Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

K N J ' \\> UiOAi&i SOUTHERN RECORDER. VOL. I. MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1820. No. 4. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, (OK TUESDAYS) nr s. gra vtl iyd tf n. m on me, JLI THREE DOLLARS, IK ADVANCE, OR TOUR DOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR. Advertisements conspicuously inscr- at the customary rates. DEBATE IN THE SENATE, flft UXIOX of MAIXE 8,- MISSOURI. (Continued.) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 1ft. Mr. Walker, of Georgia, said the subject under consideration had been already so much discussed, that he had not the vanity to believe he could offer any thing new to the consideration of the Senate. Hut re presenting ns lie did, a state in which slave ry is tolerated, it might possibly lie constru ed a dereliction of duty, and an abandon ment of the. sacred interests of those he re presented, were he to remain silent on the present occasion. Nothing, however, said he but an imperious and irresistible sense of duty could have induced me to depart from the resolution I had at first taken, not to trespass upon the time of the Senate by any observations of mine upon the bill now in progression. And really, sir, it is with a de gree of unfeigned reluctance, I have risen, to oppose my opinions to those of gentlemen of so much more experience than myself, and for whose opinions I cannot but enter tain tiie most profound respect. We have already heard, sir, as well from the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva nia, who first addressed you, as from the honorable gentleman from New-Hampshire, who closed his remarks last evening, that the subject under consideration is an impor tant one. In this sentiment I perfectly ac cord. Perhaps, sir, no subject which has agitated the councils of the United States of Ameri ca, from the formation of our government down to the present period, has been preg nant with more important consequences than the one now under discussion. It is a rubject, sir, which has excited not only the deep interest of those who are to decide up on it, but one whirh is agitating this conti nent from one extreme to the other. And whether we turn our eyes to the cast or to (talents, of courage, of morality, and of reli gion; and, Irom the observations of the hit* norable gentleman, one would be led to be lieve, that all the cardinal virtues wither at the approach of this accursed monster sla very. In what a deplorable condition would be the inhabitants of the slave holding states il the. honorable gentleman's speculations were history ! Fortunately, however, they have their existence only in a fervid imagi nation. ° But, dreading lest he should not be able to carry conviction to our understandings, which lie must of course have considered extremely blunt and impenetrable, the ho norable gentleman endeavors to make an at tack upon our fears, in which he considers us perhaps much more assailable, anil with all the Christian meekness and charity ima ginable, we are cautioned to beware bow we. encourage slavery ; fur that the, vengeance of an angry God will not sleep forever. The honorable gentleman’s zeal seems to have transported him beyond the bounds of just calculation. Our apprehensions are not so easily excited. For whilst we bow with great humility and reverence before the ma jesty of heaven—and, on our bended knees, would deprecate the wrath of God, we arc not prepared to consider the honorable gen tleman as one of his vicegerents. Mr. President, it h far from my intention to recriminate; Icame, not here to offend or be offended. If it will be a gratification to the honorable gentleman’s feelings, I am willing to admit, that the inhabitants of that section of the country from whence he comes, are all high minded and honorable men; that they are intelligent, brave, virtu ous, moral, religious, and patriotic. But, I must take tile liberty of reminding the ho norable gentleman, that these arc not sec tional qualities : and that if he will give him self the trouble to consul the page of histo ry, he will learn, that those virtues are alike the growth of every part of this extensive, prosperous and happy country ; and I trust I shall r ’ “ ‘ not give offence, by declaring it, as my firm conviction, that the inhabitants of the slave holding states will not suffer by a just comparison with those of any other sec tion of the Union Without intending, sir, to make invidious comparisons, or, in the slightest degree, to disparage other parts of the country, I would ask, where will you find a greater degree of pure and unadulterated patriotism—where ill you find a greater devotion to the true the west, to the north or to th3 south.|jC«s.it s’oi vfu‘ : SnWr faa:..