States has declared that "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States: and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the United States or of any particular State." It is very well known, that the saving in this clause of the claims of any par-ish the traffic, and, at the same time, to tempt cupidity ticular State, was designed to apply to claims by the then existing States, of territory which was also claimed by the United States as their own property. It has, therefore, no bearing on the present question. The power, then, of Congress over its own Territories, is, by the very terms of the Constitution, unlimited. It may make all "needful rules and regulations," which of course include all such regulations as its own views of policy or expediency shall, from time to time, dictate If, therefore, in its judgment it be needful for the benefit of a Territory to enact a prohibition of Slavery, it would seem to be as much within its power of Legislation as any other act of local policy. Its sovereignty being complete and universal as to the Territory, it may exercise over it the most ample jurisdiction in every respect. It possesses, in this view, all the authority which any State Legislature possesses over its own Territory; and if any State Legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit Slavery within its own limits, in virtue of its general Legislative authority, for the same reason Congress also may exercise the like authority over its own Territories, And that a State Legislature, unless restrained by some Constitutional provision, may so do, is unquestionable, and has been established by general practice. . any portion of the American Confederacy. The Missouri Territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the Government will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts, through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact laws to purand avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by suci a course, would only defeat its own purposes, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people, if the power of moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of Government, great facilities to commit offenses. The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws. We appeal to this justice and humanity. We ask her whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our coinmunity, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to taruish the proud fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind? As inhabitants of a free country-as citizens of a great and rising. Republic-as members of a Christian community-as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of religion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire." If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery in a new State, necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of representation, which already exists in regard to the original States It cannot be expected that those of the original States, which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension as being politically just. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; Instead of reprinting the Speeches elicited by and your memorialists have no wish that that compact this fruitful theme, which must necessarily, to should be disturbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely a great extent, be a mere reproduction of ideas different character, when a new State proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith expressed in the debate of the last session, plighted; and where is the reason that she could come already given, we here insert the Resolves of into the Union with more than an equal share of political importance and political power? Already the ratio of the Legislatures of New-York, New-Jersey, representation, established by the Constitution, has given to the States holding slaves twenty members of the House Pennsylvania, Delaware and Kentucky-the first of Representatives more than they would have been en- three being unanimous expressions in favor of titled to, except under the particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability, this number will be Slavery Restriction; the fourth, from a Slave doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabi-State, also in favor of such Restriction, though tants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, probably not unanimously agreed to by the renouncing the right in question, and establishing a Constitution prohibiting it forever. Without dwelling on Legislature; the last against Restriction, and this topic, we have still thought it our duty to present it also (we presume) unanimous. The Legislatures to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and we re- of the Free States were generally unanimous for spectfully solicit for it the full consideration of the Na- Restriction; those of the Slave States (Delational Legislature. ware excepted) against it. It is not deemed necessary to print more than the following: NEW-YORK. Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and the danger of this description of population had become apparent in all parts of this country and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new States themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and prosperity of the States north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed, in a great measure, to the con sequences of the ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, are the occasions, in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and tion of its admission into the Union: Therefore, serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling inconvenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted by the American Government for the abolition of the slave-trade, are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy of another Government. No imputation, thus far, rests on State of New-York, in Assembly, Jan. 17, 1820: Slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern Whereas, The inhibiting the further extension of Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every among the people of this State; and whereas we consider constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension; and that the Constitution of the United States clearly gives Congress the right to require of new States, not comprised within the original boundaries of these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condi evil. That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives (Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.) NEW-JERSEY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. Wilson, of N. J., communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New-Jersey, which were read: Whereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision, The representatives of the people of New-Jersey, in Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said state, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and, the last Congress of the United States, and will probably 1. They do resolve and declare, That the further admission of Territories into the Union, without restric-greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This Commontion of Slavery, would, in their opinion, essentially impair the right of this and other existing States to equal representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of the political compact), inasmuch as such newly-admitted slaveholding States would be represented on the basis of their slave population; a concession made at the formation of the Constitution in favor of the then existing States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to be inferred from any a ticle or clause in that instrument. 