member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentleman 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 apprehension 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 independent 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 majority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives.

they suppose that the southern States would sub mit with patience to a measure the effect of which would be to exclude them from all enjoyment of the vast region purchased by the United States beyond the Mississippi, and which belonged equally to them as to the northern States? He ventured to assure them that they would nos The people of the slaveholding States, as they are called, know their rights, and will insist upon the enjoyment of them. He should not now. attempt to go over ground already occupied by others, with much more ability, and attempt to show that, by the treaty with France, the people, of that Territory were secured in the enjoyment of the property which they held in their slaves. That the proposed amendment was an infraction of this treaty, had been most clearly shown. Nor would he attempt to rescue from slander the character of the people of the southern States, in their conduct towards, and treatment of, their black population. That had also been done with a degree of force and eloquence, to which he could pretend no claim, by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Barbour), and the honorable speaker. He was, however, clearly of opinion that Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to adopt the principle proposed in the amendment. He called upon the advocates of it to point out, and lay their finger upon that clause of the Constitution of the United States, which gives to this body the right to legislate upon the subject. Could they show in what clause or sec tion this right was expressly given, or from which it could be inferred? Unless this authority could be shown, Congress would be assuming a power, if the amendment prevailed, not delegated to them, and most dangerous in its exercise. What is the end and tendency of the measure proposed? It is to impose on the State of Missouri conditions not imposed upon any other State. It is to de prive her of one branch of sovereignty not sur rendered by any other State in the Union, not even those beyond the Ohio; for all of them had legislated upon this subject; all of them had decided for themselves whether Slavery should be tolerated, at the time they framed their several constitutions. He would not now discuss the propriety of admitting Slavery. It is not now a question whether it is politic or impolitic to tole rate Slavery in the United States, or in a particu lar State. It was a discussion into which he would not permit himself to be dragged. Admit. however, its moral impropriety: yet there was a vast difference between moral impropriety and political sovereignty. The people of New York or Pennsylvania may deem it highly immoral and politically improper to permit Slavery, but yet they possess the sovereign right and, power to permit it, if they choose. They can to-morrow so alter their constitutions and laws as to admit it, if they were so disposed. It is a branch of sove reignty which the old Thirteen States never sur render in the adoption of the Federal Constitu tion. Now, the bill proposes that the new State shall be admitted upon an equal footing with the other states of the Union. It is in this way only that she can be admitted under the Constitution. Mr. CоBB, of Georgia, observed that he These words can have no other meaning than did not rise for the purpose of detaining the at- that she shall be required to surrender no more tention of the House for any length of time. He of her rights of sovereignty than the other States, was too sensible of the importance of each mo- into a union with which she is about to be adment which yet remained of the session to ob-mitted, have surrendered. But if the proposed trude many remarks upon their patience. But, upon a measure involving the important consequences that this did, he felt it to be an imperious duty to express his sentiments, and to enter his most solemn protest against the principle proposed for adoption by the amendment. Were gentlemen aware of what they were about to do? Did they foresee no evil consequences likely to result out of the measure if adopted? Could

Mr. S. said, he would trouble the House no longer; he thanked them for the attention and indulgence already bestowed; but he desired to apprise gentlemen, before he sat down, that they were sowing the seeds of discord in this Union, by attempting to admit states with unequal privileges and unequal rights; that they were signing, sealing, and delivering their own death-warrant; that the weapon they were so unjustly wielding against the people of Missouri, was a two-edged sword. From the cumulative nature of power, the day might come when the general government might, in turn, undertake to dictate to them on questions, of internal policy; Missouri, now weak and feeble, whose fate and murmurs would excite but little alarm or sensibility, might become an easy victim to motives of policy, party zeal, or mistaken ideas of power; but other times and other men would succeed; a future Congress might come, who, under the sanctified forms of constitutional power, would dictate to them odious conditions; nay, inflict on their internal independence a wound more deep and dreadful than even this to Missouri. The House had seen the force of precedent, in the mistaken application of the conditions imposed on the people of Louisiana anterior to their admission into the Union. And, whatever might be the ultimate determination of the House, Mr. S. considered this question big with the fate of Cæsar and of Rome.

amendment is adopted, will not this new State be shorn of one branch of her sovereignty, one right, which the other States may and have exercised, (whether properly or not, is immaterial,) and de now exercise whenever they think fit?

