if we are to follow precedents, and show a proper deference for the gray hairs of the States, it is our policy to fix a permanent boundary, and it follows that the State of California will be admitted.