2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Missouri as a State into the Union, without prohibiting slavery there, would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, be no less than to sanction this great political and moral evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast Territory with slaves, and perpetuate all the dange.s, c.imes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage. Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the wealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their to the universe, by their example, the unadulterated pride that they have been at all times the practical advowhich are so well calculated to enable them to answer the cates of those improvements and charities among men purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast hat they were foremost in removing the pollution of Slavery from among them, If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several States; i. odious as Slavery is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be among the first to insist upon a sacred observance of the Consti3. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives tutional compact. But it cannot be pretended that the aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to rights of any of the States are at all to be affected by rebe admitied into the Union, but on the principles of the fusing to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over Federal Constitution, and only by a law of Congress, conthe boundless regions of the West, a Territory which senting thereto on the part of the existing States, Con- formed no part of the Union at the adoption of the Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless stitution; which has been but lately purchased from a upon the reasonable and just conditions, assented to on the European Power by the people of the Union at large; part of the people applying to become one of the States. which may or may not be admitted as a State into the 4. Resolved, In the opinion of the Representatives Union at the discretion of Congress; which must estabaforesaid, That the article of the Constitution which relish a Republican form of Government, and no other; strains Congress from prohibiting the migration or impor- and whose climate.affords none of the pretexts urged for tation of slaves, until after the year 1808, does, by necesresorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; such sary implication, admit the general power of Congress a Territory has no right, inherent or acquired, such as over the subject of Slavery, and concedes to them the those States possessed which established the existing Conright to regulate and restrain such migra ion and impor-stitution. When that Constitution was framed in Septemtation after that time, into the ex st ng, or any newly-to-ber, 1787, the concession that three-fifths of the slaves in be-created State. 5. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress have a clear right to refuse the admission of a Territory into the Union, by the terms of the Constitution, they ought, in the present case, to exercise that absolute discretion in order to preserve the political rights of the several existing States, and prevent the great national disgrace aud multiplied mischiefs, which must ensue from conceding it, as a matter of right, in the immense Territories yet to claim admission into the Union beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery. 6. Resolved, (with the concurrence of Council,) That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States. PENNSYLVANIA. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, the States then existing should be represented in Congress, could not have been intended to embrace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine human bondage within its ancient home, that on the 13th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Sla very or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive Territories bounded by the Ohio, the Mississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and in the ninth article of the Constitution itself, the power of Congress to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognized; nor is there to be found in the statute-book a single instance of the admission of a Territory to the rank of a State, in which Congress have not adhered to the right, vested in them by the Constitution, to stipu late with the Territory upon the conditions of the boon. The Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, therefore, cannot but deprecate any departure from the humane and enlightened policy pursued not only by the illustrious Congress which framed the Constitution, but by their successors without exception. They are per A motion was made by Mr. Duane and Mr. suaded that, to open the fertile regions of the West to a Thackara, and read as follows: The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual States to express their opinion upon all public measures proposed in the Congress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must in a great degree depend upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are moments when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty. Such an occasion, as in their judgment demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is now presented. A measure was ardently supported in servile race, would tend to increase their numbers beyond all past example, would open a new and steady market for the lawless venders of human flesh, and would render all schemes for obliterating this most foul blot upon the American character, useless and unavailing. Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby instructed, and that the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States be, aud they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into the Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate and agree that "the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary port and maintain State rights, which it conceives necesservitude, except for the punishment of crimes whereofsary to be supported and maintained, to preserve the the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be pro- liberties of the free people of these United States, it hibited; and that all children born within the said Ter- avows its solemn conviction, that the States already ritory, after its admission into the Union as a State, shall confederated under one common Constitution, have not be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty- a right to deprive new States of equal privileges with five years." themselves. Therefore, Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby, requested to cause a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolution to be transmitted to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United S.ates. Laid on the table. THURSDAY, December 16, 1819. Agreeably to the order of the day, the House resumed the consideration of the resolutions postponed on the 14th inst., relative to preventing the introduction of Slavery into States hereafter to be admitted into the Union. And on the question, "Will the House agree to the resolution ?" the Yeas and Nays were required by Mr. Randall and Mr. Souder, and stood-Yeas 74-(54 Democrats, 20 Federalists); Nays none. Among the Yeas were David R. Porter, late Governor, Josiah Randall of Philadelphia, late Whig, now a leading Democrat, William Wilkins, late minister to Russia, since in the State Senate, Dr. Daniel Sturgeon, late U. S. Senator, etc., etc. William Duane, editor of The Aurora, then the Democratic organ, also voted for the resolutions, as he had prominently advocated the principle they asserted. The Senate unanimously concurred, and the Resolves were signed by Gov. William Findlay. DELAWARE. In Senate of the United States, early in 1820, Mr. Van Dyke communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Delaware, which were read: Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met: That it is, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the constitutional right of the United States, in Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of the conditions for the admission of a new State into the Union, a provision which shall effectually prevent the further introduction of Slavery into such State; and that a due regard to the true interests of such State, as well as of the other States, require that the same should be done. Resolved, That a copy of the above and foregoing resolution be transmitted, by the Speaker of the Senate, to each of the Senators and Representatives from this State in the Congress of the United States. KENTUCKY. In Senate, January 24th, 1820, Mr. Logan communicated the following preamble and Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, which were read: Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides for the admission of new States into the Union, and it is just and proper that all such States should be established upon the footing of original States, with a view to the preservation of State Sovereignty, the prosperity of such new State, and the good of their citizens; and whereas, successful attempts have been heretofore made, and are now making, to prevent the People of the Territory of Missouri from being admitted into the Union as a State, unless trammeled by rules and regulations which do not exist in the original States, particularly in relation to the toleration of Slavery. Whereas, also, if Congress can thus trammel or control the powers of a Territory in the formation of a State government, that body may, on the same principle, reduce its powers to little more than those possessed by the people of the District of Columbia, and whilst professing to make it a Sovereign State, may bind it in perpetual vassalage, and reduce it to the condition of a province; such State ust necessarily become the dependent of Congress, asking such powers, and not the independent State, demanding rights. And whereas, it is necessary, in preserving the State Sovereignties in their present rights, that no new State should be subjected to this restriction, any more than an old one, and that there can be no reason or justice why it should not be entitled to the same privileges, when it is bound to bear all the burdens and taxes laid upon it by Congress. In passing the following resolution, the General Assembly refrains from expressing any opinion either in favor or against the principles of Slavery; but to sup Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the Senators in Congress from this State be instructed, and the Representatives be requested, to use their efforts to procure the passage of a law to admit the people of Missouri into the Union, as a State, whether those people will sanction Slavery by their Constitution or not. Resolved, That the Executive of this Commonwealth be requested to transmit this Resolution to the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, that it may be laid before that body for its consideration. The bill authorizing Missouri to form a constitution, etc.. came up in the House as a special order, Jan. 24th. Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., moved that it be postponed for one week: Whereupon the Lost: Yeas 87; Nays 88. House adjourned. It was considered in committee the next day, as also on the 28th and 30th, and thence debated daily until the 19th of February, when a bill came down from the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union," but with a rider authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc., without restriction on the subject of Slavery. The House, very early in the session, passed a bill providing for the admission of Maine as a State. This bill came to the Senate, and was sent to its Judiciary Committee aforesaid, which amended it by adding a provision for Missouri as above. After several days' debate in Senate, Mr. Roberts, of Pa., moved to recommit, so as to strike out all but the admission of Maine; which was defeated (Jan. 14th, 1820)-Yeas 18; Nays 25. Hereupon Mr. Thomas, of Ill., (who voted with the majority, as uniformly against any restriction on Missouri) gave notice that he should "ask leave to bring a bill to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States North and West of the contemplated State of Missouri ;" which he accordingly did on the 19th; when it was read and ordered to a third reading. [NOTE.-Great confusion and misconception exists in the public mind with regard to the "Missouri Restric tion," two totally different propositions being called by that name. The original Restriction, which Mr. Clay vehemently opposed, and Mr. Jefferson in a letter characterized as a "fire-bell in the night," contemplated the limitation of Slavery in its exclusion from the State of Missouri. This was ultimately defeated, as we shall The second proposed Restriction was that of Mr. Thomas, just cited, which proposed the exclusion of Slavery, not from the State of Missouri, but from the Territories of the United States North and West of that State. This proposition did not emanate from the original Missouri Restrictionists, but from their adversaries, and was but reluctantly and partially accepted by the former.] see. The Maine admission bill, with the proposed amendments, was discussed through several days, until, Feb. 16th, the question was taken on the Judiciary Committee's amendments (authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitu tion, and saying nothing of Slavery), which were adopted by the following vote: Yeas-Against the Restriction on Missouri, 28. [19 from Free States; 2 from Delaware.] ment, which, on the following day, he withdrew | effect, though the more determined champions, and substituted the following: whether of Slavery Extension or Slavery Restriction, did not unite in it.] And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from where labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, moved a substitute for this, somewhat altering the boundaries of the regions shielded from Slavery, which was rejected: Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Southern). The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas's Mellen of Mass., engrossed for a third reading by the following The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be Vote: Yeas-For the Missouri Bill: Messrs. Barbour of Va., Lloyd of Md., Otis of Mass., Palmer of Vt., Roberts of Pa., Ruggles of Ohio, Sanford of N. Y., Smith of S. C., Taylor of Ind., Tichenor of Vt., Trimble of Ohio., Wilson of N. J.