Mr. C. observed, that he did conceive the principle involved in the amendment pregnant with danger. It was one, he repeated, to which he believed the people of the region of cory

necessity, let us not, while we feel that ill, shun the cure, which consists only in an honest avowal that liberty and equal rights are the end and aim of all our institutions, and that to tolerate Slavery beyond the narrowest limits prescribed for it by the Constitution, is a perversion of them all.

which he represented would not quietly submit. | sion, that Slavery is an ill, tolerated only from He might, perhaps, subject himself to ridicule, for attempting the display of a spirit of prophecy which he did not possess, or of zeal and enthusiasm for which he was entitled to little credit. But he warned the advocates of this measure against the certain effects which it must produce. Effects destructive of the peace and harmony of the Union. He believed that they were kindling a fire which all the waters of the ocean could not extinguish. It could be extinguished only in blood!

Sir, said Mr L., until the ceded Territory shall have been made into States, and the new States admitted into the Union, we can do what we will with it. We can govern it as a province, or sell it to any other nation. A part of it is probably at this time sold to Spain, and the inhabitants of it may soon not only enjoy the comforts of Slavery, but the blessings of the holy inquisition along with them. The question is on the admission of Missouri, as a State, into the Union. Surely it will not be contended that we are bound by the treaty to admit it. The treatymaking power does not extend so far. Can the President and Senate, by a treaty with Great Britain, make the province of Lower Canada a State of this Union? To be received as a State into this Union, is a privilege which no country can claim as a right. It is a favor to be granted or not, as the United States may choose. When the United States think proper to grant a favor, they may annex just and reasonable terms: and what can be more reasonable than for these States to insist that a new Territory, wishing to have the benefits of freedom extended to it, should renounce a principle that militates with justice, morality, religion, and every essential right of mankind? Louisiana was admitted into the Union on terms. The conditions, I admit, were not very important, but still they recognize the principles for which I contend.

Slavery, sir, I repeat, is not established by our Constitution; but a part of the States are indulged in the commission of a sin from which they could not at once be restrained, and which they would not consent to abandon. But, sir, if we could, Mr. LIVERMORE, of N. H., said, I am in fa- by any process of reasoning, be brought to bevor of the proposed amendment. The object of it is lieve it justifiable to hold others to involuntary to prevent the extension of Slavery over the Ter- servitude, policy forbids that we should increase ritory ceded to the United States by France. It it. Even the present slaveholding States have an accords with the dictates of reason, and the best interest, I think, in limiting the extent of involunfeelings of the human heart; and is not calcula-tary servitude; for, should slaves become much ted to interrupt any legitimate right arising either more numerous, and, conscious of their strength, from the Constitution or any other compact. I draw the sword against their masters, it will ba propose to show what Slavery is, and to mention to the free States the masters must resort for an a few of the many evils which follow in its train; efficient power to suppress servile insurrection. and I hope to evince that we are not bound to But we have made a treaty with France, which, tolerate the existence of so disgraceful a state of we are told, can only be preserved by the charms things beyond its present extent, and that it of Slavery. would be impolitic and very unjust, to let it spread over the whole face of our Western Territory. Slavery in the United States, is the condition of man subjected to the will of a master, who can make any disposition of him short of taking away his life. In those States where it is tolerated, laws are enacted, making it penal to instruct slaves in the art of reading, and they are not permitted to attend public worship, or to hear the gospel preached. Thus, the light of science and of religion is utterly excluded from the mind, that the body may be more easily bowed down to servitude. The bodies of slaves may, with impunity, be prostituted to any purpose, and deformed in any manner by their owners. The sympathies of nature in slaves are disregarded: mothers and children are sold and separated; the children wring their little hands, and expire in agonies of grief, while the bereft mothers commit suicide, in despair. How long will the desire of wealth render us blind to the sin of holding both the bodies and souls of our fellow-men in chains! But, sir, I am admonished of the Constitution, and told we cannot emancipate slaves. I know we may not infringe that instrument, and therefore do not propose to emancipate slaves. The proposition before us goes only to prevent our citizens from making slaves of such as have a right to freedom. In the present slaveholding States let Slavery continue, for our boasted Constitution connives at it; but do not, for the sake of cotton and tobacco, let it be told to future ages that, while pretending to love liberty, we have purchased an extensive country, to disgrace it with the foulest reproach of nations. Our Constitution requires no such thing of us. The ends for which that supreme law was made, are succinctly stated in its preface. They are first to form a more perfect Union, and insure domestic tranquillity. Will Slavery effect this? Can we, sir, by mingling bond with free, black spirits with white, like Shakespeare's witches in Macbeth, form a more perfect Union, and insure domestic tranquillity? Secondly, to establish justice. Is justice to be established by subjecting half mankind to the will of the other half? Justice, sir, is blind to colors, and weighs in equal scales the rights of all men, whether white or black. Thirdly, to provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty. Does Slavery add anything to the common defense? Sir, the strength of a republic is in the arm of freedom. But, above all things, do the blessings of liberty consist in Elavery? If there is any sincerity in our profes

