of an act of Congress. The constitution of Missouri is entirely silent on this point, although some of its language could not be understood without referring to the act of Congress authorizing a convention; they declare that they establish, ratify, and confirm, certain boundaries, but they nowhere recognise the authority which prescribed these boundaries to them. Mr. B. repeated, that he thought Congress ought not to vary from the former mode of declaring its assent to the admission of new States. They would have to admit other States hereafter, and a departure now from the practice of the Government in receiving the constitutions of new States, would form a precedent which might in future cases be deplored.

DECEMBER, 1820.

not a slave or a foreigner-but born in the United States, and a free man-going into Missouri, he has the same rights as if born in Missouri; after complying with the conditions prescribed by the laws to qualify him for the exercise of these rights, he stands precisely on the same footing, and his rights are in every respect the same as if he had been born there. The question then was, Mr. B. said, had the people of Missouri the Constitutional right to prohibit from entering that State a large class of persons who were citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? To establish the negative of this proposition, Mr. B. adduced various other arguments in addition to the preceding, and endeavored to show that even many laws of But proceeding to the question, whether this the United States would become inoperative in constitution was such an one as ought to be ac- Missouri, if the clause which he opposed could be cepted, Mr. B, said his objection to it arose on the maintained in force; and, as an instance, he refollowing clause, which he found in the 26th sec-ferred to the laws against kidnapping. In regard tion of the 3d article: "That it shall be the duty to this crime of kidnapping, Mr. B. remarked, the ' of the General Assembly of the State, as soon as constitution of Missouri had done nothing; for, 'may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary according to it, all people of color who are car(among other things) to prevent free negroes and ried there must, ipso facto, be slaves, inasmuch as 'mulattoes from coming to and settling in this a free negro could in nowise go there, admitting 'State, under any pretext whatsoever." This the clause to have its full effect. clause Mr. B. conceived to be entirely repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. It prohibits a very large class of persons from entering the State at all; it does not say what shall be done when they get there, but it peremptorily prohibits their entering it under any pretext whatsoever. Even if soldiers of the United States, people of this proscribed class cannot enter Missouri without violating the constitution of the State. It was well known, Mr. B. said, that we have colored soldiers and sailors, and good ones, too, but under no pretext, whether of duty or any other motive, can they enter Missouri. He did not suppose if people of this description, in the service of the country, should enter the State, it would be attempted by the State authorities to exclude them; but it was sufficient, he thought, to show the unconstitutionality of the clause.

Great difficulty seemed to arise in deciding the question, as to what constituted citizens in the different States. Citizens of one State were entitled to the rights of citizens of all the States; yet the different States exercised the power of prescribing certain probationary rules to those coming from another State, to entitle them to all the privileges. If a citizen of Massachusetts removes to another State, he cannot vote as soon as he enters it-a certain residence is required of him-and the people of Missouri were competent by law to impose a residence of one or more years on a citizen going there, to entitle him to all the privileges of citizens of the State; he complies with no more than is exacted of all, and which the State has a right to require. This was a question, however, which they did not touch; they avoided it altogether, and have declared that a certain class shall not come into their State at all, even though they may be citizens of other States, enjoying all the privileges of such.

Mr. B. did not himself conceive it difficult to define what constituted a citizen. If a person was

Mr. B. said he was not prepared at present to affirm that Missouri might not pass laws to prohibit persons from carrying there negro or mulatto convicts, or perhaps foreigners from coming into the State; this was a question on which no opinion now was necessary; but he contended that the clause as it stood prohibited the entrance of a large portion of people who were, to all intents and purposes, citizens in other States. Admit the legality of this clause, and, Mr. B. said, the Legislature of Missouri might, with the same right, go still further, and pass laws to exclude citizens born in certain portions or districts of the United States. This was a measure, he argued, which one independent nation could not adopt towards another. England could not pass such a law against the people of France, or of any other friendly nation; such a measure would be too offensive to be borne, and would be considered to amount almost to a declaration of war. tinct and independent nations dare not enact such laws towards each other, how was it possible, Mr. B. said, that the power could be exercised by one of these States towards other States of the Union?

If dis

All the distinctions among citizens which arise from color, rested, Mr. B. said, on State laws alone-there was nothing in the Constitution of the United States which recognised distinctions. In Massachusetts there was no distinction; a man of color possessed there precisely and identically the same rights as a white man born in the same State, and he asked if it was possible for Missouri, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, to exclude any of those people from that State, who should think proper to remove from Massachusetts to Missouri? The States of this Union were not distinct and independent nationsthey are, said Mr. B., a confederacy of kindred republics; when they formed their constitution of government, they used the language, "we, the people of the United States," and it is not in the

power of one of the members of this confederacy to enforce the clause Missouri has adopted, and it is the duty of Congress to reject it.

