respective States, than the tizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this subject. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution, to the Federal Government, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the application. Mr. Scott believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the States formed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, If any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there, have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contemplated by the amendment under consideration; nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the Ordinance of '87, to call a Convention, and so to alter their Constitution as to allow the introduction of slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a Constitution and State Government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrustrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a Constitution for themselves. Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the Treaty of Cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." The people were not left to the wayward discretion of this or any other government, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was differ. ent and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that they were to form a constituent part of this republic; that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses and national gains; as a Territory they were not an essential part of the Government; they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the General Government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory, they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union. Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales of the public lands, to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this Government, or many of their own? In short, in what had they equal rights. advantages and immunities, with the other citizens of the United States, but in the privilege to submit to a procrastination of their rights, and in the advantage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, and your powers, even without a hearing? Those people were also to be admitted into the Union as soon as possible." Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that it was the understanding of the parties, that so soon as any portion of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form a State, should contain the number of inhabitants required by law to entitle them to a representative on the floor of this House, that they then had the right to make the call for admission, and this admission, when made, was to be, not on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedient, not on conditions referable to future political views, not on conditions that the Constitution the people should form should contain a clause that would particularly open the door for emigration from the North or from the South, not on condition that the future population of the State should come from a Slaveholding or Non-Slaveholding State, but according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," and none other. ་་ Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who professed to be actuated by motives of humanity and principle would not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was unwilling to believe, that political views alone led gentlemen on this or any other occasion; but, from the language of the member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentlemen has told us, that if ever he left his present residence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all events, he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. Mr. Scott begged that gentleman to relieve him from the awful ap prehension excited by the prospect of this accession of population. He hoped the House would excuse him while he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and inde pendent freemen. The member says that the latitude is too far North to admit of Slavery there. Would the gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, were as far North as the Northern boundary of the proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the gentleman if he would condescend to tell him what precise line of latitude suited his conscience, his humanity, or his political views, on this subject. Could that member be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the measure of his good-will to those unfortunate blacks? Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious argument and absurdity, without creating one blush even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve the negroes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, confine them to Southern latitudes, to long, scorching days of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and sons? He expected from the ma jority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives. The House bill, thus passed, reached the Senate, February 17th, when it was read twice and sent to a Select Committee already raised on a like application from Alabama, consisting of Messrs. Tait, of Georgia; Morrow, of Ohio; Williams, of Mississippi; Edwards, of Illinois; Williams, of Tennessee. On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, from this Committee, reported the bill with amendments, striking out the Anti-Slavery restrictions inserted by the House. This bill was taken up in Committee of the Whole, on the 27th, when Mr. Wilson of New-Jersey moved its postponement to the 5th of March-that is, to the end of the sessionnegatived: Yeas 14; Nays 23. The Senate then proceeded to vote on agreeing to the amendments reported by the Select Committee, viz.: 1, to strike out of the House bill the following: And that all children of slaves born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be Free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-one years. Which was stricken out by the following vote. Yeas-Against the Restriction -27. Nays-For the Restriction-7. The Senate then proceeded to vote on the residue of the House Restriction, as follows: And provided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The vote on this clause was as follows: The bill thus amended was ordered to be engrossed, and was (March 2nd-last day but one of the Session) read a third time, and passed without a division. The bill was on that day returned to the House, and the amendments of the Senate read: whereupon, Mr. Tallmadge, of New-York, moved that the bill be postponed indefinitely. Yeas 69; Nays 74. [The record shows hardly a vote changed from Yea, on the original passage of the Restriction, to Nay now, but many members who voted then were now absent or lent.] The vote was then taken on concurring in the Senate's amendments, as aforesaid, and the House refused to concur; Yeas 76; Nays 78. [Hardly a vote changed; but more members voting than on the previous division, and less than when the Restriction was carried.] The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a message of non-concurrence; when Mr. Tait moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment, which was carried without a division. The bill being thus remanded to the House, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the House adhere to its disagreement, which prevailed. Yeas 78; Nays 66. So the bill fell between the two Houses, and was lost. The Southern portion of the then Territory of Missouri (organized by separation from Louisiana in 1812) was excluded from the proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territory, entitled Arkansas. The bill being under consideration, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the foregoing restriction be applied to it also; and the clause, proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at twenty-five years of age, was carried (February 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing against the further introduction of Slaves was lost; Yeas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arkansas of course became a Slave Territory, and ultimately (1836) a Slave State. THE SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE. On the 14th, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved a Select Committee on this subject, which was granted; and the mover, with Messrs. Livermore, of New-Hampshire, Barbour, (P. P.) of Virginia, Lowndes, of South-Carolina, Fuller, of Massachusetts, Hardin, of Kentucky, and Cuth bert, of Georgia, were appointed such committee, A majority of this Committee being Pro-Slavery, Mr. Taylor could do nothing; and on the 28th the Committee was, on motion, discharged from the further consideration of the subject. On the same day, Mr. Taylor moved: That a Committee be appointed with instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of slaves into the Territories of the United States West of the river Mississippi. On motion of Mr. Smith, of Maryland, this resolve was sent to the Committee of the Whole, and made a special order for January 10th; but it was not taken up, and appears to have slept the sleep of death. In the Senate, the memorial of the Missouri Territorial Legislature, asking admission as a State, was presented by Mr. Smith, of