will not be satisfied that we have not claimed the whole boundary. They would probably prefer having us extend our government over that territory. But, sir, there will be no issue joined between the North and the South. There is no battle to be fought in Congress between the two great parties. The issue, if any there should be, will be between the North and the people of California themselves. They will say, why did you not extend your limits to the Rocky Mountains? What will California reply? We have no right to extend our constitution over a people who have not been consulted-who have had no voice in our Convention-who are not to be represented in our Legislature. In the next place, the expense of such a government, even if the people of the Great Salt Lake were willing to accept our constitution and abide by our laws, would render it entirely impracticable for us to adopt such a boundary. Even if we did adopt it, the very next year we would be obliged to turn round and say-take back this territory; it is too much for us; we cannot afford to pay the expense of a govern ment over it. And this would be a very sufficient reply. The North is reasonable. It would not be so unjust as to say: we will not adopt your constitution; we will not admit you into the Union, because you do not extend your jurisdiction over a people whom you have not consulted in the formation of your government. I repeat, then, that if we fix the Sierra Nevada as the line, the question goes before Congress uncomplicated and unembarrassed. There is no issue between the North and the South. The South agrees to it as a matter of course. If there is any dissatisfaction at all, it will be on the part of the North; and do you suppose, sir, that the North will be so unreasonable as to reject our constitution and refuse to admit us into the Union, because we do not, in establishing our boundary, do a thing which it is extremely doubtful whether we have a right to do, which it would be impracticable to carry out, and which would overwhelm us with debt, and probably ruin us, if we made the attempt?

Another consideration. The North, although she may express some dissatisfaction, will not refuse to accept us when it comes to the point. We give her two Senators from a non-slaveholding State. That addition turns the scale in the Senate of the United States. It gives her the command of the whole question hereafter. The existence of slavery in the vast desert east of the Sierra Nevada is a mere abstract question. A great part of the territory south of 36° 30' is a desert that will never be inhabited by an American population. It will never, in reality, be a part of the State. But suppose it should be inhabited to some limited extent-suppose, even, that it should become a densely populated country, I ask you whether the North, by accepting our constitution with this boundary, does not get her two additional Senators? What more does she want?

And what will the South say? Certainly the South will not commit an act so suicidal as to refuse its assent to this Constitution, because we have not cut off all south of 36° 30'. There is not a member on this floor, who believes that slavery can ever exist there. Whatever desire the South might have to introduce slavery there, the fact that it is utterly impracticable to do so-that it can never exist in that region-is sufficient to preclude the idea. If the Territory is divided at all, it will, in accordance with the compromise agreed to between the two great parties, be erected into a free State by the action of the people themselves. There is no division of opinion between the northern and south. ern population of California on this subject. Consequently if it becomes a separate State, it will be a free State; and instead of one, there will be two free States.

If the other boundary is adopted, let us see what would be the consequences. It is a double proposition-a proposition with an alternative-to fix our boundary either on the Sierra Nevada, or include the whole of California, as Congress and the Legislature may hereafter determine. I ask you, sir, if that is not making an open question of it?-throwing down the glove between the two great parties? The very idea of such a question, not upon the adoption of the Constitution, not

upon the local institutions of the new State, but upon the great conflicting and extraneous interests involved in this extensive boundary, will be the commencement of the battle. The question will be, whether slavery is to be excluded forever from that immense territory east of the Sierra Nevada, or only from the natural boundary of the new State. Is it possible that any member of this Convention does not see that this leaves the whole question open? that it has no tendency towards settling it? that the South will fight the same battle again, and on the same ground that it has fought it for years? Sir, I am a Northern man. I am as much opposed to slavery as any member of this Convention. I have lived in a slave State sufficiently long to witness the practical evils of this institution, and to learn that it is deemed a curse by the slaveholders themselves; but I cannot help looking at the inevitable result of this policy, as it will appear to the South. What is the proposition? That some few thousand inhabitants, shut up here behind the Sierra Nevada, shall undertake to say that slavery shall not exist within the limits of their own territory, over which they have a right to extend a government (for that the South is willing we should say); but we also say, for the hundreds of thousands that may inhabit the vast territory on the other side of that boundary-for a population of free Americans, in actual existence there, of thirty or forty thousand, who have had no part in framing this Constitution—that slavery shall not exist there. Sir, it would be very strange indeed if the South did not object to this proposition.