Mr. B. said he would add nothing more about the right of Congress to decide this question; he would merely say, Congress must from necessity decide it; it must admit the members of Missouri; in that act the question was involved, and they were obliged, therefore, to decide it. It was useless, therefore, to talk of referring the question to the judiciary. As Congress "might admit new States into the Union, it was clear to his mind that Congress must determine the conditions on which they should come in.

Mr. B. said he would offer a few words as to the dangers which were apprehended by some gentlemen from a rejection of the constitution offered by Missouri. What were the consequences, Mr. B. asked, which would follow the rejection? The only one which he could perceive was, that Missouri must remain one year longer out of the Union. Was this such a hardship? And to avoid this trifling consequence, must we, said Mr. B., give a vote which will violate the Constitution we have sworn to support, and which we are all so deeply interested in maintaining? As a Territory the people of Missouri had gone on, he said, very prosperously, and no great inconvenience could result from continuing in the territorial condition one year longer. It is said they have formed a constitution, and under it have elected a Governor and Legislature, and, having assumed the functions and character of a State, if they are not now admitted into the Union, they will go on without our consent. Mr. B. said he presumed the people of Missouri felt the same attachment to the Union, and to the tranquillity, and honor, and glory of it as we do; and he would not believe, he would not do them the injustice to believe, that rather than endure the small inconvenience of retaining the territorial character a few months more, they would rashly throw away all the interest they had in the greatness and glory of their country. They might possibly still think that their constitution ought not to have been rejected on account of this offensive clause, and may feel some excitement on the occasion; yet they must see the necessity and propriety of some sacrifice to the conscientious opinion of Congress, and would consent to qualify their constitution in the objectionable feature. But, said Mr. B., if we ratify it as it is, we establish a precedent and admit a point that the judiciary will never be able to overthrow; do not then leave to another tribunal the decision of a question which belongs to us, but let us meet and decide it ourselves.

If the constitution were not accepted, Mr. B said it would be easy to obviate any difficulty by passing an additional act authorizing the people of Missouri to form another convention and revise their constitution; and he was confident this odious feature would be expunged. These people, Mr. B. said, were not Missourians, properly so distinguished, but were Americans, collected there from all the States, the same people as ourselves. They would appreciate the motives of Congress,

SENATE.

and do them justice; they would recollect, also, that this act passed in a spirit of compromise and accommodation, from a desire to preserve peace and quietness in every part of the Union; and reassembling with such views, finding the clause could do no good, they would repeal it. Sanction this improper clause now, said he, and you sanction it for all time to come; and however we may desire hereafter to avoid it, it will be irrevocably established.

Mr. B. said, the little he had spoken had exhausted his strength, and he could add nothing more if he wished to do so.

When Mr. B. had concluded

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, intimated an intention of replying to Mr. B.; but, as he would have to refer to several constitutions and other authorities, in the course of his argument, he asked a short time to prepare them, and moved the postponement of the subject until to-morrow; which motion prevailed, and it was postponed accordingly.

FRIDAY, December 8.

Mr. PLEASANTS presented the memorial of Charlotte I. Bullus, widow of John Bullus, deceased, late navy agent for the port of New York, praying that the accounting officer of the Navy Department may be directed to credit the account of the deceased at the rate of $2,000 per annum during the time he performed the extra duties of navy agent on the Lakes; and the memorial was read, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. SMITH presented the memorial of the citizens of Charleston, South Carolina, protesting against any increase of the duties at present imposed on imported goods; and the memorial was read, and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. ROBERTS presented the memorial of Paul Beck, junior, and Thomas Sparks and others, of Philadelphia, manufacturers of, and dealers in, shot, praying that an additional duty may be laid on imported shot; and the memorial was read, and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. HOLMES, of Mississippi, presented the petition of John M. Whitney and John Snodgrass, in behalf of the legal representatives of Alexander Montgomery, deceased, praying that a law may be passed directing a warrant to be issued to them for a quantity of land in Mississippi, as an indemnity for a like quantity of their land improperly disposed of by the Register and Receiver of the Land Office west of Pearl river; and the petition was read, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. PINKNEY presented the petition of Rebecca Hodgson, widow of Joseph Hodgson, deceased, praying remuneration for the loss of the house burnt in the year 1800, whilst occupied by the Government as the War Office; and the petition was read, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on Public

Lands, to whom was referred the bill from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to amend the act, entitled 'An act for the relief of the legal representatives of Henry Willis," reported the same without amendment; and, on motion by Mr. EATON, the Senate proceeded to consider the said bill, as in Committee of the Whole, and, no amendment having been proposed thereto, the President reported it to the House; and it passed to a third reading.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Morgan Brown, made a report, accompanied by a bill for the relief of Morgan Brown; and the report and bill were read, and the bill passed to a second reading.

