for Deseret and New Mexico, under which, by the operation of laws already existing, a slaveholding population could not carry with them, or own slaves there. What is there in the nature of a compromise here, coupled, as it is, with the proposition that by the existing laws in the territories, it is almost certain that slaveholders cannot, and have no right to go there with their property? What is there in the nature of a compromise here? I am willing, however, to run the risks, and am ready to give to the territories the governments they require. I shall always think, that under a constitution giving equal rights to all parties, the slaveholding people, as such, can go to these territories, and retain their property there. But, if we adopt this proposition of the senator from Kentucky, it is clearly on the basis that slavery shall not go there.
"I do not understand the senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) to maintain the proposition, that the south asked or desired a law declaring that slavery should go there, or that it maintained the policy even that it was the duty of congress to pass such a law. We have only asked, and it is the only compromise to which we will submit, that congress shall withhold the hand of violence from the territories. The only way in which this question can be settled is, for gentlemen from the north to withdraw all their opposition to the territorial governments, and not insist on their slavery prohibition. The Union is then safe enough. Why, then, insist on a compromise, when those already made are sufficient for the peace of the north and south, if faithfully observed? These propositions are in the name of a compromise, when none is necessary."
Mr. Benton said, "it had been affirmed and denied that slavery had be£n abolished in Mexico. He affirmed its abolition, and read copious extracts from the laws and constitution of Mexico, in proof of the affirmation. Slavery having been abolished by Mexican law before we acquired the countries, the Wilmot proviso in relation to these countries was a thing of nothing — an empty provision. Tie said, also, that African slavery never had existed in Mexico in the form in which it existed in the states of this Union; and that, if the Mexican law was now in force in New Mexico and California, no slaveholder from the Union would carry a slave thither, except to set him free. The policy of this country was to discourage emancipation; that of Mexico had been to promote it. This was shown by numerous quotations of the laws of Mexico. Slavery was defined by Spanish law to be 'the condition of a man who is the property of another against natural right.' Therefore, not being derived from nature, or divine law, but existing only by positive enactment, it had no countenance from Spanish law. He affirmed these three points: 1. Slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before we got them. 2. Even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave to those countries to be held under such law. 3. Slavery could not exist there, except by positive law yet to be passed. According to this exposition, the proviso would have no more effect there than a piece of blank paper pasted on the statute book."
Mr. Calhoun said "the Union was in danger. The cause of this danger
