Mr. STORRS wished the resolution to lie on the table, for this reason-that he wished gentlemen to have time to obtain the necessary information to enable them to act on the subject. He had himself no information whatever which went to show that Missouri was not in the same situation now that she had been for the few years past, except that her convention had met, and agreed upon a form for her future government. He did not say that he had not heard, out of doors, that she had elected a Governor, Legislature, &c. But he did not wish to proceed to the consideration of this resolution until the information was given to him officially, | on which he was to act. A resolution addressed to the Executive, who was charged with the execution of the laws of the United States, would, he supposed, elicit the necessary information. For aught we know officially, said Mr. S., the officers of the United States in that Territory may be at this moment in the full discharge of all their functions. He could not consent to assume it as a fact, that the authority of the United States in Missouri was in full operation. He could not assume it as a fact, that the President has failed in his duty of appointing a Governor and other officers, in pursuance of the laws. By entertaining this inquiry, said Mr. S., the House would assume, in some degree, the duties of the Executive, and bring us in collision with that department. For his part, he said, he could not consent that this House should thus take upon itself the responsibility which belonged to another department of the Government. Whenever the authority of the United States in Missouri was set at defiance, or whenever, from any cause whatever, the authority of the United States in that Territory should be at an end, he presumed Congress would receive from the Executive department information of it. Until such information was received, he could not agree to consider the subject. When it did come, he reserved to himself to decide what course ought to be taken. But the proper course for gentlemen at the present time appeared to him to be, to call on the Executive to inform the House whether the laws of the United States were at present duly executed in Missouri, &c. If the President should say, in reply, that the laws are not executed, and our authority not in existence, it would then be time enough to refer the subject to a committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL said the time might come, during the present session, when he should not have the smallest objection to this resolution; but, he must be allowed to state, that he did not think the present was the proper time. It was well understood that there were several projects on foot for the admission of Missouri into the Union. When all these failed, he said, he should be as ready as any gentleman to assent to this resolution. If gentlemen were prepared to say that no further efforts would be made to accomplish that object, he was ready to vote for the resolution now. But, he said,

[JANUARY, 1821.

in every quarter of the country, it is anticipated that the discussion will be revived on the resolution from the Senate in the paper from Richmond received to-day, there were two or three letters from Washington to that effect. The understanding was, he believed, that perhaps next week the resolution on the table of the Clerk might be called up and decided on. If every effort should fail for the admission of Missouri, it would be proper to adopt such a resolution as this, but, in his opinion, not till then.

Mr. Foor rose to show, by example, that the motion to lay this resolution on the table was not unprecedented. He agreed fully in opinion with the gentleman from Ohio, that the resolution ought to be laid on the table, and should not agree to take it up again until the resolution from the Senate should have been finally acted on.

Mr. LOWNDES said, a very little reflection would satisfy any one that it was not necessary to postpone this resolution until the other question referred to should be decided. He submitted to the House the consideration, that the report of the committee under this resolution might have considerable influence on the question to be decided on the proposition from the Senate. It appeared to him, he had no hesitation in saying, that no man could vote on the various propositions which had been alluded to, unless his mind was made up on the topics presented by the resolution now before the House. Whilst up, Mr. L. adverted to what had fallen from his friend from New York, who opposed the resolution because we know nothing officially of any change in the actual condition of Missouri. If we knew nothing on that subject, said Mr. L., it would be reason enough for inquiry that there is out-of-door conversation on the subject. We must not act on such information, but was it ever before heard that we must not inquire into any matter because it has been spoken of out-of-doors only? The practice of every day was different. But, if official information was necessary, the House had that information. It had information, from the constitution presented by Missouri, that, at a certain time, the authority of the United States was to determine, and that of a new State to commence. He did not here speak of the question of right in regard to the people of Missouri, but of the question of fact. It was true that there was a question of fact presented by this resolution, but it was also true that there was a question of law, and nothing was more usual than, in regard to questions of law, to refer them to the committee of this House consisting of legal men, constituted to consider such questions, being the committee to which it was proposed to refer this resolution.

Mr. STORRS explained, that he had reserved the question of the expediency of an inquiry into this matter. His objection to acting on the subject now was, that it appeared to him

H. OF R.]

FRIDAY, January 12.

Amendment of the Journal-Missouri Question. The first entry in the Journal of yesterday was read, in the following words:

"Mr. Lowndes presented three memorials of the Senate and House of Representatives of Missourione praying that the purchasers of public lands may be permitted to apply the payments already made to such of their entries as the said payments will cover, at two dollars per acre, relinquishing the residue of the land to the United States-another praying that persons entitled to the right of pre-emption in the purchase of public lands, may be permitted to make payment for said lands within the times heretofore prescribed by law, or prompt payment, at the option of the persons holding such pre-emption right-the other, praying that the right of pre-emption in the purchase of public lands may be extended to certain settlers therein described; which memorials were referred to the Committee on the Public Lands."

