Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

iaaj.ii VOL. I. M1LLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1820. No. 46. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, (on TUF.'BUXT*} TJY S. GRA YriJUYDti H. M. ORME, vr TUREK DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR FOUR HOLLARS AT THE IXriRATION OF THE TEAR. ID* Advertisements conspicuously inserted at Uie customary rales. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. Tuesday, Dec. 5. LY THE SEMITE. Mr. Harbour, Iroui the committee to whom was referred the petition of Mat- Vhewr Lyon, delivered a Report, conclu ding with the following resolutions : Resolved, That *r> much of the act en titled an net for the punishment of cer tain crimes against the United States, approved the 14th July, 171)3, as pre- t nds to prescribe and punish libel', is unconstitutional. jiesolved, That the tines collected un der that act ought to be restored to those from whom they were exacted ; and that these resolutions lie recommitted to the committee whobrought them in, with instructions to report a bill to that ef fect. The report was read, and ordered to be printed. Tuesday, Dec. 5. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. On motion of Mr. Storrs, it was Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury Department he directed to communicate to this House the latest re turn made to that Department of the ge neral statement of the Bank of the Unit ed States and its oflices of discount and deposito. On motion of Mr. Simkint, it was Resolved, That the Secretory of War be requested to lay before this Houie a particular statement of the expenses ol the army of the United States, from the end of the lale »var till the present year, including the estimates for 1821, desig nating the expenditures in each branch ofthe army for each year, with such ex- 1 planations as may be necessary to render the statement clear and explicit. Also, that he lay before, this House the amount of balances, if any have accrued, in each year, from the moneys appropriated for the support of the army ; in what w»y »uCh balances have accrued, and how they have been disposed of or appropri ated. ■" . AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION The House then, on motion of Mrj Smith, of N. C. resumed the consider^ tion of the resolution proposing an ai inendmcnt to the Constitution, in relaiios to the election of Electors of President and Vice President of the United States vnd Members ofthe House ofRopreseu-i tatives. Mr. Reid, of Geo. rose in opposition to the resolution, and, in a speech ol near an hour, submitted bis views ofthe impolicy of amendiug the Constitution in clock to-morrow he should move a call of the House. Wednesday, Dec. 0. MISSOURI. The House having, on motion of Mr. Lowndes, resolved itself into a commit tee ot tlie Whole on the State of the U- nion, Mr. A'etson, of Va. was called to the chair. The resolution declaring the admis sion ofthe State of Missouri into the U- nion on an equal footing with the origin al states, having been read : Mr. Lowndes rose, and delivered a speech of nearly two hours in length, of which the following is a brief sketch. • The first observations of-Mr. L. were lost to the reporter, from the confusion arising from members changing their scats, &c. When Mr. L's observations became audible to us, lie was speaking of (lie difficulty under which lie should labor, in vvhut lie had to say, from being obliged to direct his observations to argu ments not yet urged, and in regard to which lie must depend upon what he hail heard in other quarters, and upon conjecture. In the outset, he said, he was met by an objection of a general nature, appli cable to other cases as well as that now presented to the House. He could not doubt, he said, from what he had heard, that there wera members of tbc House who con-idered themselves hound, by the same principles which influenced them at the last session, to vote at this session against the resolution declaring the admission ol Missouri into the Union. On this point, he addressed himself to the moderation and good sense of the House—of those gentlemen particularly who believed the constitution framed by Missouri to be inconsistent with the prin ciples ofour government, to say, wheth er it was not inconsistent with the char acter of our government, and o r all go vernment, that questions once decided by the legitimate authority of the coun try should be considered as yet open, or inconclusive ? Did not such a course of reasoning lead to the conclusion that all the acts ofthe government were bind ing only on the majority who voted for them ? That all compacts are void, for example, as to the minority which refir es to sanction them ? Suppose, in regard to a debt incurred in carrying on a war, a party subsequently in power were to f .y—v.t did not vote for the debt ; we did not support the war ; we arc not bound to pay the debt. Would such an argument be entitled to respect ? Take, for an