—“srw,..;!;'’ luh i- r * ‘ ' T free! nance,* as if, upon the decision of this ques- tion, depended the peace and harmony of this union. Sir, the resolutions and instructions of dit- ftrent state legislatures—the petitions of ve ry many assemblages of citizens in various parts of the Union, with which your table is crowded—proclaim, in language not to be misunderstood, the denn-toned feeling to which the discujiioa of this question has gi yen rise. ... , Mr. President, I have heard, with much »egret, the sentiments which have been ex pressed in this debate. They evince a de gree of sectional feeling which I had not cx- iiccted to find within these walls. I had in- pected to find within these (Viged the hope, sir, that, with the ctose of the late war, all party animosity had suosi- lied, and that our political barque, having ridden out the tempest of faction, had been safely anchored in the haven of peace. But a state of tranquillity, 1 apprehend, is mcom- patible with the nature of man. Scarcely lad the storm subsided—scarcely hail we shaken hands as brothers—when a new bource of discontent has been discovered and another, and much more important dis flection of party than any which has preceu edit, is about to be established. The feelings of humanity and benevolence have taken such complete possession of cer tain sections of our country, that every other consideration is made to bend to the irresis tible inclination to ameliorate the condition of slaves. A spirit of opposition, a line of demarkation is sought to be established, be tween thesiavc-holding,and non-slave-hold ing states. And “ slavery or not,” seems destined to be the watch word of party. I, for one, Mr. President, deprecate this otate of things. I am not among those who believe that party dissentions are essential to tiie health of the body politic. I delight, sir. to inhale the breeze which brings with it har mony and peace. But, when other senti- nts prevail, it is not mv nature to yield to test is preferable to submission. I feel it my duty, therefore, to meet this question at the threshold—I fear there is too much reason to consider it the inception of a policy whose tendency may be to dismember this Union. And the alarming doctrines we yesterday heard, have certainly not tended to allay my apprehensions. It will not be expected, I trust, that I should follow the honorable gentlemen who advocate the amendment, over all the ground they have occupied in debate; for this, I have neither inclination nor ability, and were they both in tny possession, still, the effort might, perhaps, by some, be thought unno- ressary. With the historical sketches which have ™ :(, n given us, of the early settlement of this country, and of the dangers and difficulties which were encountered by our forefathers, m this perilous enterprise, 1 have been nmu- aad instructed; I had almostsaul, I have been charmed by their novelty; but, I must be pardoned for saying, I cannot perceive their relevancy to the subject under discus sion. The honorable gentleman from N. Jlamp- s * l,Pe , whose arguments I cannot hope to r cach, much less to answer, has employed a considerable portion of a very long and a ve- r )’ able speech, in venting anathemas against 'nVZ* and has been pleased to draw apa- ra ,l between the inhabitants of the differ wd sections of this country, (but with what degree of accuracy others must j ,. j judge,; in l bus not failed to give a very deri- preference to those who inhabit states in Wntch slavery is not tolerated ; and in the Plenitude of his charity nnd benevolence, las ascribed this vast and essential differ ence to the influence of slavery. To the influence fa ggcribed, a tlestitgUcfi of first fanned the sacred flams of freedom on this continent? A Virginian—a native of a slave holding state. Who penned the im mortal declaration of Independence ? A na tive of a slave-holding state. Who led your revolutionary armies to battle nnd to victo ry ? A native of a slave-holding state.— Who first agitated the question, which even tuated in the formation of our inestimable constitution ? Inhabitants of the slave-hold ing states. Who was first called by the una nimous voice of his countrymen to preside over the destinies of the new government ? A native of a slave-holding state. Who now conducts our political barque w ith so much honor to himself and benefit to the nation." A native of a slave-holding state. But the honorable gentleman from New- Hampshire has farther told us, that the in fluence of slavery has a tendency to make men tyrannical and despotic. In this the experience of the country is against him. In no pan of this widely extended government have the pure principles of democracy been so much cherished, as among the inhabitants of the slave-holding states; and these yield to none in the practice of benevolence and humanity. We are next told, that most of the catns- trophies of the late war, and particularly the burning of the capital, may be ascribed to the same detested influence. 