the privileges and immunities of citizens in the State to which he removes. It cannot surely be - contended, upon any rational interpretation, that it gives to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of every other State, at the same time, and under all circumstances. Such a construction would lead to the most extraordinary consequences. It would at once destroy all the fundamental limitations of the State constitutions upon the rights of their own citizens; and leave all those rights to the mercy of the citizens of any other State, which should adopt different limitations. According to this construction, if all the State constitutions, save one, prohibited slavery, it would be in the power of that single State, by the admission of the right of its citizens to hold slaves, to communicate the same right to the citizens of all the other States within their own exclusive limits, in defiance of their own constitutional prohibitions; and to render the absurdity still more apparent, the same construction would communicate the most opposite and irreconcilable rights to the citizens of different States at the same time. It seems, therefore, to be undeniable, upon any rational interpretation, that this clause of the Constitution communicated no rights in any State which its own citizens do not enjoy; and that the citizens of Louisiana, upon their admission into the Union, in receiving the benefit of this clause, would not enjoy higher or more extensive rights than the citizens of Ohio. It would communicate to the former no right of holding slaves except in States where the citizens already possessed the same right under their own State Constitutions and laws. deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and we respectfully solicit for it the full consideration of the National Legislature. "Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and the danger of this description of population had become apparent in all parts of this country, and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new States themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and prosperity of the States north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed, in a great measure, to the conse quences of the ordinance of 1787; and few, in deed, are the occasions, in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling convenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating evil. We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted by the American Government for the abolition of the slave-trade, are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attrib uted to the policy of another Government. No imputation, thus far, rests on any portion of the "Upon the whole, the memorialists would most American Confederacy. The Missouri Territory respectfully submit that the terms of the Consti- is a new country. If its extensive and fertile tution, as well as the practice of the Governments field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the under it, must, as they humbly conceive, entirely Government will seem to become a party to a justify the conclusion that Congress may pro-traffic which, in so many acts, through so many hibit the further introduction of Slavery into its years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, own territories, and also make such prohibition a inhuman. To enact laws to punish the traffic, condition of the admission of any new State into and, at the same time, to tempt cupidity and avathe Union. rice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by such a course, would only defeat its own purposes, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people, if the power of moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of Government, great facilities to commit offenses. The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws: We appeal to this justice and humanity: We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the right of humanity and the liberties of mankind? "If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery in a new State, necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of representation, which already exists in regard to the original States. It cannot be expected that those of the original States, which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension as being politically just. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; and your memorialists have no wish that that compact should be disturbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely different character, when a new State proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith_plighted; and where is the reason that she should come into the Union with more than an equal share of political importance and political power? Already the ratio of representation, established by the Constitution, has given to the States holding slaves twenty members of the House of Representatives more than they would have been entitled to, except under the particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability, this number will be doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, renouncing the right in question, and establishing a constitution prohibiting it for ever. Without dwelling on this topic, we have still thought it our duty to present it to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a "As inhabitants of a free country-as citizens of a great and rising Republic-as members of a Christian community-as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of religion and humanity,* we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion restriction of Slavery, would, in their opinion, escould inspire." Instead of reprinting the Speeches elicited by this fruitful theme, which must necessarily, to a great extent, be a mere reproduction of ideas expressed in the debate of the last session, already given, we here insert the Resolves of the Legislatures of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Kentucky-the first three being unanimous expressions in favor of Slavery Restriction; the fourth, from a Slave State, also in favor of such Restriction, though probably not unanimously agreed to by the Legislature; the last against Restriction, and also (we presume) unanimous. The Legislatures of the Free States were generally unanimous for Restriction; those of the Slave States (Delaware excepted) unanimous