of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Mr. S. believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citizens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the necessary consequences of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality. For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, must have the same right to decide whether they would or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were other wise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more rights, privileges, and powers in their respective States, than the citizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this question. "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution, to the federal government, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the applica tion. He would, however, make one other reference to the Constitution, before he proceeded to speak of the practice under it; in the second section of that instrument it was provided, that representatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, threefifths of all other persons." This provision was not restricted to the States then formed, and about to adopt the Constitution; but to all those States which might be included within this Union, clearly contemplating the admission of new States thereafter, and providing. that to them, also, should this principle of representation and taxation equally apply. Nor could he subscribe to the construction, that as this part of the Constitution was matter of compromise, it was to be limited in its application to the original States only, and not to be extended to all those States that might after its adoption become members of the Federal Union; and a practical exposition had been made by Congress of this part of the Constitution, in the admission of Kentucky, Louisiana, | 66 and Mississippi States, all of whom were slaveholding States, and to each of them this principle had been extended. Mr. S. believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the States formed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contemplated by the amendment under consideration, nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the ordinance of '87, to call a convention, and so to alter their constitution as to allow the introduction of Slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a constitution and State government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a constitution for themselves. Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the treaty of cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and 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 enjoy. ment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." This treaty having been made by the competent authority of government, ratified by the Senate, and emphatically sanctioned by Congress in the acts making appropriations to carry it into effect, became a part of the supreme law of the land, and its bearings on the rights of the people had received a practical exposition by the admission of the State of Louisiana, part of the same Territory, and acquired by the same treaty of cession, into the Union. It was in vain for gentlemen to tell him that, by the terms of the treaty of cession, the United States were not bound to admit any part of the ceded Territory into the Union as a State; the evidence of the obligation Congress considered they were under, to adopt States formed out of that Territory, is clearly deducible from the fact, that they had done so in the instance of Louisiana. But, had no State been admitted, formed of a part of the Territory acquired by that treaty, the obligation of the government to do so would not be the less apparent to him. "The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States." The people were not left to the wayward discretion of this, or any other government, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was different and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that they were to form a constituent part of this republic; that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses and national gains; as a Territory they were not an essential part of the government they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the general government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union. Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales of the public lands to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this government, or many of their own? In short, in what had they equal rights, advantages, and immunities with the other citizens of the United States, but in the privilege to submit to a procrastination of their rights, and in the advantage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, and your powers, even without a hearing? Those people were also "to be admitted into the Union as soon as possible." Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that it was the understanding of the parties, that so soon as any portion of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form a State, should contain the number of inhabitants required by law to entitle them to a representative on the floor of this House, that they then had the right to make the call for admission, and this admission, when made, was to be, not on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedient, not on conditions referable to future political views, not on conditions that the constitution the people should form should contain a clause that would particularly open the door for emigration from the North or from the South, not on condition that the future population of the State should come from a slaveholding or non-slaveholding State, "but according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," and none other. The people of Missouri were, by solemn treaty stipulation, when admitted, to enjoy all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. Can any gentleman contend, that, laboring under the proposed restriction, the citizens of Missouri would have all the rights, advantages, and immunities of other citizens of the Union? Have not other new States, in their admission, and have not all the States in the Union, now, privi leges and rights beyond what was contemplated to be allowed to the citizens of Missouri? Have not all other States in this government the right to alter, modify, amend, and change their state constitutions, having regard alone to a republican form? And was there any existing law, or any clause in the Federal Constitution, that prohibit ed a