1 regret, sir, that our minds have been brought to dwell upon the subject. Over some of the events of the late war I would most cheerfully have drawn the curtain of oblivion. The fair page of our history has been blackened, and our country in some measure disgraced, by them. But tilts events which I should bo most anx ious to forget, sir, were not those which transpired in the slave-holding states. Some, which were calculated to make the check of patriotism burn with shame, had their exis tence in a northern latitude, for beyond the influence of slavery. I lorbear, sir, to parti cularize, from an unwillingness to arouse feelings which are slumbering in lorgrtiul- ncss of these melancholy disasters. But it must be recollected that the tide ol war rol led in upon us one disaster after another, in dreadful succession. I would ask the hono rable gentleman who cheeked the progress of this tide, turned its course, and threw it back upon the foe ? Who achieved the ever memorable victory ot Orleans, which has shed such a lustre around the American arms? Soldiers from the slave-holding St But I will not dwell upon this part of the subject, sir; there is nothing in it calculated to gratify my own feelings, or to interest those of the Senate. I | moreimport. . ~ * tlemen, founded upon the celebrated ord nance of 1787, the constitution ot the United States, and the treaty of cession. And 1 flatter myself, I shall be able to establish, a< far as negative proof can possibly extend, that, from neither of these fruitful sources, can be derived the authority to impose the contemplated restriction upon the good peo- le of Missouri. In the investigation of this subject, then - fore, I propose to shew—That the amend ment offered by the honorable pcntleinan from Pennsylvania is unauthorized by the ordinance «f ’87 : that it is unauthorized by the constitution: and, that it is cxprossl* forbid by the terms of the treaty by which the territory in question has been acquired. The elucidation of this subject must neces sarily be somewhat dry and uninteresting; for ‘in the dcvelopement of constitutional principles, w* arc not permitted to wander m the w ide fields of rhetoric, to gather flow ers wherewith to decorate our path has been so emphatically stiled, by the hono rable gentleman from Pennsylvania, the im mortal ordinance. A brief history of the circumstances which led to, and were attendant upon, the passage and adoption of this ordinance, will, I trust, justify the opinion I have formed, that it is an instrument not entitled to the high com mendation which has been bestowed upon it. In the year 1780, Congress recommended to the stutes having claims to waste and un appropriated lands in the Western country, a liberal cession to the United States of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit; the territory to be thus ce ded to be formed into distinct republican states, having the same rights of sovereignly, freedom and independence, with other slate’s. In 17R1 the state of New-York limited and defined her western boundary, and ceded and relinquished to such states as then were, or should thereafter become parties to the articles of confederation, all her right, title, and claim to lands and territories to the northward and westward of the boundary thus limited and defined. In 1781 Virginia ceded to the U. States her claim to the territory north-west of the river Ohio. In 1785 Massachusetts ceded and relin quished all claim to the territory within her charter, west of a particular line mentioned in her deed of cession. In 17HB Connecticut ceded her claim to the territory called the Western llcserve. It must lie remarked, Mr. President, that not one of these deeds of cession contained a proviso or condition that slavery should he inhibited in the territory thus transferred to the United Slates. The praise, therefore, which the honora ble gentleman from Pennsylvania bestowed upon Virginia for her pliilanthropky in in terdicting slavery in the territory north-west uf thu river Ohio, was altogether undeserved. In 1787 Congress passed the celebrated ordinance about which so ii uch lias been said. This ordinance is entitb fl, “ An ordi nance for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of tile river Ohio;” and, among other tilings, ordains and declares certain articles of compact be tween the original states and the people and states of the said territory, and forever to re main unalterable, except by common con sent: the 0th of which articles of compact declares, “That there shall be neither slave ry nor involuntarv servitude in the said ter; omesifivac^.