example, the debt incurred in the late war with Great Britain : was it not essential to the character of the nation that that debt should be considered ob ligatory as well upon those who approv ed, as on those who disapproved, the purpose for which the debt was contnct- ed ? And w ore all the members of thii- and the other house not equally bound by the act ol the last session respecting Mis souri ? Whether we ought or not to iiujiuiH.jr ... . the feature contemplated, especially bv\ - n t0 (he , e Jf Missouri the substituting the mode propose y e j power ( 0 f orm constitution and state resolution. Mr, Bnd we,,t f .. . large, of the expediency of the ament - ^ ( j 0 so w . ag gj V cn by Congress. The meut contemplated by the resolution. jeonstitution was formed, and C ongre.ss Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, followed,! re now declare that it was and went into a general argument against V For lti mself, Mr. U. went on to say, the proposed amendment of the Consti-j^ be j ieve{ j thnt the law ofthe last sos tution. luiing mo u.wub ~ j (power to lorm a constitution and state ,t ' 0D- ht u government, we have given it. Wbeth- . Smith, of N. C. replied to r. »L f or K0 ( we individually wished Mia- rent into a defence, consideiab y U'j g()ur j j 0 f Hrm a constitution, the author!- admitted State, at that moment acquired rights which it is not competent for the legislature of (his country—which it is not competent, upon the principles which we hold sacred, for any Legislature un der Heaven to divest them of. Before he procoedeAfurther to refer to the practice offormW times, Mr. L. said he would notice an argument which he had heard suggested, which was in some degree a verbal one. It is said that the words of the law in regard to the admission of Missouri are prospective ; that the Constitution says that Congress may admit new slates into the Union ; that no authority hut Congress can ad mit them ; that Congress bus not admitt ed Missouri into the Union ; and that it is necessary she should now address Congress and obtain its consent to her coining into the Union. It is true, Mr. L. said, that the law provides that Mis souri “ shall” be admitted ; that is, pros pectively as to the date of the law. It is true, also, that new States ran be ad mitted into the Union only by Congress. But that admission may he from the time the law passes, or on the performance of a condition, whatever that condition maybe. There was nothing, Mr. L. argued, in the law ofthe last session,to show that the act of admission was not complete on the part of Congress when that law passed, although it did refer to a future time. That this was a just con struction of the matter, lie said, wa« ob vious by a referrencc to former exam ples. In the case of Kentucky, for ex ample, her admission into the Union was deferred, by iha art of Congress autho rizing it, lie did not know how many months, but more than a year after the passage of the act. Nothing more was necessary, alter the passage of the net for the admission of Missouri, limn a lapse of time sufficient for the determi nation of the People to be ascertained, whether they chose to form a constitu tion or not. But his strongest argument, Mr. L. said he was aware, m iff he derived from the course pursued by Congress in lonner times. He disclaimed any particular devotion to precedent ; but, in a time when parties were as firmly marshalled as they were on this subject at the last session ; when tlie true import of the constitution was contested by nearly li quid parties on this floor ; when geogra phical lines were observable in the divi sion of opinion, it was wise, it was be coming, to look'to what had been the practice in former times, when no caus es existed so likely to disturb and mis lead the sober judgment. Every man ought to examine the records ol those days, and rather lean to a decision con sistent with them. Referring, then, for illustration, to the cuke of Ohio, after she had formed a con stitution and sta'e government although no resolution had passed declaring her admission into the Union, it became ne cessary to pass a law to extend over her territory the jurisdiction ofthe courts of the United Slates, an 1 the preamble to that law recites that the people did, on a j act, all the rights which the oldest and ceitain day, form a constitution and state ['corniest stales ot the Union arc suppo- governinvnf, and give a nnaic, whereby »ed to possess. U hen that act w as ua- the said state has become one of the United | dor consideration, it appears Dv the .ion. , , lion gave Missouri a right to form a con- Mr. Lowndes, of S. G. advocated^Jhe Lj tul|on ; a ml that, having done so, she k now astute. , If we look at the course which Con- jress has pursued hitherto, it will be ound that, on elevating territories from 111 I* iJUUrIVUlO) • resolution, and replied, at some length, to the argument ot Messrs. Reid, and Barbour. , Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, spoke a short lime against