The bill for the relief of John Holmes was read the second time.

The bill, entitled "An act to provide for paying to the State of Illinois three per cent. of the net proceeds arising from the sale of the public lands within the same," was read the third time, and passed.

ADMISSION OF MISSOURI.

The Senate then resumed the consideration of the resolution declaring the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, addressed the Senate, as follows:

He observed that, on any subject, however interesting it might be, he could not flatter himself with a hope that he could entertain the Senate. But, what he had to offer at present, on this very important occasion, would consist very much of references, and he feared might prove tedious; therefore he felt more necessity than on most occasions to ask for a little patience and their kind indulgence.

The resolution declaring the admission of Missouri into the Union, he thought, was nothing more than a matter of form, and might be dispensed with. He had examined the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives for the course heretofore pursued by Congress on the admission of new States into the Union, and found it had been various. He would give their history. Vermont was the first new State admitted after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. On the 9th of February, 1791, President WASHINGTON laid before Congress documents received from the Governor of Vermont, expressing the consent of the Legislature of New York, and of the Territory of Vermont, that the said territory shall be admitted to be a distinct member of our Union.(1) On the 18th of the same month, (2) an act of Congress was approved for the admission of Vermont into the Union, without any of this formality, ́that her constitution should be republican, &c. The act says, "Vermont, having petitioned Congress, &c., on the 4th day of March, &c., shall 'be received and admitted into this Union, as a

(1) Senate Journal, 241.

(2) Public Laws, 2d vol. page 193.

DECEMBER, 1820.

new and entire member of the United States of 'America." (1) On the 31st of October following, Mr. Robinson took his seat in the Senate, (2) and on the 4th of November Mr. Bradley took

his seat.

There was no constitution either submitted to, or required by, Congress. Nor were there any traces of a constitution of that new State to be found previous to the 9th of July, 1793. Congress never supposed at that day they had a power to require a constitution from a new State coming into the Union, nor to examine if such constitution was republican. Mr. S. said he knew very well that the people of that respectable State contend it was one of the original States. We know of none but thirteen original States. Vermont would have made fourteen; and it was treated of, and so called at the time, as a territory. It was detached from New York, and, by the express consent of the Legislature of New York, she was received into the Union.

Kentucky was the next new State admitted into the Union. (3) On the 18th of December, 1789, and after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the Legislature of Virginia passed the act authorizing Kentucky to form a separate State. (4) On the 4th of February, 1791, Congress passed an act of consent that Kentucky should become a separate State, and be admitted into the Union on the first day of June, 1792. On the 19th of April, 1792, its constitution was formed, but was never submitted to Congress. (5) On the 5th of November, 1792, Messrs. Brown and Edwards, as Senators from that State, took their seats in the Senate, without even an inquiry for a constitution.

Tennessee formed her constitution on the 6th of

February, 1796. This was the first constitution of a new State submitted to Congress. There does not appear to have been any reference made of this constitution to any committee, or any other order taken upon it. There is to be found in the debates of the 5th and 6th of May, 1796, an objection made to one provision of that constitution, inasmuch as it was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. This objection was made by a member from South Carolina, and was replied to by Mr. Baldwin of Georgia, "that, if repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, it was a nullity, because the Constitution of the United States was paramount." And this appears to have put an end to the objection.

Ohio was the next new State adopted into the Union. (6) On the 30th of April, 1802, the law and State government. On the 29th of Novempassed authorizing Ohio to form a constitution ber, 1802, she formed her constitution. (7) On the 7th January, 1803, it was laid before the Senate, and was referred to a committee, which never re

(1) Vide 1 vol. new ed. Senate Journal, 332.
(2) Ib. 336.

(3) Laws of the U. S. 3d vol. 191.
(4) Ib. 192.

(5) Vide Journal, 451.

(6) Laws of the U. S. vol. 3d, page 496.
(7) Vide Senate Journals.

DECEMBER, 1820.

