There is another objection to any future claim of Texas to be divided into states, which grows out of her own neglect to fulfil the terms and spirit of the agreement. In the “territory north of the Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited.” So reads the bond. But if Texas suffer slavery to be extended over that part of her territory, then, when it becomes populous enough for admission, and is overspread with slavery, a new state may present a free constitution, be admitted by Congress, and before the slaves have time to escape, or to carry the question of freedom before the judicial tribunals, _presto!_ this free constitution will be changed into a slave constitution, under the alleged right of a state to decide upon its own domestic institutions; and thus the word of promise, which was kept to the ear, will be broken to the hope. If Texas meant to abide by the resolutions of annexation, and to claim any thing under them, it was her clear and imperative duty forthwith to pass a law, securing freedom to every inhabitant north of the compromise line. In this way only can the resolutions be executed in their true spirit. That territory is now in the condition of an egg. It is undergoing incubation. From it a state is hereafter to be hatched; but before promising to accept the chick, it would be agreeable to know whether a viper had impregnated the egg. There is a still further objection, of whose soundness I have no doubt; but should I be in error in regard to it, the mistake will not invalidate any other argument. The parties to that agreement stipulated on the ground of mutuality, without which all contracts are void. Some states were to be admitted to strengthen the hands of slavery, and some of freedom. A line of demarcation was drawn. Now, on investigation, I believe it will most conclusively appear that there is not an inch of Texan territory north of the stipulated line. It all belongs to New Mexico, as much as Nantucket or Berkshire belongs to Massachusetts. It was a mistake on the part of the contracting parties; if, on the part of Texas, it was not something worse than a mistake. The mutuality, then, fails. The contract is _nudum pactum_. Texas can give nothing for what she was to receive; and is, therefore, entitled to receive nothing but what she has got. In regard to “the business of seeing that fugitives are delivered up,” Mr. Webster says, “My friend at the head of the judiciary committee, [Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina,] has a bill on the subject now before the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.” Here is Mr. Butler’s bill, with Mr. Mason’s amendments:-- A BILL _To provide for the more effectual execution of the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the United States._