total change from a slaveholding to a nonslaveholding State, or from a non-slaveholding to a slaveholding State? Mr. Scott thought, that if this provision was proper, or within the powers of Congress, they also had the correlative right to say, that the people of Missouri should not be admitted as a state, unless they provided, in the formation of their state constitution, that Slavery should be tolerated. Would not those conscientious gentlemen startle at this, and exclaim, what, impose on those people slaves, when they do not want them? This would be said to be a direct attack on the State independence. Was it in the power of Congress to annex the present condition, Mr. Scott deemed it equally within the scope of their authority to say, what color the inhabitants of the proposed state should be, what description of property, other than slaves, those people should or should not possess, and the quantity of property each man should retain, going upon the agrarian principle. He would even go further, and say, that Congress had an equal power to enact to what religion the people should subscribe; that none other should be professed, and to provide for the excommunication of all those who did not submit. The people of Missouri were, if admitted into the Union, to come in on an equal footing with the original States. That the people of the other States had the right to regulate their own internal police, to prescribe the rules of their own conduct, and, in the formation of their constitutions, to say whether Slavery was or was not admissible, he believed was a point conceded by all. How, then, were the citizens of Missouri placed on an equal footing with the other members of the Union? Equal in some respects-a shameful discrimination in others. A discrimination not warranted by the Constitution, nor justified by the treaty of cession, but founded on mistaken zeal, or erroneous policy. They were to be bound down by onerous conditions, limitations, and restrictions to which he knew they would not submit. That people were brave and independent in spirit, they were intelligent, and knew their own rights; they were competent to selfgovernment, and willing to risk their own happiness and future prosperity on the legitimate exercise of their own judgment and free will. Mr. Scott protested against such a guardianship as was contemplated now to be assumed over his constituents. The spirit of freedom burned in the bosoms of the freemen of Missouri, and if admitted into the national family, they would be equal, or not come in at all. With what an anxious eye have they looked to the east, since the commencement of this session of Congress, for the good tidings, that on them you had conferred the glorious privilege of self-government, and independence. What seeds of discord will you sow, when they read this suspicious, shameful, unconstitutional inhibition in their charter? Will they not compare it with the terms of the treaty of cession, that bill of their rights, emphatically their magna charta? And will not the result of that comparison be a stigma on the faith of this government? It had been admitted by some gentlemen, in debate, that, were the people of Missouri to form a constitution conforming to this provision, so soon as they were adopted into the Union it would be competent for them to call a convention and alter their constitution on this subject. Why, then, he would ask gentlemen, would they legislate, when they could produce no permanent, practical effect? Why expose the imbecility of the general government, to tie up the hands of the State, and induce the people to an act of chicanery, which he knew from principle they abhorred, to get clear of an odious restriction on their rights? Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who professed to be actuated by motives of humanity and principle would not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was unwilling to believe, that political views alone led gentlemen on this or any other occasion; but, from the language of the 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. 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. Aud, whatever might be the ultimate determination of the House, Mr. S. considered this question big with the fate of Cæsar and of Rome. Mr. COBB, of Georgia, observed that he did not rise for the purpose of detaining the attention of the House for any length of time. He was too sensible of the importance of each moment which yet remained of the session to obtrude 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 they suppose that the southern States would submit 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 not. 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 moet 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 section 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 is the end and tendency of the measure proposed? them, and most dangerous in its exercise. What It is to impose on the State of Missouri conditions not imposed upon any other State. It is to deprive her of one branch of sovereignty not surrendered 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 tolerate Slavery in the United States, or in a particular 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 if they were so disposed. It is a branch of soveso alter their constitutions and laws as to admit it, reignty which the old Thirteen States never surrender in the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 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. These words can have no other meaning than that she shall be required to surrender no more of her rights of sovereignty than the other States, into a union with which she is about to be admitted, have surrendered. But if the proposed 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 country which he represented would not quietly submit. 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 enthusiasin 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! sion, that Slavery is an ill, tolerated only from 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. 