SouthCarolina, December 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted of Messrs. Smith,of South Carolina; Leake, of Mississippi; Burrill, of Rhode Island; Logan, of Kentucky; Otis of Massachusetts. DANIEL WEBSTER ON SLAVERY EXTENSION. The following is extracted from the "Memorial to the Congress of the United States, on the subject of restraining the increase of Slavery in New States to be admitted into the Union," in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, assembled at the State House on the 3d of December, 1819, which was drawn up by Daniel Webster, and signed by himself, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, etc. It is inserted here instead of the resolves of the various New England Legislatures, as a fuller and clearer statement of the views of the great body of the people of that section during the pendency of the Missouri question: vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and humbly to repreThe undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and its sent: That the question of the introduction of Slavery into the new States to be formed on the west side of the Mississippi River, appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it seems to the undersigned that this is the time A new Congress assembled on the 6th of to arrest it. A false step taken now, cannot be retraced; and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Ter- question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, ritorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, and affecting deeply and essentially those objects of praying her admission into the Union as a State, common defense, general welfare, and the perpetuation be referred to a Select Committee; carried, of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution it self was formed, we have presumed, in this way, to offer and Messrs. Scott, of Missouri, Robertson, of our sentiments and express our wishes to the National Kentucky, Terrell, of Georgia, Strother, of Vir-Legislature. And, as various reasons have been sug ginia, and De Witt, of New-York, (all but the last from the Slave region,) were appointed said committee. Mr. Strong, of New-York, that day gave notice of a bill "To prohibit the further extension of Slavery in the United States." gested against prohibiting Slavery in the new States, it may perhaps be permitted to us to state our reasons, both for believing that Congress possesses the Constitu tional power to make such prohibition a condition, on the admission of a new State into the Union, and that it is just and proper that they should exercise that power, "And in the first place, as to the Constitutional au thority of Congress. The Constitution of the United 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 particular 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 expedi-fenses. The laws of the United States have denounced ency 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 Legisla. ture 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 Govern ment 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 punish the traffic, and, at the same time, to tempt cupidity and avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by such 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 ofheavy 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 community, 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 tarnish 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 à 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: 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 civilised 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 consequences 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 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 evil. 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 NEW-YORK. 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 among the people of this State; and whereas we consider Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every 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 tion of its admission into the Union: Therefore, these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condi That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a State into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibition of Slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission; therefore, the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit copies Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. (Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.) NEW-JERSEY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, } January 24th, 1820. 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 be as earnestly urged during the existing session of that body, which has a palpable tendency to impair the politi cal relations of the several States; which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the present and future gene rations; which, if adopted, would impede the march of humanity and Freedom through the world; and would transfer from a misguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it indelibly upon the present race-a measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruelties of Sla very from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a measure of this character is seriously advocated in the republican Congress of America, in the nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Re public, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful boding over so large a portion of the Union. Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with 1. They do resolve and declare, That the further greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This Common admission of Territories into the Union, without restric-wealth has as sacredly respected the rights of othe tion of Slavery, would, in their opinion, essentially im- States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the pair the right of this and other existing States to equal invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of to the universe, by their example, the unadulterated the political compact), inasmuch as such newly-admitted blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their slaveholding States would be represented on the basis of pride that they have been at all times the practical advo their slave population; a concession made at the formacates of those improvements and charities among men tion of the Constitution in favor of the then existing which are so well calculated to enable them to answer the States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to be in- purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast ferred from any article or clause in that instrument. 2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Missouri that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Sla very from among them. 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 dangers, crimes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage. 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; if, 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 Const 8. 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, con- the 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 re- lish 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 neces-resorting 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 Con right to regulate and restrain such migration and impor- stitution. When that Constitution was framed in Septemtation after that time, into the ex sting, 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 and 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 REPRESENTATIVES, 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 18th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Sla very or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive Territories hounded 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 recognised; 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 rivial 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 Bow 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 Representa tives 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, and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into tha 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 8.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. 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 is 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: Lost: Yeas 87; Nays 88. Whereupon the House adjourned. It was considered in com mittee 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. Hereupoù 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 Mis souri,;" In Senate, January 24th, 1820, Mr. Logan-which he accordingly did on the 19th; when communicated the following preamble and Re- it was read and ordered to a third reading. solutions 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 [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 thas State. This proposition did not emanate from the origi nal 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 Constitution, and saying nothing of Slavery), which were adopted by the following vote: Yeas-Against the Restriction on Missouri, 23. [19 from Free States; 2 from Delaware.] |