the resolution. The question was then taken on or dering the resolution to be engrossed and read a third time, and was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows ; For the resolution, 1,,J Against it, , 59 The Speaker announced that the ques tion was decided in the affirmative, and, demanding when it was the pleasure of the House to have the resolution read a third time— Some discussion arose on the question whether, as the constitution required that such a proposition should be sup ported by two-thirds of both Houses to enable it to pass, a less number than two- thirds could order the resolution to a third reading. Two thirds of the House not having voted for a third reading of the resolution, Mr. Cobb made the point of order, and Messrs. Culpepper, Lown des, Smith, of Maryland, Rhea, and Liver- lb., the rules and practice of the House recognized the principle that two-thirds ofthe votes were required on the>al passage ot a resolution proposing to amend the con stitution ; but that any intermediate question might be carried by a m ‘’J l . ofthe House. No appeal being taken from the decision of the Speaker ; The resolution was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow To obtain a full vote on the passage of this resolution, which Mr. Stmkins deemed of high importance, being no he grade and dependence of a territori- 1 government, Congress has done no aore than emancipate them from its con- rol. On doing this, said Air. L. you |ave reserved nothing like ari authority 0 remand them to their colonial condi- ion. You have determined, in each [ase, bv the act of allowing the territory b form a constitution, that, for certain inrposcs, she is an independent state.— n the act of the last session, it would lie mntl, on referring to it, there was no ilTerence between the mode of Irgisla- ion in Missouri, and that which had oc- urredin regard tothc oldest ol the States (knitted into the Union. Comparing [vat act w ith ether acts for the admission fStates.it would be found to confer the une powers and impose the same res ections. It was impossible to distin- iiish, in any manner, between the jiow- r which has bevn given to Missouri and (at which had, in like circumstances, feen granted to the oldest of the new ntes. Mr. L. went on to quote the cases ; admission of States into the Union.— e referred to that of Ohio. The act r her admission was couched in the badest terms, requiring the Conven- jn, as usual, first to determine the ques- in whether it was expedient to form a institution. Although the mere act t the admission of a territory into the lion does not make her a state, inas- ich ns her acceptance of the offer is quired, yet, at the moment that she i dares that it is expedient to forma their constitutions to Congress, had uni formly been held valid, tv ho are Sen ators ? They are deputed by the states composing the Union to represent them in Congress. If Slulcs only can vote for Senators, the uniform practice of recog nizing all such elections as arc subse quent to the adoption of a constitution, is conclusive enough that they u ho chose them were already in the condition of states. In the case of Kentucky, indeed, without any declaratory resolution, with out any thing like a formal acknowledg ment of her being a state, but by virtue of an act declaring, prospectively, that when she had formed a constitution she was admitted without further legislation. In the case of Indiana, there was a yet more formal and iMlhoritative exposition of the principle lor which Mr. L. con tended. In the case of Indiana, the prac tice of a declaration of admission first oc curred, which had been since followed in other cases. Properly viewed, that declaration, Air. L. sail!, was only a form of notification to the other states—u proclamation by Congress to the Union, of the admission of another state into ilia family. That such was the light in wliicli it was \iewed on tiiis first occasion on which it was employed, was evident from the fact, that the. resolution of dec laration passed on the 11 III December, 1 OH), nail the representative from the state was admitted to his seat oa the 2d December, nine days preceding : so that it was evident the declaratory resolution was then regarded as a matter of farm, and notification merely. But there was still stronger proof, in the case of Indi ana, of his position In counting the votes for President and Vice President a few days after the above date, those of Indiana, gi ven before the passage of the declaratory resolution, were received and counted. If a people may rightfully and cron without objection, elect a Go vernor, Legislature, and Judges—rnuv elect and send to Congress Senators and Representative, and, finally, may vote for President and Vice President—up on what prthciple will it he said that a People, enjoying and exercising all these lights, arc not a state ; or that to consti tute I hem . i state, requires (he further interposition of this Uo ise ? He could not admit it, lie