The point to which I desire particularly to call the attention of the Convention, is this. If you adopt at once a definite boundary, affording a reasonable extent of territory, you form no issue upon which a question can arise between the North and the South-an issue which every reasonable man wishes to avoid. But if you leave an alternative, which must necessarily open the question, you compel a conflict which must be determined in Congress before your constitution is adopted. The South never will yield on that point. Will the North yield? I doubt it very much. I admit she is more likely to yield than the South; but if she does it will be to the lesser boundary. But this proposition of a definite boundary, does not require her to yield; and suppose you fix it at the Sierra Nevada, I ask you whether it is not far more likely that the North will yield without any condition whatever, than if you adopt a boundary with an alternative which must inevitably compel a conflict with the South?

For these reasons, Mr. President, I am opposed to the proviso of the gentleman from San Joaquin, and shall vote in favor of any proposition making the Sierra Nevada the definite boundary line.

Mr. SHANNON. I intended before this to have drawn the attention of the House to a certain fact, more for the purpose of obtaining information than any thing else. It is this: that there exists a Vice Royal decree published during the existence of the old Spanish Government, previous to the independence of Mexico, establishing a line which runs through the centre of the Great Desert, being an extension of the eastern boundary line of Lower California, running northerly from the Colorado river to the 42d degree of north latitude, or to the northern boundary of Upper California. All upon the eastern side of that line belonged to New Mexi co, and was entirely under its jurisdiction; and all upon the western side belonged to and was under the jurisdiction of Upper California. I desire to get some definite information upon that subject, because if this is a fact, we include more in the large boundary proposed, than actually belongs to Upper California, and consequently it presents an insuperable objection to the extension of that boundary line so far eastward. I understand the document to which I refer is probably among the official archives. I ask for some information in regard to this from Mr. Hartnell or Mr. Halleck.

Permission being granted

Mr. HARTNELL said: I am not aware that there exists among the archives any such document, but I have been told that there has been one seen there. Perhaps Mr. Vallejo may be able to give the desired information.

Mr. VALLEJO. I have myself formerly seen in the archives of the California Government, a document issued in the time of the Spanish Government, dated 1781, in which the boundary from the 32d deg. 30 min. to the 42d deg. 30 min. of north latitude divides the Great Desert, leaving one-half to the jurisdiction of New Mexico, and the other half to Upper California.

Mr. COVARRUBIAS. I am of opinion that the gentleman (Mr. Vallejo) is mistaken in asserting that from the 32d deg. 30 min. to the 42d deg. 30 min. of north latitude, from the point at which that line strikes the Colorado river, belonged to New Mexico on the one side, and to California on the other. It is well known that the boundary of New Mexico never went up to the 42d deg. 30 min. of north latitude.

Mr. VALLEJO. I do not say that this line was ever formally laid down by official surveys, but that such a line did exist, dividing the Great Desert in two, is, I think, sufficiently established by the document to which I refer. Col. Fremont, in his map, did not take in the exact boundary of California. I suppose his intention was, as it was not known whether the United States would take in New Mexico or not, and as all were determined to take in California, that the boundaries of California should include as much as possible. .