^t^^iiisrahe ordinance of ’87 ; but said nothing about any of the other articles. In August 17811, the form of government having been altered, and the articles ol con federation having been exchanged for our present constitution, Congress passed a law, adapting the ordinance of ’87 to the new go vernment. Having thus, sir, in a very cursory manner, adverted to the different deeds ofecssion and thu acts of Congress, in relation to the terri tory so ceded, 1 will proceed, in a still more cursory manner, to state soineofthc reasons which have produced a conviction upon my mind that the Oth Section of this immortal Ordinance. U|xm which the gentleman from Pennsylvania relies as hi* authority to im pose tfio contemplated restriction upon the stale of Missouri, cannot, anil will not, sup port the mighty fabric w hich has been at tempted to be reared upon it. I contend that the Gib section was unauthorized hy the J, eds of cession by which Congress ac quired the territory, for the government (if which the ordinance was passed; these deeds having embraced no Condition or sti pulation to that effect, and nut haring trans ferred to Congress any power fur that pur pose. It. was unauthorized by the articles of con- ranee that there would bn no attempt to in hibit slavery. Louisiana, a part of the terri tory acquired by the same treaty, and at tlic same time, has been admitted into the Uni on, without such restriction. An act of Con gress, passed for the government of Missou ri, contains no such restriction. Every new state which has been admitted into the Uni on, (with the exception of those formed of the. territory north-west of the river Ohio, and which were embraced by the ordinance of ’87,) have been admitted without such restriction. I would remind the honorable gentleman that Vermont, Kentucky, Ten nessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, had no such restriction imposed upon them at the time of their admission to the federal embrace. I would then ask the gentleman, sir, whether Missouri may not well complain of the attempt to impose such restriction at this late period? 1 think she well may. But the gentlemen themselves seem to doubt the authority oftlie ordinance, und resort to the constitution. I will proceed, sir, to an examination of those parts of the constitution from which gentlemen conceive they derive the authori ty to impose the contemplated restriction.—- But, before I do, permit me to premise, “ That the powers not delegated to the U. States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re spectively, or to the people.” In approaching the constitution of my country, sir, I proceed with a kind of defe rential awe: ’Us an hallowed i instrument, with which I am almost afraid to trust my self. The grant of powers to Congress by the constitution, are embraced in the 8th section of the 1st article; hy which Congress sbull have power to lay and collect taxes, to bur row money, to regulate commerce, to estab lish an uniform rule of naturalization, to coin money, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, to constitute tribunals inferior to the. Supreme Court, to declare war, S:c. Among the powers enumerated in this sec tion, the one contended for will not be found. But the gentlemen inform us that the pow er is derived from the fllh section of the same article, or from the 3d section oftlie -ith ar ticle ; but from which of these sections tlu: advocates of this measure have not exactly agreed among themselves. That it cannot be derived from leoth, I presume, must be admitted : for it would be doing injustice to the.JUrtlfwUHL iuh’llkj^Jyed two diutim-t Hie- tumsTTrirfrWrefif articles of that instrument, to convey the same power. And this diver sity of opinion, among such able expositors of the constitution, renders it at least doubt- words. And this without in the slightest de gree touching the intercourse between the different members of the federal family—to authorise an Interference wiih which, under this section, could not have been in the con templation of the framers of our constitu tion. For 1 can scarcely believe thut, nt the time of its adoption, it was anticipated by imy our, that the period would ever arrive when the Congress of the United States would undertake to restrain the “migration” of the inhabitants of the union from one state to another—or (which amounts to thu same thing) would prevent them from carrying their property with them when they did mi grate. But fortunately there is a practical com mentary upon this subject. The Congress oftlie United States, in March 1807, in pass ing an act to carry this provision of the con stitution into effect, or rather in the exercise of a right Impliedly given to them by this clause—have virtually given the construc tion for which 1 contend. They prohibited the importation of slaves from abroad, or the bringing of them to the United States from the dominions of any foreign state im mediately adjoining the United States, un der severe (penalties. But so far from at tempting to prohibit the removing of slave* from one state to another, they have by ilia other property belonging to the United States, 1 should hardly have supposed, if I had not seen otherwise, that it would have been eeriouslv contended that this clausa conveyed to Congress the power of impos ing a restriction upon a state applying for admission into the union. The words of th« section appear clearly