Admission of Missouri.

ported on it. (1) On the 19th of February, 1803, Congress passed a law "to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the State of Ohio." In this last law it is declared that, by the law of 30th April, 1802, authorizing the people of the Territory of Ohio to form a constitution and State government, Ohio had become one of the United States of America. This law says nothing about her being admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; but simply says, "whereby the said State has become one of the United States of America."

Louisiana was authorized, by an act of Congress of the 20th of February, 1811, to form a constitution and State government, and formed her constitution on the 28th January, 1812. (2) On the 8th of April, 1812, was admitted into the Union by a law. This was the first State admitted with formality. The new mode of declaring this State to be admitted, by law, seems to have been dictated from motives of interest. Louisiana had within her limits the Mississippi and other valuable navigable rivers. By that law, which admits her into the Union, the free navigation of all those rivers is secured forever to all the old States, free from "any tax, duty, impost, or toll;" whilst the old States retain the right to these exactions, and some of them do actually exact it. The State of New York now exacts, as a toll, one dollar upon every passenger in the steamboats that go up the North river, and derives from that source an immense revenue, laying the whole United States under contribution; whilst her own citizens are navigating the Mississippi and its waters, under the act of Congress, without being subjected to any such duty. And this is what they have been pleased to call admitting her "into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever."

Indiana was admitted into the Union by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, on the 11th of December 1816; but its history proves beyond a doubt that it was considered a State, to all intents and purposes, before the resolution passed. An act in the usual form had passed for its admission; and it had, by a convention, formed a constitution on the 20th of June, 1816. Congress assembled on the 2d of December, 1816; on that day the House of Representatives admitted Mr. Hendricks, the member elect, to take the oath of office, and take his seat in the House. On the 4th, the resolution originated in the Senate; on the 6th it passed; was sent to the House on the 9th, and passed that day-eight days after the member had been admitted to his seat; nor had the House of Representatives ever taken up the subject at all. On the 11th, the resolution was approved. Here, it is evident there was a great falling off in vigilance; but, it is to be remarked, we were going north about. Louisiana could not be admitted by any thing less solemn than a law. Indiana did not require a resolution, for the House of Repre

(1) Laws U. S. page 524.
(2) Laws U. S. vol. 4, page 402.

SENATE.

sentatives at least. On the 12th of February, 1817, the Presidential votes were counted in the Representatives' Chamber, whither the Senate, in a body, had gone for that purpose. All the votes of the several States were counted, except the votes of Indiana. Here Mr. S. said, he would read from the Journals of the House of Representatives, what passed on that occasion, as there were several gentlemen of the Senate who had taken their seats since. (1)

Mr. S. said, in consequence of this proceeding, the Senators had a very solemn procession down the stairs and up again, and there it ended; for they unanimously concurred in considering it so frivolous that they forbid it a place on the Journals. The Electors of President and Vice President were elected by the State of Indiana, and the electoral votes given before the resolution was offered for its admission into the Union. This act was solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress. It was the highest act which a State, in its political capacity, can perform. Who, then, can doubt for a moment that Indiana was a State, as perfect as it is possible for this Government to make? If Indiana was so, why should not Missouri be so, under the same circumstances? It cannot be doubted. She is a State, and you cannot disfranchise her. But, it is said she cannot be admitted into the Union, because her constitution is repugnant to the Constitution of the United

(1) Journal H. R. 2d session, 14th Congress, pages 385, 386, 387.

"When the President of the Senate was about to open the votes of that State, for the purpose of having the same counted,

"Mr. Taylor, one of the Representatives from the State of New York, rose, and objected to the same, and stated that, in his opinion, the votes of the Electors of Indiana, for President and Vice President, ought

not to be received.

motion of one of its members, withdrew; and, being "Upon which objection being made, the Senate, on absent, a resolution was then submitted by Mr. Sharp, in the following words:

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, &c., That the votes of the Electors for the State of Indiana for President and Vice President of the United States, were properly and legally given, and ought to be counted.

A motion was made by Mr. Taylor, of New York, to amend the said resolution, by striking out all thereof after the enacting clause, and inserting the following: That the votes of the Electors of the State of Indiana, for President and Vice President of the United States, having been given previous to the admission of that State into the Union, ought not to be received and made by Mr. Ingham, that the resolution be postponed counted.' And debate arising thereon, a motion was indefinitely. And the question being taken thereon, it passed in the affirmative.

"The Senate again attended, &c. And the President of the Senate, in the presence of both Houses, proceeded to open the certificates of the Electors of the State of Indiana, which he delivered to the tellers, by whom it was read, and who took lists of the votes therein enclosed."