Mr. HALLECK. About a year ago, Mr. Hartnell and myself overhauled the old archives, and those that I considered of interest, relating to the history of California, were laid aside for future reference. We found among these old archives the first map that was ever drawn of California, and the manuscript journal of the priest who explored the Great Basin and a portion of the Sierra Nevada and Tulare Valley. From this map all the maps of the country have been made. It is stated in Greenhow's history that this map and journal were lost, but fortunately they were found among a collection of old papers in the custom house at Monterey. After this map was drawn, several decrees of the Viceroy were made with regard to the judicial districts, and judicial boundaries were laid down. The two Californias were united, and several times afterwards separated; they were some. times under separate, and again united under one judicial district; at one time attached to Sonora, and afterwards to New Mexico. Lower California was finally separated in its judicial relation from Upper California, although the two until recently, were included in the same judicial department. The dividing line be. tween Upper and Lower California-the final one fixed by a commission sent from Mexico, was not either the 32d or 324 degree of north latitude; it was a line fixed by certain rivers and hills running between Upper and Lower California at a considerable distance below the line agreed upon the by the treaty of peace, so that we have given up a small portion of what was finally fixed upon as the limits of Upper California by the Mexican Government itself. That formal line ran up the Colorado river. There was a decree making a dividing line on the great caravan route that runs north of the Gila and north of the Colorado river. All criminals arrested for offences on that route to a certain point, were sent back to New Mexico for trial. All on this side were sent back to California. That line crossed the Great Desert somewhere near the Salt Lake; but it was merely a judicial regulation established for convenience. This is the only decree that I have ever seen in the archives in respect to any division of that kind. There certainly is nothing of the kind referred to in the archives at the present time, unless it has been overlooked; and I think it is scarcely possible that it can have been overlooked, for Mr. Hartnell and myself have examined every paper on that subject in the archives.

Mr. FOSTER. In relation to the line, as laid down in Fremont's map of Cali fornia-that map embraces in California a part of New Mexico. The pueblo of Zunia, a village of civilized Indians, subject for a hundred and fifty years to New Mexico, is a hundred and fifty miles within the territory of California, according to the western line of New Mexico as laid down in Fremont's map. The Navejoe, Moquis, Apaches, and Utabs, have their treaty regulations with New Mexico,

and are recognized as within her territory. I think there is no doubt that the boundary of California is too extensive, and that the actual boundary of New Mexico extends even to the westward of those tribes. The true line runs in a northeast and southwest direction through the middle of the Great Desert. Sonora has always claimed jurisdiction, to an indefinite extent, east of the Colorado and north of the Gila. I speak from knowledge obtained while a resident in New Mexico and Sonora, in which I believe I have the advantage of any member on this floor. The boundaries of the departments mentioned have always been very loosely defined, but the above I believe is the one recognized.

Mr. HALLECK. In respect to that, the gentleman is perfectly right. Fremont's map includes, in my opinion, a portion of what properly belongs to New Mexico. Mr. SHANNON. We are coming to it at last. I now begin to see that this reconsideration was not entirely in vain. It is stated that this old line is a judicial line; what is a judicial line? Is it not a dividing line between two distinct counties or provinces? What do you call this line but the dividing line where the dif ferent laws of two distinct provinces meet?

Mr. HALLECK. One word on that point. At that time there was no difference as to the laws. These provinces were all included under the Government of Mexico, and were under the same laws; but it was ordered by the government that a part should be within the jurisdiction of New Mexico and a part within the jurisdiction of California.

Mr. SHANNON. Very well; this line was a judicial line, between two distinct countries, territories, or provinces. What is it but a boundary line between the two provinces? This view is sustained by the facts stated by the gentleman from Los Angeles (Mr. Foster.) Another very important fact that has come to light is this that east of the Colorado, Upper California has not exercised jurisdiction; that the jurisdiction there has been exercised by Sonora for a certain distance north, or jointly by Sonora and New Mexico. As to this line starting from the 32d degree of north latitude, it is well known that the boundary line between Upper and Lower California has been disputed, and that it was never distinctly determined. Sometimes it was the 32d degree, and at others a lower line, and now it is the line established by the treaty.

Mr. CARRILLO. I recollect perfectly well having seen a document among the archives of the government at Los Angeles, when I was alcalde of that place, and I examined it with great care, and I have no doubt myself that an order was sent from the Spanish Government in 1781, making this line from 32 or 321 degrees north latitude to 42, cutting the Great Desert in two, and that the territory on the eastern side was thus divided from the territory on the western side. Part of the territory on the eastern side. belonged to New Mexico, and part to Sonora. The whole territory on the western side belonged to California.