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, by any process of reasoning, be brought to believe it justifiable to hold others to involuntary servitude, policy forbids that we should increase it. Even the present slaveholding States have an interest, I think, in limiting the extent of involuntary servitude: for, should slaves become much more numerous, and, conscious of their strength, draw the sword against their masters, it will be to the free States the masters must resort for an efficient power to suppress servile insurrection. But we have made a treaty with France, which, we are told, can only be preserved by the charms of Slavery. Mr. LIVERMORE, of N. H., said, I am in favor of the proposed amendment. The object of it is to prevent the extension of Slavery over the Territory ceded to the United States by France. It accords with the dictates of reason, and the best feelings of the human heart; and is not calculated to interrupt any legitimate right arising either from the Constitution or any other compact. I propose to show what Slavery is, and to mention a few of the many evils which follow in its train; and I hope to evince that we are not bound to tolerate the existence of so disgraceful a state of things beyond its present extent, and that it would be impolitic and very unjust, to let it Sir, said Mr L., until the ceded Territory shall spread over the whole face of our Western Ter- have been made into States, and the new ritory. Slavery in the United States, is the con- States admitted into the Union, we can do what dition of man subjected to the will of a master, we will with it. We can govern it as a province, who can make any disposition of him short of or sell it to any other nation. A part of it is taking away his life. In those States where it is probably at this time sold to Spain, and the intolerated, laws are enacted, making it penal to inhabitants of it may soon not only enjoy the comstruct slaves in the art of reading, and they are forts of Slavery, but the blessings of the holy innot permitted to attend public worship, or to hear quisition along with them. The question is on the gospel preached. Thus, the light of science the admission of Missouri, as a State, into the and of religion is utterly excluded from the Union. Surely it will not be contended that we mind, that the body may be more easily bowed are bound by the treaty to admit it. The treatydown to servitude. The bodies of slaves may, making power does not extend so far. Can the with impunity, be prostituted to any purpose, President and Senate, by a treaty with Great and deformed in any manner by their owners. Britain, make the province of Lower Canada a The sympathies of nature in slaves are disre-State of this Union? To be received as a State garded: 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 pretend ing 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 Slavery? If there is any sincerity in our profes 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. 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 to enhance the price of sturdy wretches, reared, like black cattle and horses, for sale on our own plantations. The House bill thus passed, reached the Senate, Feb. 17th, when it was read twice and sent to a Select Committee already raised on a like application from Alabama, consisting of Messrs. Tait of Ga., Morrow of Ohio, Williams of Miss., Edwards of Ill., Williams of Tenn. On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, from this Committee, reported the bill with amendments, strikout the anti-slavery restrictions inserted by the House. This bill was taken up in Committee of the Whole on the 27th, when Mr. Wilson of N. J. moved its postponement to the 5th of March—that is, to the end of the session-negatived: Yeas 14; Nays 23. The Senate then proceeded to vote on agreeing to the amendments reported by the Select Committee, viz. : 1. to strike out of the House bill the following: "And that all children of slaves born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-one years." Which was stricken out by the following vote : YEAS-Against the Restriction: Messrs. Barbour of Va Leake of Miss. Williams of Tenn.-27. NAYS-For the Restriction: Messrs. Burrill of R. I. Morrill of N. H. Wilson of N. J.-7 The bill thus amended was ordered to be one of the Session) read a third time, and engrossed, and was (March 2nd--last day but passed without a division. The bill was on that day returned to the House, and the amendments of the Senate read: whereupon, Mr. Tallmadge of N. Y. moved that the bill be postponed indefinitely. Yeas 69; Nays 74. [The record shows hardly a vote changed from Yea, on the original passage of the Restriction, to Nay now, but many members who voted then were now absent or silent.] The vote was then taken on concurring in the Senate's amendments, as aforesaid, and the House refused to concur: Yeas 76; Nays 78. [Hardly a vote changed; but more Members voting than on the previous division, and less than when the Restriction was carried.] The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a message of non-concurrence; when Mr. Tait moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment, which was carried without a division. The bill being thus remanded to the House, Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved that the House adhere to its disagreement, which prevailed. Yeas 78; Nays 66. So the bill fell between the two Houses, and was lost. The southern portion of the then Territory of Missouri (organized by separation from Louisiana in 1812) was excluded from the proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territory, entitled Arkansas. The bill being under consideration, Mr. Taylor of N.Y. moved that the foregoing restriction be applied to it also; and the clause, proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at twenty-five years of age, was carried (Feb. 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing against the farther introduction of slaves was lost: Yeas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arkansas of course became a Slave YEAS-For striking out the Restriction: Territory and ultimately (1836) a Slave The Senate then proceeded to vote on the residue of the House Restriction, as follows: "And provided also, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The vote on this clause was as follows: Messrs. Barbour of Va. Leake of Miss. Crittenden of Ky. Macon of N. C. Eaton of Tenn. Otis of Mass. Palmer of Vt. Stokes of N. C. Fromentin of La. Talbot of Ga. Gaillard of S. C. Tait of Ga. Goldsborough Md.Thomas of Ill. Van Dyke of Del. Williams of Tenn.-22. State. VII. THE SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE. A new Congress assembled on the 6th of December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Territorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, praying her admis sion into the Union as a State, be referred to a select committee; carried, and Messrs. Scott of Mo., Robertson of Ky., Terrell of |