party finds in the bill which it favors something which commends it to acceptance, and in the other something which it disapproves. The true ground, therefore, of the objection to the union of the measures is not any want of affinity between them, but because of the favor or disfavor with which they are respectively regarded. In this conflict of opinion, it seems to a majority of the committee that a spirit of mutual concession enjoins that the two measures should be connected together— the effect of which will be, that neither opinion will exclusively triumph, and that both may find, in such an amicable arrangement, enough of good to reconcile them to the acceptance of the combined measure. And such a course of legislation is not at all unusual. Few laws have ever passed in which there were not parts to which exception was taken. It is inexpedient, if not impracticable, to separate these parts, and embody them in distinct bills, so as to accommodate the diversity of opinion which may exist. The constitution of the United States contained in it a great variety of provisions, to some of which serious objection was made in the convention which formed it, by different members of that body; and, when it was submitted to the ratification of the states, some of them objected to some parts, and others to other parts, of the same instrument. Had these various parts and provisions been separately acted on in the convention, or separately submitted to the people of the United States, it is by no means certain that the constitution itself would ever have been adopted or ratified. Those who did not like particular provisions found compensation in other parts of it. And in all cases of constitution and laws, when either is presented as a whole, the question to be decided is, whether the good which it contains is not of greater amount, and capable of neutralizing anything objectionable in it. And, as nothing human is perfect, for the sake of that harmony so desirable in such a confederacy as this, we must be reconciled to secure as much as we can of what we wish, and be consoled by the reflection that what we do not exactly like is a friendly concession, and agreeable to those who, being united with us in a common destiny, it is desirable should always live with us in peace and concord.
"A majority of the committee have, therefore, been led to the recommendation to the senate that the two measures be united. The bill for establishing the two territories, it will be observed, omits the Wilmot proviso on the one hand, and, on the other, makes no provision for the introduction of slavery into any part of the new territories.
"That proviso has been the fruitful source of distraction and agitation. If it were adopted and applied to any territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such territory were admitted as a state into the Union. There was never any occasion for it to accomplish the professed object with which it was originally offered. This has been clearly demonstrated by the current of events. California, of all the recent territorial acquisitions from Mexico, was that in which, if anywhere within them, the introduction of slavery was most likely to take place; and the constitution of California, by the unanimous vote of her convention, has expressly interdicted it. There is the high-