Mr. FOSTER. It appears to me that we can reconcile this difficulty. In order to do so, I would propose to run the line on the 113th parallel of longitude, due north to the 42d degree. That will remove the difficulty of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Botts,) in regard to admitting the settlements east of that line. It is utterly unfit for agricultural, grazing, or other purposes, and there is no white person living in that country. I suggest it as a compromise.

Mr. HILL stated that he had drawn up a resolution to that effect, which he desired to offer to the House, and of which he now gave notice.

MR. SHANNON. We can now base the boundary upon facts. It is narrowed down in its eastern limit to the line recognized by the Spanish Government. Be. tween that line and any line that may be agreed upon west, I leave the matter.

Mr. JONES. There is no member of this House, Mr. President, who is more willing to accept any proposition that we can in principle accept to compromise this vexed question, than myself. But, sir, here is a piece of news; new light upon the subject. It is true we have certain authorized maps-authorized by the Congress of the United States-certain conventions and agreements drawn up

between the two high contracting parties, all having reference to these maps-all recognizing them-maps which have been before us and which are now before us; but we are told that they are all wrong! Yes, sir, we have been laboring in the dark on this subject. The boundaries of this territory have been incorrectly laid down; it has been discovered that a new boundary exists somewhere among the Spanish archives, bordering the Great Desert. Where are these maps, sir, that John C. Fremont knew not of? Where were these maps when he based his maps upon maps of Mexican authority? Did they know nothing of their own boundaries? Had they no knowledge of their own official archives? Suppose the Vice Royalty of Spain did fix this boundary, and the Mexican Government thought proper to fix another, am I to be told that the act of the Mexican Government could not legally change the Vice Royal decree of the old Spanish Government? Sir, we are not bound in any manner by the Vice Royalty of Spain. The boundary stands as fixed by the two contracting parties in the treaty of peace. Neither Mexico nor the United States can now assume any right to say that that boundary is different. The treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo took these boundaries, such as they are here represented. Now, if gentlemen could give me any assurance that this avoids all difficulty, and that these facts which they bring forth will be recognized by the Congress of the United States and the Congress of Mexico, I would be perfectly willing to accept the compromise. But, sir, I apprehend that the Congress of the United States would say, that the boundaries of California had already been determined by the maps of the Mexican Republic, the treaty of peace, and the official map drawn by J. C. Fremont.

Mr. President, there are certain propositions laid before this House which I must deny. The issue is, that the Congress of the United States have no right to establish the boundary that we propose and rather than avoid the difficulty, that we should refuse to become one of the United States. That issue I am ready to take up. Sir, there is a great principle for which the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) contends upon this floor. I suppose that gentleman, as a man of sense, is ready to admit that a great principle will apply to a small matter as well as to a large matter. He says that that great principle is about to be violated here; that the Congress of the United States, by the ratification of this Consti tution with the proposed boundary, would be forcing a government upon a people who do not want it, and who have had no part in its formation. I suppose if that principle will hold good in reference to the Mormons, that it will hold good in reference to the population of the Trinity River. If you take the proclamation of General Riley, and take the vote of every poll for the members of this Con. vention, you will find that it falls some hundreds of miles this side of the Sierra Nevada; and there are certain miners who are now digging out gold from the Sierra Nevada, who are not represented in this Convention. This is the great principle which the gentleman does not wish to see violated; but he violates it himself by taking in parts of the country which he does not pretend are represented upon this floor.

Sir, I have only supported this proposition for one reason. I profess to know something of the opinions of men in political life; I know something of the opinions of members of Congress; and when I tell you they have urged you to come in as a State of the Union, there is not one who tells you to come in as a part; they want you to come in as a whole. I only seek to avoid the difficulty with which we are threatened.

Mr. BOTTS. I merely rise for the purpose of correcting two statements of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones,) and if he misrepresents his constitu. ents as much as he misrepresents history, he ought to be discarded from their service. I say, sir, that in the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico, Fremont's map is not mentioned at all; and the line that he puts down. as the boundary between New Mexico and California, is never alluded to.

Mr. JONES. I did not say it was. I spoke of the Mexican maps used by J. C. Fremont.