An opportunity is now presented, if not to diminish, at least to prevent the growth of a sin which sits heavily on the soul of every one of us. By embracing this opportunity, we may retrieve the national character, and, in some degree, our own. But if we suffer it to pass unimproved, let us at least be consistent, and declare that our Constitution was made to impose Slavery, and not to establish liberty. Let us no longer tell idle tales about the gradual abolition of Slavery; away with colonization societies, if their design is only to rid us of free blacks and turbulent slaves; have done also with bible societies, whose views are extended to Africa and the East Indies, while they overlook the deplorable condition of their sable brethren within our own borders; make no more laws to prohibit the importation of slaves, for the world must see that the object of such laws is alone to prevent the glutting of a prodigious market for the flesh and blood of man, which we are about to establish in the West, and the West, and to enhance the price of sturdy wretches, reared, like black cattle and horses, for sale on our own plantations.

tia., Strother of Va., and De Witt of N. Y. | cannot be retraced; and it appears to us that the

(all but the last from the slave region), were appointed said committee.

Mr. Strong of N. Y. that day gave notice of a bill "To prohibit the further extension of Slavery in the United States."

On the 14th, Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved a select committee on this subject, which was granted; and the mover, with Messrs. Livermore of N. H., Barbour (P. P.) of Va., Lowndes of S. C., Fuller of Mass., Hardin of Ky., and Cuthbert of Ga., 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 Md., this resolve was sent to the Committee of the Whole, and made a special order for Jan: 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 S. C., Dec. 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted of, Messrs. Smith of S. C., Leake of Miss., Burrill of R. I., Logan of Ky., Otis of Mass.

DANIEL WEBSTER ON SLAVERY EX-
TENSION.

The following "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 3rd of December, 1819, 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:

"MEMORIAL

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled:

happiness of unborn millions rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply and essentially and the perpetuation of the blessings of liberty, those objects of common defense, general welfare, for which the Constitution itself was formed, we have presumed, in this way, to offer our sentinents and express our wishes to the National Legislature. And as various reasons have been suggested 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 constitutional 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 authority of Congress. The Constitution of the have power to dispose of and make all needful United States has declared that Congress shall 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 claims by the then existing States, of territory of any particular State, was designed to apply to which was also claimed by the United States as their own property. It has, therefore, no bearing on the present question. The power, then, of Congress over its own territories, is, by the very terms of the Constitution, unlimited. It may make all 'needful rules and regulations,' which of course include all such regulations as its own views of policy or expediency shall, from time to time, dictate. If, therefore, in its judgment it be needful for the benefit of a territory to enact a prohibition of Slavery, it would seem to be as much within its power of legislation as any other act of local policy. Its sovereignty being complete and universal as to the territory, it may exercise over it the most ample jurisdiction in every respect. It possesses, in this view, all the authority which any State Legislature possesses over its own territory; and if any State Legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit Slavery within its own limits, in virtue of its general legislative authority, for the same reason Congress also may exercise the like authority over its own territories. And that a State Legislature, unless restrained by questionable, and has been established by general some constitutional provision, may so do, is unpractice.

*

*

"The creation of a new State, is, in effect, a compact between Congress and the inhabitants of the proposed State. Congress would not probbitants of Missouri to form a Constitution of their ably claim the power of compelling the inhaown, and come into the Union as a State. It is as plain, that the inhabitants of that territory have no right of admission into the Union, as a State, without the consent of Congress. Neither party is bound to form this connection. It can be formed only by the consent of both. What, then, prevents Congress, as one of the stipulating parties, to propose its terms? And if the other party "The undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and assents to these terms, why do they not effectually its vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and hum- bind both parties? Or if the inhabitants of the bly to represent: That the question of the intro- Territory do not choose to accept the proposed duction of Slavery into the new States to be terms, but prefer to remain under a Territorial formed on the west side of the Mississippi River, Government, has Congress deprived them of any appears to them to be a question of the last im-right, or subjected them to any restraint, which, portance 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 to arrest it. A false step taken now,

in its discretion, it had no authority to do? If the admission of new States be not the discretionary exercise of a constitutional power, but in all cases an imperative duty, how is it to be per.

formed? If the Constitution means that Congress shall admit new States, does it mean that Congress shall do this on every application and under all circumstances? Or if this construction cannot be admitted, and if it must be conceded that Congress must in some respects exercise its discretion on the admission of new States, how is it to be shown that that discretion may not be exercised in regard to this subject as well as in regard to others?

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.'