to my view, to huve contemplated only a temporary nmngo- mrnt in r< iation to the territory and proper ty of the United State*, and did wit look to an interference with state righto. Nothing more, I apprehend, was intended by this sec tion, but that the Congress should ha author ized to extend the fostering arm of govern ment for the protection [V>t those infant es tablishments. Tnufford them nurture, nod to cherish them, until warned and animated 0 by the genial influence of parental care, they maturiCF. and should same act regulated coastwise the manner of this intercourse. Ro far then, as the expe rience of government reflects light upon this subject, its tendency is to illumine the path I have taken in tlie exposition of this section oftlie constitution. And although I would not pretend that wc arc bound by what our vrectecessors have done in this regard—yet [ trust the force of a good example, will not be altogether disregarded. Having, as 1 think, shewn that the power sought to lie exercised is not legilin, tidy derivable from the Oth section of the firs tide of the constitution, I will now proc to an examination of the third section of t. sinmld iiaYfl grown to i have hucome capable uf aMHlring the Im posing attitude nnd dignity' ftf states; at v\ Inch time Congress, by the provisions oQho other clause of the section, were' authorized to admit them into the union, andithe nece*^ sitv for those temponuT rulfci and v~ filiations would of courstiPeoulfc But if this course of reasoning fa'dd, by " ' be thought fallacious, itsurekv Jbovm a j . rates for jjj^jmpewtiaa ras- -4 t* r.etior, ■ slavery whjfcU- ia a ne? regulation fqr ' 'tWTdrtyery fr. ijiirsth As far, sir, aarwe are ligi, by’ the i fur removed, inform us xV At such restriction is not needful, and that • ' ’torfUvtcsirmis none, should be ini jwsed—w- '.king o have the prl» ilege of regulating their intiqaljpp- prtntteC*-.^—t 4th article, w ith a view to ascertain v> hether honorable gentlemen have been more fortun ate in the selection of this section—from whence to derive the power contended for. Tile section is us follows: “New states “ may be admitted by the Congress into this “Union, but no new state shall lie formed “ or erected within the jurisdiction of any “ other state; our any slate he formed by “the junction of two or more states, or parts “ of states, without the consent of the Le lice as in liicir judgwivent shall best piminuMn . their happiness and welfare: a privilege, Mr. President, which I think ought to bo accord ed to them. Thus, sir, I liavn cursorily i x* , umined tire other suction of the constitution, upon which gentlemen rely; and, I, hava searched in vain for the grant of power to impose tire restriction contemplated hy th* • amendment on your tabie. ‘ d I cannot but remark, sir, to what ler ..un« arguments might be carried, prodkld Jorne, • on the supposition, of (ho existeirff t V ne t®, t 1 „ ( power on tue puitjof Congress^clothfe; aayt i . ' conditions and restrictions., \ * ... If you have the authority to mipqbttJer. “"Ulunire^tlieatatcaccuiceiiiwl. aa well as “ Un -mw-rti^ 1 U 1 ?.W, regulations respecting the territory or oili er properly belonging to the United States. “And nothing in this const ilulimi shall be-no such la isc of the Senate. . , . ! will proceed to an axammation of the ire important arguments of honorable, gen- deration, no power to pass slrietioii having been delegated In f ongress by that instrument: and all powers nut ex pressly delegated, being retained to the peo ple. The, passing of this restriction, there fore, was in derogation of the rights of the people so retained. But, by way ui render ing this part oftlie ordinance more accepta ble, it has been called a compact aiid agree ment. A strange compact and agreement, indeed! I had always supposed that it re quired at least two parti* s to enter into a compact or agreement. But in the instance under consideration, there, skhiiis to have been but one party. It was a compact and agreement made between Congress and themselves, no other party _ consenting, or being even consulted, in relation to the sub ject matter of this important re.-liiction; a restriction made, without authority, and one violator)' of thu equal rights ol the people of this country. But if I’should have formed erroneous conclusions in relation to tlii.i ordinance— nav, even if I were to admit that it was duly authorized anil properly made, it was cer tainly /uni/ ill its very nature, and confined in its operation to the territory of the Unit ed States nortli-vv est of the river Ohio. As a proof of this, whenev er it has been neces sary to extend its provisions to territory sub sequently acquired, it has always been hy a special act of Congress, passed for that pui- ful, whether it is derivable from cither sec-1 “construed ns to prejudice any claims of the ti, m- I “ United States or of any particular state.” But Ictus examine the sections referred to. I