-20. The bill was thus passed (Feb. 18th) without further division, and sent to the House for concurrence. In the House, Mr. Thomas's amendment (as above) was at first rejected by both parties, and defeated by the strong vote of 159 to 18. The Yeas (to adopt) were, Messrs. Baldwin of Pa., Meech, of Vt., Mercer of Va., Quarles of Ky., Ringgold of Md., Shaw of Mass., Sloan of Ohio Smith of N. J., Smith of Md., Tarr of Pa--18. Bayly of Md., Lathrop of Mass., Little of Md., Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptions; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.] [It will here be seen that the Restriction ulti-bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do mately adopted-that excluding Slavery from all territory then owned by the United States North and West of the Southwest border of the State of Missouri-was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by the votes of fourteen Senators from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi. The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were, Messrs. H. Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., Henry Meigs of N. Y., Henry Shaw of Mass., The House also disagreed to the remaining amendments of the Senate (striking out the restriction on Slavery in Missouri) by the strong vote of 102 Yeas to 68 Nays. [Nearly or quite every Representative of a Free State voted in the majority on this division, with the following from Slave States: Nelson, Md., The current assumption that this Restriction was proposed by Rufus King, of New-York, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Missouri-and supported also by Senators from Slave States-as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in effect, an offer from the milder opponents of Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction-"Let us have Slavery in Missouri, The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and and we will unite with you in excluding it from debated it till the 28th; when, on a direct vote, all the uninhabited territories North and West it was decided not to recede from the attachof that State." It was in substance an agreement of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; ment between the North and the South to that (19 from Free States and two from Delaware;} Louis McLane, Del., Alney McLean, Ky. So the House rejected all the Senate's amendments, and returned the bill with a corresponding message. Nays, 23; (20 from Slave States with Messrs. The Senate also voted not to recede from its amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 360 30', north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind. against it, 33-(22 from Slave States, 11 from Free States.) The remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly. The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr. John W. Taylor of N. Y, voted to insist on its disagreement to all but Sec. 9 of the Senate's amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: (all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South). Sec. 9, (the Senate's exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejected-Yeas 160; Nays, 14, (much as before). The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House's Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of said State. Mr. Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down, Yeas, 12; Nays, 30. The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Illinois, Pinkney of Maryland, and Barbour of Va. (all anti-restrictionists), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass, and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. (Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a sur render of the Restriction on the part of the 3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's separate Missouri bill, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or compromising proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory north and west of Missouri. DELAWARE.-Louis McLane-1. MARYLAND.-Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayly, P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert §. NORTH CAROLINA.-Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpep- Erwin, William Lowndes, James McCreary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling SOUTH CAROLINA.-Josiah Brevard, Elias Earle, James Tucker-9. Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R. Reid, William GEORGIA.-Joel A. Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb. Joel Terrill--6. ALABAMA.-John Crowell-1. MISSISSIPPI.-John Rankin-1. KENTUCKY-Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown, NEW-HAMPSHIRE.-Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, jr., Nathaniel Upham-6. MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine).-Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Silsbee, Ezekiel Whitman-16. RHODE ISLAND.-Nathaniel Hazard-1. VERMONT.-Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra NEW-JERSEY.-Ephraim Bateman, John Linn, Henry Southard-3. PENNSYLVANIA.-Andrew Boden, William Darlington, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John The report having been read, the first and Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Walmost important question was put, viz: Will the House concur with the Senate in so much of the said amendments as proposes to strike from the fourth section of the (Missouri) bill the provision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes? On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follows: YEAS-For giving up Restrictions on Mis souri: lace-21. OHIO.-Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloane -6. INDIANA.-William Hendricks-1. Total, Nays, 87-all from Free States. (The members apparently absent on this important division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Condit of N J., from the Free States; with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David MASSACHUSETTS.—Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Walker of Ky., from the Slave States. Mr. Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4. RHODE ISLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1. CONNECTICUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens-2. aard Smith-8. PENNSYLVANIA.-Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton-2. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.) This defeat broke the back of the Northern resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave State. Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., now moved an amendment, intended to include Arkansas Territory |