And  in  conclusion  they  had  to  say  that  the  people  of  Cali-
fornia were  neither  rebels,  usurpers  nor  anarchists.  They  had
not  sought  to  sow  the  seeds  of  revolution  that  they  might  reap
the  harvest  of  discord.  They  believed  that  the  principles  which
guided  them  were  just;  they  knew  that  the  motives  which  actu-
ated  them  were  pure,  and  they  hoped  that  their  action  would  be
acceptable  to  every  portion  of  their  common  country.  They
had  not  expected  that  their  admission  as  a  state  would  be  made
the  test  question  upon  which  was  to  hang  the  preservation  of
the  Union;  nor  did  they  desire  such  a  result  They  had  been
urged  by  the  imperative  and  extraordinary  necessities  of  their
position  to  unite  in  such  action  as  they  believed  would  secure
them  a  government,  not  in  opposition  to  but  under  and  in  con-
formity with  the  national  constitution  of  their  country.*

In  April,  John  Bell  of  Tennessee  introduced  a  new  series  of
compromise  resolutions,  based  upon  the  proposition  of  admitting
California  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states.  About
the  same  time,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  of  Illinois,  chairman  of  the
committee  on  territories,  introduced  two  bills,  one  for  the  uncon-
ditional admission  of  California  and  the  other  for  the  establish-
ment of  territorial  governments  for  Utah  and  New  Mexica
Both  bills  were  read  twice;  but  a  proposition  to  take  up  and
consider  the  California  bill  was  on  motion  of  Clay,  by  a  vote  of
twenty-seven  to  twenty-five,  laid  on  the  table.
It  was  plain,  notwithstanding  the  ill  success  of  former  com-
promises, that  there  were  to  be  further  attempts  to  compromise.
