the most powerful, profound, and eloquent efforts of his whole life, has never been published.

On the side of the restrictionists, the miseries of slavery were depicted in strong and vivid colours; its rapid progress in some of the states afflicted with its evils, was dwelt on as a source of alarm; and the necessity of curtailing its range was vehemently urged. The advantages accruing to the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, from the adoption of the interdict to the introduction of slavery north-west of the Ohio, by the ordinance of 1787, were insisted on at great length, and with signal ability. In respect to the power of Congress to admit new states into the union, the restrictionists contended that it was plenary, and drew after it a right to decide whether the 'admission should be absolute or on condition, and on what condition; and that, accordingly, on the admission of all the new states, some conditions had been annexed.

The advocates for the unconditional admission of Missouri into the union, generally admitted that slavery was a great evil. They contended, however, that it was an evil which those who felt it were most competent to remedy; that the comfort of the slaves, as well as the safety of the whites, would be best promoted by the diffusion of the former, rather than by their concentration; that the dangers from the increase of the slave population, were distant or imaginary; and that the non-slave-holding states, being themselves now free to allow or prevent the introduction of slaves, ought to leave every other state in possession of the like freedom.

It was behind the constitution, however, that the opponents of restriction principally entrenched themselves. They earnestly contended that the constitution bestowed on congress no power whatever over slaves, save that which had been already exercised, of prohibiting their im

portation after the year 1808; that the slave states never would have consented to enter into the union, if the power now claimed for congress had been conferred by the constitution; that the day when it should be usurped, would be the last of the union; that the power to admit new states, implied no power to impose restrictions, but was a naked power to admit or not to admit; that a new state, when admitted, stood on a perfect political equality with all the old states, and possessed the same powers and privileges, among which was that of deciding for itself the question of tolerating slavery; that the alleged conditions on the admission of other new states, were not in fact conditions presented by a paramount sovereign, but terms of compact offered to the new states, and obligatory upon them in value simply of their own voluntary consent; and that the ordinance of 1787, having been enacted for the government of territories prior to their admission as states into the union, could not now be construed as controlling the right of Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, to admit slaves, if either chose to authorize their introduction.

After a discussion more arduous and angry than that of the preceding session, the question was again put to vote. In the senate there was a majority against the restriction, and in the house a majority for it. The District of Maine having an application before congress at the same period, to be admitted as a state into the union, the senate united the bills for the two new states; but the house rejected that combination. Finally, through the agency of committees of conference appointed in the two houses, the question was settled by what was termed a compromise. According to this compromise, Missouri was received into the union without restriction, and, by the eighth section of the act admitting her, it is provided, "that in all that territory ceded by France to the United States,

under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirtysix degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby for ever prohibited: Provided always, that any person escaping into the same from whom labour 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 labour or service as aforesaid."

Thus terminated for a time the discussion of a question so portentous to the durability of the union. A contemporary periodical of high respectability remarks: "This distracting question, as it was emphatically called by a member of the Senate of the United States, and which has so long excited the hopes and fears of every patriot in the union, has at last been settled. Very few, perhaps, are entirely pleased with the manner of its adjustment; but most persons are gratified that it has been adjusted amicably for certainly it was a matter of more serious importance than any other ever before submitted to the consideration of congress since the formation of the constitution, presenting a conflict of interests as to real or honestly presumed rights, and affecting us all geographically."

The act of congress, however, did not absolutely admit Missouri into the union. It only authorized the people of the territory to form a constitution and state government, and required that these should be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States. It also required "a true and attested copy of such constitution or frame of state government as might be formed or provided, to be transmitted to congress." After these requisitions should be complied with; a final resolution of congress,

according to the practice in analogous cases, would be necessary to admit the state as a member of the confederacy.

In June, 1820, the people of the territory of Missouri proceeded to ordain and establish a constitution of government for the contemplated state. Among other provisions, it was ordained in the twenty-sixth section of the third article, that it should be the duty of the general assembly, as soon as might be, to pass such laws as were necessary to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in the state under any pretext whatever." Under this constitution, a state government was organized, and went into operation. A governor, and other executive officers, and members of the general assembly, were appointed, in conformity with the constitution; and the first meeting of the legislature was held at St. Louis, in September, 1820. The state of Missouri also appointed electors of president and vice-president, who formed a college which voted for those officers, and their votes were transmitted to the seat of government in the usual manner.

Shortly after the promulgation of the constitution of Missouri, the public journalists commenced their animadversions upon the clause for the exclusion of free negroes and mulattoes, and an objection was founded upon it against the final recognition of the state as a member of the confederacy. With the quickness of thought, parties were arrayed on both sides of the question; and it was evident that the compromise of the previous session of congress, had not extinguished, but only smothered, the embers of strife. The flame was now rekindled, and spread with terrible rapidity; and even before the opening of the session of congress, the whole country was again in commotion.

During the fall of 1820, Mr. Clay, in consequence of

heavy losses, which he had sustained as an indorser for a friend, resolved to retire from congress, and in the practice of law, devote himself to the reparation of his private affairs. He therefore resigned his office as speaker of the house, but retained the privileges of a member-determining to take his seat at as early a period of the session as was consistent with his professional avocations, and thus close his engagement to his constituents.

Shortly after the opening of the session, the constitution of Missouri was laid before congress for consideration, and referred to a committee. The senate readily passed a resolution for the admission of the state into the union; but a very different scene was to be witnessed in the house of representatives. The committee of the house, like that of the senate, reported in favour of the admission of the state unconditionally; but its report was rejected. The question, which divided the two houses, and agitated the publick, was of very little consequence in itself, and derived all its importance from its connexion with the subject of slavery, and the debates of the two previous congressional sessions. By the constitution of the United States, it is ordained, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Those who opposed the admission of Missouri, contended that free negroes and mulattoes were citizens of the state of their residence; that as such, they had a right, under the constitution, to remove to Missouri, or any other state of the union, and there enjoy all the privileges and immunities of other citi zens of the United States emigrating to the same place; and therefore that the clause in the constitution of Missouri, above adverted to, was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and she ought not to be received into the union. On the other hand, it was maintained that