against it. It is not deemed necessary to print more than the following: NEW YORK. "State of New-York, in Assembly, Jan. 17, 1820: "Whereas, The inhibiting the further extension of Slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern among the people of this State; and whereas we consider Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension; and that the Constitution of the United States clearly gives Congress the right to require of new States, not comprised with the original boundaries of these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condition of its admission into the Union: Therefore, sentially impair the right of this and other existing States to equal representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of the political compact), inasmuch as such newly-admitted slaveholding State would be represented on the basis of their slave population; a concession made at the formation States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to of the Constitution in favor of the then existing be inferred from any article or clause in that instrument. "2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Missouri as a State into the Union, without pro hibiting Slavery there, would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people of New-Jersey afore said, be no less than to sanction this great political and moral evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast Territory with Slaves, and perpetuate all the dangers, crimes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage. "3. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to be admitted into the Union, but on the principles of the Federal Constitution, and only by a law of Congress, consenting thereto on the part of the existing States, Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless upon the reasonable and just conditions, assented to on the part of the people applying to become one of the States. "4. Resolved, In the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That the article of the Constitution which restrains Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of Slaves, until after the year 1808, does, by necessary implication, admit the general power of Congress over the subject of Slavery, and concedes to them the right to regulate and restrain such migration and importation after that time, into the existing, or any newly-tobe-created State. “5. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress have a clear right to refuse the admission of a Territory into the Union, by the terms of the Constitution, they ought in the present case to exercise that absolute discretion several existing States, and prevent the great national disgrace and multiplied mischiefs, which must ensue from conceding it, as a matter of right, in the immense Territories yet to claim admission into the Union, beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery. "Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives in Congress be requested, to op-in order to preserve the political rights of the pose the admission as a State into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibition of Slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission: therefore, "Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit copies of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress." [Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.] NEW JERSEY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. Wilson of N. J. communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New-Jersey, which were read : “Whereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision. "The representatives of the people of New-Jersey, in the Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said State, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and, "1. They do resolve and declare, That the further admission of Territories into the Union, without "6. Resolved, (with the concurrence of Council,) That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States." PENNSYLVANIA. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 11th, 1819. A motion was made by Mr. Duane and Mr. Thackara, and read as follows: "The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual States to express their opinion upon all public measures proposed in the Congress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must in a great degree depend upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are moments when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty. "Such an occasion, as in their judgment demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is now presented. A measure was vested in them by the Constitution, to stipulate with the Territory upon the conditions of the boon. ardently supported in the last Congress of the United States, and will probably be as earnestly urged during the existing session of that body, which has a palpable tendency to impair the po- "The Senate and House of Representatives of litical relations of the several States; which is cal- Pennsylvania, therefore, cannot but deprecate culated to mar the social happiness of the present any departure from the humane and enlightened and future generations; which, if adopted, would policy pursued not only by the illustrious Conimpede the march of humanity and Freedom gress which framed the Constitution, but by their through the world; and would transfer from a successors without exception. They are persuadmisguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it in-ed that, to open the fertile regions of the West to delibly upon the present race-a measure, in a servile race, would tend to increase their numbrief, which proposes to spread the crimes and bers beyond all past example, would open a new cruelties of Slavery from the banks of the Missis- and steady market for the lawless venders of husippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a mea- man flesh, and would render all schemes for oblitsure of this character is seriously advocated in erating this most foul blot upon the American the republican Congress of America, in the nine- character useless and unavailing. teenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful boding over so large a portion of the Union. "Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This commonwealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other