By the first clause of this section, we ner- Thc “th section of the 1st article is as ful- cei*e that, “ new states may be admitted by ] uWg: |“the Congress into the union.” “ The migration or Importation of such In the construction of this clause, great in- personstu. any oftlie states now existing fluence is given to the word “maw.” L'on- shalt think proper to admit, shall not he pro- J gross may admit new states. And ’lis con- liibiUd by the Congress jnior to the year | tended that as Congress may do this, it ful- 1808 , but a lax or duty may be imposed on lows as a necessary consequence that they cucli importation, r.ot exceeding ten dollars may prescribe the terms upon which it may for each person.” I be done. ... ... ’Tis much to be regretted that any sec- This, I think,Is an inference not fairly ac tion of this inimitable instrument shouldhnve j ducible from the premises. Because you been so constructed as to admit even of have a right to accept or reject a proposition doubtful Interpretation. It is, however, a 1 when made to you, it certainly does not fol- proof thut perfection belongs not to man, low as a consequence, that you have a right but it is an attribute of the Deity. The in- to compel tie person who made the propo- strume.nt under consideration if., perhaps, as sition tochinpe and modify it, so as toren- perfect as man could make it. dcr it compatible with your ideas of the fit- ' The gentlemen w ho rely upon this sec- ness of tbiigs. Your power is fulfilled when tion contend that the power impliedly nc- you have exercised the right of acceptance knowiedged to reside in Congress, by the j or rejeetim. phraseology of this section, to prohibit the] Besides, I presume, the construction con- migrntion of slaves, is euflleieiitly extensive I tended Jbr is extending the use of the word, to’ authorize the interdiction of carrying | “ may"(ar beyond wliut was originally in- slaves from one state to another of tlds Uu- I tended The stales contemplated to be nd- on or from the states to the territories be-1 niitteJ, I take it for granted, were to he kinging to the United Stales; xml that Con- clothed with sovereign,independent power, giess may well regulate the intercourse be- having all the rights, privileges and inrnmni- icecii the states and territories, in this re- tiesef the Btutcs which tlun compound the aril, and totally prohibit the “migration” of federal compact Aud they were to come * •' 1 I ...4. il .. imnn OlMI'll t» TltlV^ u>* •>■- t./.t slaves. On first ttiming mv attention to this sub ject. with a view to the formation of an opinion upon the section under consldera- - 1 • i ...:.*. iL«v...e...r tS..t it.- tion, I vvnf mimpressed with llicLvlsuf thutth^ Jed Vit words “mifcralicMi and importation” were | denc^ to make tiwim used as convertible ; that they were intended to lmve the same interpistation; and both U have inference to the introduction of from ton" ing tin belie* •sto the union upon equal terms—so as not to disgrace the lair fabric of our gnx-rnmrnL I can hardly presume -hat ttn-v t 0 b,. manacled and dragged into the union,, , ed Vith disgraceful restrictions iuivniga * If you r one now sought to lie imposed, may imruse any other? If you have a i .. .. .. . «r..-*iares ifHU'l ‘wtiwu ur.siares tniU'W fiMvtAfVtu has, And you may go’a step further, and pro- \ ■ scribe the manner in which the soil shall bn cultivated. In fine, there is uo restriction or condition whatever, which may not, w;it£l equal propriety, be imposed. ” . Have honorable gentlemen refleetnd^thaV, ’A admission into the union ns an imtcpcadertp state, feel, if Congress were to make it U condition of their admission, thut slavery should be there tolerated, and jieraons mi-ft grating thither might curry with them thbif slaves, and exercise all the nets of owr.efo ship over them, which they wqre wont to dd iu the state (ruin whence they migrated. ' 1 imagine sir, that the people of Main* would begin to enquire, from whence' Con gress derived the power to Impose such a condition. They would he desirous of knowing, sir, from what article or section of the constitution Congress derived the pow er to interfere with lhe internal affairs aud police of their stole, Audi much question, •sir, w hether we could take shelter under the wings oftlie constitution, from the imputa tion which would be cut upon us, of-an As sumption of unauthorized power. But, sir, without detaining the Sena'e long er upon this branch of the subject, 1 will pr*» eeeo to an examination of the treaty between the United States and France, by which tbs territory of Missouri, with other territoty. tYns acquired. And in the investigation of tins part of th*- question. ! might cdtnlt, fo* the Hake of argument, (and for argument’s sake alone could it be. admitted,) thepos- loathe' theirVondUiofl f ' on f c ? s l«"'er contended 1 n intended hvfr&i* “ gYneifTpriiH'.iple, andyelmlght suo- xpr posi' Iteyild scarcely have lieun inten c •) " n ^ty contend that they arc lurbid 111* the fraVners oftlie constitution, to » . . qyf such power in relation to'Missaa- ferred tviiovvi-.r to Congrers, in the exercise rquyuier _ i f being authorized to J Had such pover been intended o ceedinc t» n t- »11ars f • « I ivh.,j pruvunlud thu instTUon oftuch u 1-r u in the constitution r It would have oc- ceeding the conclusion that the words were cnt.tiea to be considered separately ; that they intended to hav#* distinct ru*5uuin^&» to be employed in the (lerformaiice tieular ofliee. 