The committee professed to discover in the bill a radical departure from traditional policy.  When had Congress ever created a State out of “an unorganized body of people having no constitution, or laws, or legitimate bond of union?” California was to be a “sovereign State,” yet the bill provided that Congress should interpose its authority to form new States out of it, and to prescribe rules for elections to a constitutional convention.  What sort of sovereignty was this?  Moreover, since Texas claimed a part of New Mexico, endless litigations would follow.  In the judgment of the committee, it would be far wiser to organize the usual territorial governments for California and New Mexico.[270]

To these sensible objections, Douglas replied ineffectively.  The question of sovereignty, he thought, did not depend upon the size of a State:  without doing violence to the sovereignty of California, Congress could surely carve new States out of its territory; but if there were doubts on this point, he would move to add the saving clause, “with the consent of the State.”  He suggested no expedient for the other obstacles in the way of State sovereignty.  As for precedents, there were the first three States admitted into the Union,—­Kentucky, Vermont, and Tennessee,—­none of which had any organized government recognized by Congress.[271] They never furnished their constitutions to Congress for inspection.  Here Douglas hit wide of the mark.  No one had contended that a State must present a written constitution before being recognized, but only that the people must have some form of political organization, before they could be treated as constituting a State in a constitutional sense.[272]

At the same time, halting as this defense was, Douglas gave ample proof of his disinterestedness in advocating a State government for California.  “I think, Sir,” he said, “that the only issue now presented, is whether you will admit California as a State, or whether you will leave it without government, exposed to all the horrors of anarchy and violence.  I have no hope of a Territorial government this session.  No man is more willing to adopt such a form of government than I would be; no man would work with more energy and assiduity to accomplish that object at this session than I would."[273] Indeed, so far from questioning his motives, the members of the Judiciary Committee quite overwhelmed Douglas by their extreme deference.[274] Senator Butler, the chairman, assured him that the committee was disposed to treat the bill with all the respect due to its author; for his own part, he had always intended to show marked respect to the Senator from Illinois.[275] Douglas responded somewhat grimly that he was quite at a loss to understand “why these assurances came so thick on this point.”

Most men would have accepted the situation as thoroughly hopeless; but Douglas was nothing if not persistent.  In quick succession he framed two more bills, one of which provided for a division of California and for the admission of the western part as a State;[276] and then when this failed to win support, he reverted to Folk’s suggestion—­the admission of New Mexico and California as two States.[277] But the Senate evinced no enthusiasm for this patch-work legislation.[278]