clauso is, that the rights derived under the Fede- | tension of that inequality of representation, which ral Constitution shall be enjoyed by the inhabitant already exists in regard to the original States. It of Louisiana in the same manner as by the citi- cannot be expected that those of the original zens of other States. The United States, by the States, which do not hold slaves, can look on such Constitution, are bound to guarantee to every an extension as being politically just. As beState in the Union a republican form of govern- tween the original States the representation rests ment; and the inhabitants of Louisiana are enti- on compact and plighted faith; and your memortled, when a State, to this guarantee. Each State ialists have no wish that that compact should be has a right to two Senators, and to Representa- disturbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest tives according to a certain enumeration of popu- degree violated. But the subject assumes an enlation, pointed out in the Constitution. The inhab- tirely different character, when a new State proitants of Louisiana, upon their admission into the poses to be admitted. With her there is no comUnion, are also entitled to these privileges. The pact, and no faith plighted; and where is the Constitution further declares, 'that the citizens of reason that she should come into the Union with each State shall be entitled to all the privileges more than an equal share of political importance and immunities of citizens in the several States.' and political power? Already the ratio of repreIt would seem as if the meaning of this clause sentation, established by the Constitution, has could not well be misinterpreted. It obviously given to the States holding slaves twenty memapplies to the case of the removal of a citizen of bers of the House of Representatives more than one State to another State; and in such a case it they would have been entitled to, except under secures to the migrating citizen all the privileges the particular provision of the Constitution. In and immunities of citizens in the State to which all probability this number will be doubled in he removes. It cannot surely be contended, upon thirty years. Under these circumstances we any rational interpretation, that it gives to the deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the citizens of each State all the privileges and immu- inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come nities of the citizens of every other State, at the into the Union, renouncing the right in question, same time, and under all circumstances. Such a and establishing a constitution prohibiting it for construction would lead to the most extraordinary ever. Without dwelling on this topic we have consequences. It would at once destroy all the still thought it our duty to present it to the confundamental limitations of the State constitutions sideration of Congress. We present it with a upon the rights of their own citizens; and leave deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and all those rights to the mercy of the citizens of any we respectfully solicit for it the full consideration other State, which should adopt different limita- of the National Legislature. tions. 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. *

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 consequences of the ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, 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 mea* sures, and who cannot balance a temporary or Upon the whole, the memorialists would most trifling convenience, if there were such, against a respectfully submit that the terms of the Constitu- permanent, growing and desolating evil. We tion, as well as the practice of the Governments cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Conunder it, must, as they humbly conceive, entirely gress that the early and decisive measures adoptjustify the conclusion that Congress may prohibited by the American Government for the abolition the further introduction of Slavery into its own terri- of the slave-trade are among the proudest memotories, and also make such prohibition a condition rials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was of the admission of any new State into the Union. ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be atIf the constitutional power of Congress to tributed to the policy of another Government. make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily No imputation, thus far, rests on any portion of the shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition American Confederacy. The Missouri Territory seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain is a new country. If its extensive and fertile and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the in a new State necessarily draws after it an ex- Government will seem to become a party to a

*

traffic which, in so many acts, through so many lieved from it without consequences more injuriyears, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, ous than the suffering of the evil. But to permit inhuman. To enact laws to punish the traffic, it in a new country, where yet no habits are and at the same time to tempt cupidity and ava-formed which render it indispensable, what is it, rice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud, and inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government by violence, against which we have so long pointed such a course would only defeat its own purposes, the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? the laws derive support from the manners of the What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good people, if the power of moral sentiment be weak- faith, and to render questionable all its professions ened by enjoying, under the permission of Gov- of regard for the right of humanity and the liberernment, great facilities to commit offenses. The ties of mankind? 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 re

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 could inspire."

ADMISSION OF TEXAS.

MISSOURI COMPROMISE RE-AFFIRMED.

A joint resolution for annexing Texas to the Union was passed March 1, 1845. The third article, of the second section of said resolution reaffirms the Missouri compromise principle in the following words:

"And such States as may be formed out of that portion of the said territory lying south of 36° 30' north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crimes) shall be prohibited."

The joint resolution for the admission of the State of Texas, passed December 29, 1845, admitted the new State, the people thereof having by deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, adopted a constitution, and assented to and accepted the proposals, conditions, and guaranties contained in the first and second sections of

said resolution.

And on the same day an act was approved extending the laws of the United States over the State of Texas.