1 was the. more eiuily bsi to j grr - t.UllUCU tlNlill III 111*. , ,, ,, ,ey were eupiedbut little, time to have added, nflir and each the word “ union,” the words “ upon such of a par- terms, conditions, mid restrictions as Von- • t_. t *4 ... 1 .... Am.,y»i it s-Tiu’iVuMit to impose. •ss may deem it expedient to impose. I will in the first place call the attention cf th*> getetfe IV the yr4;nai»CB of 87, wain. The honorable pentli inan from Pennsyl vania, after informing us that Ohio, Indiana, a nl Illinois have been admitted under his fa vorite ordinance, triumphantly asks—how can Missouri complain ? 1 alR m)t apprized that the right of restriction was contested at the time oftlie. admission of these states: 1 think it highly probable it w as not. » be ordinance of’87 embraced the territory o which these states were formed. It Una been for a long time acquiesced in- i be territory had been settled, under the impres sion that slavery was not to be tolerated, and tile restriction contained in the ordinance was, as to the inhabitants of this territory, of uo importance w hatever. In relation to Missouri, the case is widely different. 1 he ordinance of'87 has never embraced it: it has been settled by slavi-bolders, whose manners, customs, and habits are not only familiarized to the toleration of slavery, but for whoso convenience it bus become some what necessary, and to whom the general government ho? P v <'t' > ' , H ,,ud ell it is admitted Congress pos IhiTcfon., .«* I» The construction, therciore, wu.cn. »«* , tlmy will oc- ouiiut into me i miy o* n Biau;. -- — - «u- <•? i-a y»» > | » «• i«r ing of slaves directly into our ereis^rkht of 5eCl altogether,(though 1 there should be no»nterd.ctimi_o_ I th; ‘ k 8U & riJ f US ;d would be. Incompatible inimediately'adjohflus 'he territoryj oniic | with good faith.) But, l repeat,_ that such ..mi.ru.u', t b n . c0 || c cted, right to admit orr.fuseadmission, dots tmt L,1 ’ t,,d teetl^ of lh "Sdtonuf the fed-1imply a right to imnoze terms and coni, that, at uii- nu«w v * ”• —i v , i I , • • eral constitution., this country was bovdcriu l lions d fferentdirections hy territory belonging to other nations. t : on ycv. Pt't'vfy inr nvi i.u» As to that past of the section which mi - 1 " - -dful rule- ‘ By Living this construe- Ithovizes Congress to make all the" full tneauing uf, both Und re^datictr, rcrp'^tlog tlte t , D r,abled to The third proviwous of the. trvaty.— the “Bie iiihahitanft^thto treaty provides, that um be incorporated in tt*' ceded territory shall of States, and admitted aHV*a of the United cording to the principles of 1 .** possible, ac- Etitutiou, to the enjoyment ol Weral con- advantages nnd immuniticaof citflfc righto. United States; and, in the meantime the sliail be inaiiitaim-d and protected in the ftv cnjovment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." The treaty bears date the 30th April, K03, nnd was, no doubt, entered into with good faith between the high contracting parties. Aud hy this treaty it will be yicen that tha inhabitants were to be incorporated into thu union as jmm as jacsitlc, and were to be protested in tbelree enjoyment of their pro-- j pertu. It is admitted, or, at any rate, it ba* not been d.-nied, that slaves constituted tt part of the property of tlw InhAltenUof the coded territory, and of which the United States guaranteed the free enjoyment; thu» cognizing the existence of slavery in th* territory in question. But a reference to the acto of the gov ernment in relation to this territory will bo sufficient to show what construction ha* been placed upon this article of the treaty. By an act of Congress, in October,8CSf the President of the United States is au thorized to take possession of the territory ceded by France to tU United States. Ii» March, lGtH, an act is passed erecting Lou- iatT.nn tntn two territories. Orleans and Lou isiana into two territories, Orleana ihiana and providing for Uie. temporary government thcreofi And by the 10th sea-. j * * * ’ n \ y tion of this ct«. it i-s(Iceland, among otlu tilings, not to lie law ful for any person to «»- port or bring into said territory, from »*>Y 1 , C »*... K ..r*V.n 1 Tmli-t port or place withinthe Knrito of the United / , , fM States, any slave or slaves, except a eitixeu *• . . 1. . . « r,. , — I«.4a muI Iaiw of the United Rtat* -* removing into said ten- * ritory fur actual «et)1<?pient, tuni hc'Df- at tJlMj