repeated. These observations. Mr. L. said, h. had made with a view to shew how little foundation there was for an opinion which lie had understood was not un common, 1 ’tliot the ,ct of the last session was merely a suggestion to the People ol .Missouri, that they might form a cousti tution if it pleased them, and that, it that Constitution met the approbation of the Congress of the United States til their next session, they should thou be admitted into the Union. Another circumstance, Mr. L. sai shewed, beyond dispute, that it was not intended by this House, in‘passing the act ofthe lust session, merely to give authority to the p> ople of Missouri to propose a Constitution, hut that it Was intended to confer on Missouri. l>v that States—that i-, by the act of forming a constitution. And such, Mr. L. said, was the principle on which the United States had always acted. But, he said, the preamble was interesting, not only because it confirmed his argument in the main, but also marked the time and cir cumstance win :h, in the opinion of Con gress at that time, made a people a state, viz. the day on which a constitution U formed, and the act of forming it. The proof afforded bv other prece dents, however. that a people became a state on forming a constitution under the authority uf Congress, was still 1 quivocal than that w hich had been Journal of this House, thai a motion w as made by Air. Taylor to amend the hill bv striking out these won 1 - And the said state, when formed, shall tie admitt ed ioio the Union upon an equal fooling with the original states, in nil respects w hatever and inserting ip hen thereof tiio-e which follow ; “ And if the same (that is the Constitution,) ifliuii he appro ved by Congress, the said territory shall hi; admitted' into the Union as a state, up on the same llnding a- the original states” —the difference being Cut, in the lull as it sio d, (the act as it now Stands,) s e-1 we made, tier a State—and in the other tod.!"o were to give tier, nulhoiity to form a in cverv instance,and, as far a« he knew, jConstitution, u.! . uve our approbation without an attempt nt resistance, when to he n condition of its final admission, ever such a constitution has been form-; A very large m only, (1 ~.» to 40) c- ed by a territory, they have not only j ven at that tim ; • on., excitement and been considered a state, lint the elec- I nearly equal th . i ; . <4 opinion with res- tions which they have nude >md< r iheii constitution have been held to he good. If, by the art of forming a constitution, they have not become indc|fi nlent status, how has U happened that, without a sin gle exception, they have elected their own governors, judges. &c. and their acts have been constitutional ami valid ? Can it be said of oil these cases, that Congress, knowing these territorial peo ple had usurped the powers of states, would have silently submitted 4o it ?— Their having done so was the strongest proof that every one of these states had, in the opinion of Congress, of the state governments, and of tho people, the powers which they exercised peel to the restricti'.n, voted in live m- guiivc. t he substance of Mr. L's argument then was lie s.u I. (hat, hy the act author izing the people ofAIissouri to forma Constitution and St it" Government, cer tain rights were given to them ; hy the former practice ofthe Government, he tiati endeavored to shew that the mere circumstance of assenting t« the proposi tion of Congress was enough to constitute the people a sta'e, the act of dcclartion, now proposed to the House, being mere surplusage. Missouri had, then, a right, to form a government absolutely and ina lienably. If she hail not now the rights of a state, let it be show n how she had Mr. L. said lie knew there were per- lost them. It is contrary to the princi ples of the Constitution, contrary to the genius of our government, that having mica giv cn them the right of self-govern ment, Congress cau now take a from them. I Consiilpt ing this question as settled, the next important question was, wheth er the constitution formed by tnc state sons wiio believed that the people of Mis souri territory do not become a state, until, by an act posterior to the forma tion of their constitution, Congress de clares their admission. Air. L. said he could not admit this. It was disproved by the uniform language of precedents. uln> , The acquiescence of Congress in their _ nstitution at that precise moment! elections of Senators and Representative * of Missiouri becomes void hy the ndmis- deemed of high importance, 1 • a „ |ho rights of a state—I to Congress disproved it. These elec- 1 sion into it of a clause not compatible less than a proposition to amen ie peoplo of Missouri* as of every other! tions, held previous to the submission ofi with the constitution ol the L. States, ad ititution, he gave notice tnaiai one ° if r « mitt ing, for the sake of argument, thnt such is the fact. Whether that particular clause ofthe constitution, to w hich exception was un derstood