Although the language of this article is not very precise or accurate, the memorialists conceive that its real import and intent cannot be The Constitution declares, that the migration mistaken. The first clause provides for the ador importation of such persons as any of the States mission of the ceded territory into the Union, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall and the succeeding clause shows this must be not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the according to the principles of the Federal Conyear 1808.' It is most manifest that the Constitu- stitution; and this very qualification necessarily tion does contemplate, in the very terms of this excludes the idea that Congress were not to be at clause, that Congress possesses the authority to liberty to impose any conditions upon such adprohibit the migration or importation of slaves; mission which were consistent with the principles for it limits the exercise of this authority for a of that Constitution, and which had been, or specific period of time, leaving it to its full opera- might justly be, applied to other new States. tion ever afterward. And this power seems ne- The language is not by any means so pointed as cessarily included in the authority which belongs that of the Resolve of 1780; and yet it has been to Congress, to regulate commerce with foreign seen that that Resolve was never supposed to nations and among the several States.' No person inhibit the authority of Congress, as to the introhas ever doubted that the prohibition of the foreign | duction of slavery. And it is clear, upon the slave trade was completely within the authority plainest rule of construction, that in the absence of Congress since the year 1808. And why? Cer- of all restrictive language, a clause, merely protainly only because it is embraced in the regula is embraced in the regula-viding for the admission of a territory into the tion of foreign commerce; and if so, it may for Union, must be construed to authorize an admisthe like reason be prohibited since that period sion in the manner, and upon the terms, which between the States. Commerce in slaves, since the Constitution itself would justify. This conthe year 1808, being as much subject to the regu- struction derives additional support from the next lation of Congress as any other commerce, if it clause. The inhabitants shall be admitted as should see fit to enact that no slave should ever soon as possible, according to the principles of be sold from one State to another, it is not per- the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all ceived how its constitutional right to make such the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens provision could be questioned. It would seem to of the United States. The rights, advantages, be too plain to be questioned, that Congress did and immunities here spoken of, must, from the possess the power, before the year 1808, to pro- very force of the terms of the clause, be such as hibit the migration or importation of slaves into are recognized or communicated by the Constithe territories (and in point of fact it exercised tution of the United States; such as are common that power) as well as into any new States; and to all citizens, and are uniform throughout the that its authority, after that year, might be as Unifed States. The clause cannot be referred to fully exercised to prevent the migration or import- rights, advantages, and immunities derived exation of slaves into any of the old States. And clusively from the State Government, for these if it may prohibit new States from importing do not depend upon the Federal Constitution. slaves, it may surely, as we humbly submit, make Besides, it would be impossible that all the rights, it a condition of the admission of such States into advantages, and immunities of citizens of the the Union, that they shall never import them. different States, could be at the same time enjoyed In relation, too, to its own Territories, Congress by the same persons. These rights are different possesses a more extensive authority, and may, in in different States; a right exists in one State various other ways, effect the object. It might, which is denied in others, or is repugnant to other for example, make it an express condition of its rights enjoyed in others. In some of the States, grants of the soil, that its owners shall never hold a freeholder alone is entitled to vote in elections; slaves; and thus prevent the possession of slaves in some a qualification of personal property is from ever being connected with the ownership of sufficient; and in others, age and freedom are the sole qualifications of electors. In some States, "As corroborative of the views which have no citizen is permitted to hold slaves: in others, been already suggested, the memorialists would he possesses that power absolutely; in others, it respectfully call the attention of Congress to the is limited. The obvious meaning, therefore, of history of the national legislation, under the Con- the clause is, that the rights derived under the federation as well as under the present Constitu- Federal Constitution, shall be enjoyed by the intion, on this interfering subject. Unless the ine-habitant of Louisiana in the same manner as by morialists greatly mistake, it will demonstrate the sense of the nation, at every period of its legislation, to have been, that the prohibition of Slavery was no infringement of any just rights belonging to free States, and was not incompatible with the enjoyments of all the rights and immunities which an admission into the Union was supposed to

the soil.

confer.

"The memorialists, after this general survey, would respectfully ask the attention of Congress to the state of the question of the right of Congress to prohibit Slavery in that part of the former Territory of Louisiana which now forms the Missouri Territory. Louisiana was purchased of France by the Treaty of the 30th April, 1803. The third article of that Treaty is as follows: The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and

the citizens of other States. The United States, by the Constitution, are bound to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; and the inhabitants of Louisiana are entitled, when a State, to this guarantee. Each State has a right to two Senators, and to Representatives according to a certain enumeration of population, pointed out in the Constitution. The inhabitants of Louisiana, upon their admission into the Union, are also entitled to these privileges. The Constitution further declares,

that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' It would seem as if the meaning of this clause could not well be misinterpreted. It obviously applies to the case of the removal of a citizen of one State to another State; and in such a case it secures to the migrating citizen all