As a portion of the proceedings of Congress on the annexation of Texas, have an important bearing on the Nebraska question, we extract the following from the Congressional Globe, (page 193,) detailing the action of the House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1845: The question being on the Joint Resolution to admit Texas into the Union,

Mr. Milton Brown, (of Tennessee,) submitted the following as an amendment to it: Strike out amendment of Mr. Weller to the original resolution, and insert as follows: JOINT RESOLUTION declaring the terms on which Congress will admit Texas into the Union as a State. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress

assembled. *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Third, New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter by consent of the said State be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying South of thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, North latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire.

Mr. Douglass, (of Illinois,) asked the gentleman from Tennessee to accept the following as a modification of his amendment, to come in after the last clause:

And in such States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited.

Mr. Brown accepted the modification.

The Speaker announced the question to be on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Vinton called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and resulted thus-yeas 118, nays 101. At page 85 of the same work the following will be found:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Jan. 23, '45.

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the Texas question, Mr. Douglas, (of Illinois,) moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Weller, by substituting therefor the resolutions he had the honor to introduce a few days since. The resolutions of Mr. Douglas are in the following words:

JOINT RESOLUTIONS for the re-annexation of Texas to the United States, in conformity with the treaty of 1803, for the purchase of Louisiana. *

Whereas, &c.

*

8th. And be it further resolved, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect, or in any way interfere with, the sixth section of the act, approved the sixth of March, 1820, admitting the State of Missouri into the Union, and commonly called the Missouri Compromise, that act having been passed and approved prior to the ratification of the treaty commonly called the Texas treaty, by which Texas was ceded to Spain.

14

OREGON TERRITORY.

AUGUST 10, 1848.-The Oregon bill being before the Senate, Mr. DOUGLAS moved an amendment recognizing the Missouri compromise in the following words :

"That inasmuch as the said Territory is north of the parallel of 36° 30' of north latitude, usually known as the Missouri compromise line," &c.

The vote on this amendment was as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Dawson, Fitzgerald, Foster, Hannegan, Houston. Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, and Underwood-33."

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Webster-21.

It will be here seen that every Southern Senator voted for the Missouri compromise line. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

The House of Representatives disagreed to the Senate's amendment (above noted) by a vote of 121 to 82, most of the Southern members voting to concur with the Senate in establishing the Missouri compromise line.

AUGUST 11, 1848.-In the Senate Mr. DOUGLAS moved a committee of conference. The Senate eventually receded from all its amendments, among them that extending the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific, by a vote of 29 to 25-all the Southern Senators present, except Messrs. Benton and Houston, voting against receding.

The bill establishing the Territorial Government of Oregon finally became a law on the 19th of August, 1848, the following clause having been inserted reaffirming the ordinance of 1787, which excludes slavery from all the Northwest Territory:

"Sec. 14. That the inhabitants of said Territory shall be entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges and advantages granted and secured to the people of the territory of the United States north west of the river Ohio by the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the government of said Territory on the 13th July, 1787, and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions and prohibi tions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of said Territory."

This measure was approved by President Polk. The Territory has since been divided, and the Territorial Government of Washington established in 1852.

THE COMPROMISES OF 1850.

EARLY in February, 1850, Mr. Clay presented to the Senate a series of resolutions, which after premising the desirableness for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union, and a settlement of all questions relating to slavery, proposed the following compromise.

1st. That California with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of the Union, without the imposition of any restriction by Congress, in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries.

2d. That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law, either for its introduction or exclusion from any part of said territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in all the said territory not assigned as within the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.

3d. That the western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte. Commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river.

4th. That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for the payment of that portion of the legitimate and bonafide public debt of that State, contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of $

-, in considertion of the said duties so pledged having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States; and upon the condition also, that the said State of Texas shall by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature or of a Convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.

5th. That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners within the District.

6th. That it is expedient to prohibit within the District, the slave trade, in slaves brought into it from states or places beyond the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

7th. That some effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirements of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any state who may escape into any other state or territory in the Union.

8th. That Congress has no power to obstruct, or prohibit the trade of slaves between the slaveholding states; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves, brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.

On the 5th of February, the debate on these resolutions commenced with a powerful speech from Mr. Clay, and was continued by Messrs. Webster, Cass, Seward, Walker, Douglas, Baldwin, Berrian, Butler, Calhoun, Badger, Mason, Hunter, and others.

On the 13th of February, Gen. Taylor, President, transmitted to Congress a message, apprising that body of the organization of the State of California, with an application through her Senators and Representatives, for admission into the Union. It was under a motion to refer this message to the Committee on Territories, that Mr. Calhoun, at that time prostrate with his last illness, prepared a speech which was read to the Senate on the 4th of March, by Mr. Mason, of Va.