to he taken, was constitutional or not, the interest ofthe nation, justice to Missouri, and respect for itself, re quired that the house should not under take to decide. In taking this ground, Air. L. Mtid he knew lie should be con sidered by some as evading ttie perfor mance; of a duty which, in the present case, they supposed to be devolved on this house. On this account, Mr. L. said, he should attempt to show tliut no dutv devolved on this house to express uu o- piniou with respect to that clause ; and intimated that he could show, were it ne cessary, that similar provisions were contained in various acts ofthe U. States, to which exception had been taken in neither house. The clause of the Alis- souri constitution to which lie referred, iv as that requiting the Legislature to pass i.vs to prohibit the settlement of free negroes in the State, which was suppo sed to conflict with (he provision-of the constitution of the United States which* provides that “ the citizens of each state shall he entitled to all tho privileges an I immunities of citizens in the several states.” Mr. L. here .vent into an argu ment of some detail, tin* amount of tv hi- b was, that, as to numbers, it ven largo majority ofthe free black* in the United States were not considered ciiisons in their respect iv o state* ; auJ that, in con struing any general provision of u con stitution, it was fair to const tor it as hav ing a general application, and not as be ing without exceptions. In any view, there could be nothing more dear than that, if the objected provision was capa ble of a construction which would recon cile it with the constitution, it ought to receive that consti*u"tion. For example, in this case of ''li-souri, he thought i' ■night he quite f ir lo sav that that pro vision respecting free people of color must be construed liberally, as intending to exempt from its operation such of them as were citizens in other states, However this might lie,. - he contended, is. the committee hat! laid it down in their report, that it was a question not for this house, but for a different tribu- nul, to determine. But Mr. L said there wore many who object to this course—the course pursu ed in nil other cases—who allow that the judiciary could, with morn ease, cer tainty, uniformity, and effect, expound constitutional law, hut contend that we must decide whether the provision in question he constitutional or not : we must express an opinion on it, however inexpedient, because it is our dtUy.— Now, Air. L. said lie did not see, that having declared th .t the People of Mis souri should firm a Constitution and State Government, imposed on this house tho duty of construing law in tins more than any other case. It might be con sidered rather an objection to it, inas much as, in doing so, they would have to expound the law themselves had made— no principle being better established than that the authority which forms the law should not construe nor apply it-— I ht: tr ie question in this case then, was, Mr. L. said, which was tho bust tribunal to decide tin* question respecting this dis puted clause of the Missouri constitu tion ? If it wore asked whether this House, or the Senate, or the Judiciary of the.country, were the Imst qualified to expound a law, there would be no dif ference of opinion or» the question. It i must, tbeu, be a consideration of para mount duly only, on tho part of this House to decide upon it, which could in duce it to undertake the exposition of a law in respect to the construction of which there was a d -uld. Air. L. then examined, somewhat at large, the question, whethur a judicial or legislative tribunal be the most capa ble to decide correctly such a quertion as was supposed to be presented by the particular clause in the Constitution of Missouri. He argued, from the inability of cither branch ofCongross to act inde pendently on any such question, from their inability to act ivi'.h uniformity. Sic. that they were not the proper bodies to he charged with judicial investigations. Ami why. he usked, the rights of all the •Slates being equal, should those ol Alis- souri be subject to an adjudication dif ferent from that to which other state- are subject ? The rights of the old states, lie said were subject to judicial decision-, and no man would pretend that, in re spect to any Old State, Delaware for ex ample, her constitution could be suspen ded, that her Senators and Representa tives should be .excluded from these Malls, on Congress thinking they hud discovered something not altogether right in her constitution. It was an essential objection to the power now claimed for Congress, that, if allowed, it would he a power to be exercised in a new state, which none would pretend it could ex ercise in an old one. Upon every con sideration, of which he urged several o- thers, he wo* in favor ofleaving the mat ter with the Judiciary, where, and where only, in his opinion, it properly be longed, The principles which had influenced, from time to tithe, the