States as it has been careful of its own'; it has been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend to the universe, by their example, the unadulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their pride that they have been at all times the practical advocates of those improvements and charities among men which are so well calculated to enable them to answer the purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Slavery from among them. "Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby instructed, and that the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into the Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate and agree that the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall he prohibited; and that all children born within the said Territory, after its admission into the Union as a State, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years.' "Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to cause a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolution to be transmitted to such of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States. "Laid on the table." "If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several States; if, odious as Slave"THURSDAY, December 16, 1819. ry is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was "Agreeably to the order of the day, the House unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be resumed the consideration of the resolutions postamong the first to insist upon a sacred observ-poned on the 14th inst., relative to preventing the ance of the constitutional compact. But it canintroduction of Slavery into States hereafter to be not be pretended that the rights of any of the admitted into the Union. And on the question, States are at all to be affected by refusing to ex- Yeas and Nays were required by Mr. Randall and 'Will the House agree to the resolution?' the tend the mischiefs of human bondage over the boundless regions of the West, a territory which Mr. Souder, and stood Yeas, 74-(54 Democrats, formed no part of the Union at the adoption of 20 Federalists); Nays, none. Among the Yeas the Constitution; which has been but lately pur- Randall of Philadelphia, now a Whig supporter were David R. Porter, late Governor, Josiah chased from a European Power by the people of the Union at large; which may or may not be ad- of Buchanan, William Wilkins, late minister to mitted as a State into the Union at the discretion Russia, now in the State Senate, Dr. Daniel of Congress; which must establish a republican Sturgeon, late U. S. Senator, etc., etc. William form of Government, and no other; and whose Duane, editor of The Aurora, then the Democlimate affords none of the pretexts urged for recratic Organ, also voted for the resolutions, sorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; as he had prominently advocated the principle such a territory has no right, inherent or acquired, they asserted. such as those States possessed which established the existing Constitution. When that Constitution was framed in September, 1787, the concession that three-fifths of the slaves in the States then existing should be represented in Congress, could not have been intended to embrace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine human bondage within its ancient home, that on the 13th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive territories bounded by the Ohio, the Mississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and in the ninth article of the Constitution itself, the power of Congress to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognized; nor is there to be found in the statute-book a single instance of the admission of a Territory to the rank of a State in which Congress have not adhered to the right, "The Senate unanimously concurred, and the Resolves were signed by Gov. William Findlay." DELAWARE. In Senate of the United States, early in 1820, Mr. Van Dyke communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Delaware, which were read : Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met: That it is, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the constitutional right of the United States, in Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of the conditions for the admission of a new State into the Union, a provision which shall effectually prevent the further introduction of Slavery into such State; and that a due regard to the true interests of such State, as well In Senate, January 24th, 1820, Mr. Logan communicated the following preamble and Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, which were read: Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides for the admission of new States into the Union, and it is just and proper that all such States should be established upon the footing of original States, with a view to the preservation of State Sovereignty, the prosperity of such new State, and the good of their citizens; and whereas, successful attempts have been heretofore made, and are now making, to prevent the People of the Territory of Missouri from being admitted into the Union as a State, unless trammeled by rules and regulations which do not exist in the original States, particularly in relation to the toleration of Slavery. "Whereas, also, if Congress can thus trammel or control the powers of a Territory in the formation of a State government, that body may, on the same principle, reduce its powers to little more than those possessed by the people of the District of Columbia; and whilst professing to make it a Sovereign State, may bind it in perpetual vassalage, and reduce it to the condition of a province; such State must necessarily become the dependent of Congress, asking such powers, and not the independent State, demanding rights. And whereas, it is necessary, in preserving the State Sovereign ties in their present rights, that no new State should be subjected to this restriction, any more than an old one, and that there can be no reason or justice why it should not be entitled to the same privileges, when it is bound to bear all the burdens and taxes laid upon it by Congress. 