conduct of the dif ferent brunches of tho goyernment, would, he said, lewd to tho same conclu sion. At the time of tho 1 formation of the federal constitution (to go back to that date,) it wm foreseen that there might he a disposition, at some future day, in some or other ofthe atittea, to’ break over the barriers of the constitu tion about to be formed, Jtc. and a pro vision was introduced prescribing a mode of deciding controversies of that descrip tion. If, in nil other cases of constitu tional questions, it has been provided that they shall be decided by the Judi- iary, the reason must apply add be con- litsive why this body should not under take to decide a constitutional question the case of Missouri. Justice re quires that those who have the same rights shall have their rights decided by the same tribunal. If, however, the only objection to tho jirogress of the resolution now undoc .‘onsiJerttion was, that an inference might be drawn, from the -Renee of Congress, that they approved the excep tionable provision in the Constitution of Miwnnri, Mr. L. suggested that some mode might be adopted by which the ob jection on this point might be explained. Ho - Dpi] l<l himself, u* an individual, with tlie utniiwt reluctante express anv opin ion on the subject, and he though'. :t would be exceedingly unwise in C;n- gi'i'-- to do so. JTimns would os no end .-qc!i a-couise.. Thera were in th» constitution of Missouri, and of every state iu the Union, clauses to which sor.i* might take ox,-i ption, of ahich Mr. L. in* -lanced the provisions respecting banks, &c. which some believed the states nad no right to establish. Every considera tion of prudence and propriety, in his opin.cn. forbade Congress from interpos ing in tlie present instatve. Mr. L, said he did admit, however, that there might he cases in whi.'h Con gress might find it to be their dutv to in terpose, on the moment of admission of new states into the Union. For instance, if, in relation to the term of .Senators, or my other provision which, from its char acter, could nut be brought before tlm c 'U|irvmo Court, .the new constitution were incompatible with that of the U- nited States, it was his opini-m it would tie h good reason why Congress choilld interfere. Nor did he think this was at all inconsistent with tbw ground he had already taken, if for no other reason than that the judicial tribunal could decide tli.; question now agitated, and decide it I) Her than this house. The duty of Congress, in this respect, begins where that ofthe judiciary ends. Referring to his former remark, that gentlemen would do well to satisfy tbem- selvcs that their opinions were not the effect of perjudice, by examining what was the conduit of their predecessors in more quiet times, Air. L. said he would .urn to tbc case of the second new state •Uiieb was admitted into the Union, and the objections to whose admission were removed in the way proposed in the pr.-seut case. Tennessee, without Wai ting far a law ofCongrcss to authorize her, field a Convention, formed a consti tution, and sent it on to Congress. The objection was made in tlie House ofUe- pn.\-.eututivcs, hy Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, that the constitution of Tennes see was incompatible with that ol* the United States ; lo which Mr. Baldwin replied, that, if there should be things in the constitution of Tennessee not com patible with the constitution ofthe Uni te,! States, “ it was well kaown tbit the constitution of the United States would fie paramount—they can therefore be of no effect.” He quoted this to shew, that this suggestion of referring the question to another tribuual thaw this, was not an expedient to get over this cast, but one which ha l pi evaded iw the early days of tin* Republic. The conflict between the constitution ofTennessee, kowet^r, and tfiat ot ihe United States, wus much more unequivocal than in the presold case, and so far the present case is more fa vorably presented to Congres* than was that of Tennessee. In the latter case, the Legislature were required to pro-, vide some means by which the state of l ennesseo should be sued in its courts, with a proviso that this advantage should fie confined to citizens of t|yit st«te, and not extended to those of other states.— Here was a direct conflict with the Con' stitution ofthe United States, whilst that of Missouri is only constructive. Yet, in that case, the question of constitution.! law was left to those who were no;> likely to decide correctly, and witha! competent to enforce their decision— that is, to the Supreme Judicial Tribu nal. He thought it perfectly compatible with the most nice and rigid sense of du- t», for Congress to do the same in the cato uow before them. Mr. L. said he knew an objection ha.l been taken to leaving the Judiciary sustain a conflict with a state, inregai d to the conformity of its Constitution t. that ofthe United States. But sure! if in regard to all other stales, it now fi that authority, there can be bo hardship