30th, and thence debated daily until the 19th of February, when a bill came down from the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union," but with a rider authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc., without restriction on the subject of Slavery. After The House, very early in the session, passed a bill providing for the admission of Maine as a State. This bill came to the Senate, and was sent to its Judiciary Committee aforesaid, which amended it by adding a provision for Missouri as above. several days' debate in Senate, Mr. Roberts of Pa. moved to recommit, so as to strike out all but the admission of Maine; which was defeated (Jan. 14th, 1820)-Yeas 18; Nays 25. (who voted with the majority, as uniformly Hereupon Mr. Thomas of Ill. against any restriction on Missouri) gave notice that he should "ask leave to bring a bill to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States North and West of the contemplated State of Missouri.” -which he accordingly did on the 19th; when it was read and ordered to a third reading. [NOTE.-Great confusion and misconception exists in the public mind with regard to "the Missouri Restriction," two totally different propositions being called by that name. The original Restriction, which Mr. Clay vehemently opposed, and Mr. Jefferson in a letter characterized as a "fire-bell in the night," contemplated the limitation of Slavery in its exclusion from the State of Missouri. This was ultimately defeated, as we shall see. The second proposed Restriction was that of Mr. Thomas, just cited, which proposed the exclusion of Slavery, not from the State of "In passing the following Resolution, the Gene- Missouri, but, from the Territories of the United ral Assembly refrains from expressing any opinion States North and West of that State. either in favor or against the principles of Slavery; proposition did not emanate from the original but to support and maintain State rights, which Missouri Restrictionists, but from their adversait conceives necessary to be supported and main-ries, and was but reluctantly and partially actained, to preserve the liberties of the free people cepted by the former.] of these United States, it avows its solemn conviction, that the States already confederated under one common Constitution, have not a right to deprive new States of equal privileges with themselves. Therefore, "Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the Senators in Congress from this State be instructed, and the Representatives be requested, to use their efforts to procure the passage of a law to admit the people of Missouri into the Union, as a State, whether those people will sanction Slavery by their Constitution, or not. "Resolved, That the Executive of this Commonwealth be requested to transmit this Resolution to the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, that it may be laid before that body for its consideration." The bill authorizing Missouri to form a constitution, etc., came up in the House as a special order, Jan. 24th. Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved that it be postponed for one week : Lost: Yeas 87; Nays 88. Whereupon the House adjourned. It was considered in committee the next day, as also on the 28th and This The Maine admission bill, with the proposed amendments, was discussed through several days, until, Feb. 16th, the question was taken on the Judiciary Committee's amendments (authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitution, and saying nothing of Slavery), which were adopted by the following vote: YEAS-Against the Restriction on Missouri: Logan of Ky. Williams of Tenn.-23. [20 from Slave States; 3 (in italics) from Free States.] [19 from Free States, 2 (in italics) from Delaware.] Mr. Thomas of Ill. then proposed his amendment, as follows: "And be it further enacted, That the sixth article of compact of the Ordinance of Congress, passed July 13th, 1787, for the government of the Territory of the United States, northwest of the river Ohio, shall, to all intents and purposes, be, and hereby is, deemed and held applicable to, and shall have full force and effect in and over, all that tract of country ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits contemplated by this act.” On the following day Mr. Thomas withdrew the foregoing and substituted the following: Smith (Wm.) of S. C. [It will here be seen that the Restriction ultimately adopted, that excluding Slavery from all territory then owned by the United States North and West of the Southwest border of the State of Missouri, was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by the votes of fourteen Senators from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi. was proposed by Rufus King of New York, and The current assumption that this Restriction mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Mis souri-and supported also by Senators from Slave States-as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in "And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-effect, an offer from the milder opponents of six degrees thirty minutes, north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from where labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." Mr. Trimble of Ohio moved a substitute for this, somewhat altering the boundaries of the region shielded from Slavery, which was rejected: Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Southern, with Noble, Edwards, and Taylor, as aforesaid). The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas's amendment, which was adopted as follows: YEAS-For excluding Slavery from all the Messrs. Brown of La. Burrill of R. 1. Dickerson of N. J. Eaton of Tenn. Johnson of La. Mellen of Mass. Stokes of N. C. King (Wm. R.) of Ala. Thomas of Ill. King (Rufus) of N. Y. Tichenor of Vt. Lanman of Conn. Leake of Miss. Lowrie of Pa. Trimble of Ohio, Van Dyke of Del. Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction-"Let us have Slavery in Missouri, and we will unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories North and West of that State." It was in substance an agreement between the North and the South to that effect, though the more de. termined champions, whether of Slavery Exten. sion or Slavery Restriction, did not unite in it.] The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading by the following vote: YEAS-For the Missouri Bill; Brown of La. King of Ala. Lloyd of Md. Williams of Miss. NAYS-Against the Bill: Messrs. Burrill of R. I. Dana of Conn. Lowrie of Pa. Macon of N. C. Otis of Mass. Roberts of Pa. -20. |