Mr. ROBERTSON, conceiving that Missouri had, in this entry, been styled a Territory, objected to her being so styled; but, on examination, finding it was not so, waived a motion he was about to have made to amend it.

Mr. COBB, however, adverting to the terms of the memorial, said, that it appeared to be from the Senate and House of Representatives of "the State of" Missouri, though not so stated in the Journal. Mr. C. moved to amend the Journal in this particular, by inserting the words "the State of," before the word "Missouri."

When the reporter entered the Hall, Mr. BARBOUR was up, arguing in favor of an amendment, which would make the Journal conform to the fact, which, he contended, it did not as it now stood.

Mr. ANDERSON expressed his opinion that the Journal, as it stood, expressed truly the fact of a memorial being presented from Missouri. Though it might have been more distinctly stated, yet the omission of the words proposed to be inserted did not take from Missouri the character of a State, it being a frequent mode of expression in regard to other States, to speak of them without the prefix of the State of." Mr. A. also suggested a wish that his friends should not press the objection they had set up, by way of obtaining a decision of the Missouri question, on a motion to amend the Journal.

Mr. ROBERTSON made some remarks in favor of the motion. The memorials, he said, professed to be from the Legislature of the State of Missouri. If Missouri had not been considered as a State, of course the memorials in that shape would not have been received. Having been received as memorials from the State, why should not the fact be correctly stated on the Journal?

Mr. MOLANE, of Delaware, was in favor of the proposed amendment, on the general ground that, if it took place, the Journal would correspond more precisely with the fact than in its present shape.

[JANUARY, 1821. Mr. WARFIELD said, that a decision in favor of the proposed amendment would not express the sense of the House, either in one way or the other. Conceiving that the entry on the Journal, as it now stood, was an entry of that description which would explain sufficiently what was the nature of the memorial, he was opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, proposed, in order to obviate the difficulty, to insert in the Journal the words "purporting to be," a memorial from the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Missouri, &c.

Mr. Cook was opposed to the proposed amendment. If made, he said, it would decide no principle. If Missouri was not a State, calling her so would not make her so. It would be an equally appropriate amendment to style her the Republic of Missouri, as her convention had styled her in the preamble to the constitution which had been formed for her government, &c.

Mr. Cовв, in reply to a wish which had been expressed, that he would withdraw his motion, said that he could not consent to do it. He wished the Journal to conform, as it ought, to the fact. Three memorials had been presented from a body, organized under a constitution of government, formed by virtue of a law of Congress authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State government. In that shape having been presented, in that and in no other shape could the memorials have been received; and the Journal ought to state the fact as it occurred.

Mr. BALDWIN was sorry, he said, that any discussion should have arisen as to the description of any paper presented to the House in the shape of a memorial. It had been the uniform practice, in making up the Journal, to give to memorialists the name which they themselves assumed. By way of illustration, he referred to the memorial presented at the present session from persons styling themselves the National Institution for the protection of domestic industry, from the delegates of agricultural societies, from the delegates from various interests at Philadelphia, &c., all of which, without investigating the merits of the pretensions of the respective memorialists, had been announced in the Journal in their own language. We pay that respect to petitioners, said Mr. B., that we designate them as they choose to designate themselves. The annunciation on the Journal of their designations, was, properly, a mere recital of what they chose to call themselves. If the principle were now to be introduced, that every person or association of persons were to be held to prove that they really are what they profess to be, it would involve the House in endless difficulties. He was therefore in favor of the amendment proposed by Mr. COBB.

Mr. RANDOLPH, after a preliminary remark or two, not distinctly heard from the pressing of members around him, said that he rose to

JANUARY, 1821.]

introduce a precedent applicable to this occasion, which, he trusted, would be received with all the respect due to so high and transcendental authority. The conduct, said he, which this Government has to this instant pursued towards the State of Missouri, is sanctioned by the conduct which was pursued towards these States when colonies, by His Britannic Majesty and his faithful Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled. What was their language after our independence was declared? What was their conduct which led to the long and bloody war which terminated in the acknowledgment of our independence? The very language which we are holding, and the very conduct we are pursuing towards Missouri. The parallel, said Mr. R., runs on all fours. In our extreme tenderness for the rights and privileges of the colored citizens, we have already brought into jeopardy the rights and privileges of our white fellow-citizens as well as of those colored ones who are the objects of our solicitude. Mr. R. said he had intended to abstain, as he had until now abstained, from taking any part or lot in this affair. But when he saw the Congress of the United States pursuing a course of conduct in servile imitation of the British Parliament, he could no longer refrain. He would stake his salvation, he said, dear to him as that was, that, if the constitution of Missouri had contained an inhibition of slavery, the House would never have heard of the objection now raised to it; and, were he to engage in the discussion of it, he would take that ground. However that might be, he said, it was a more important matter that the Journals of this House should contain the truth. An honorable member behind him had uttered the sentiment, the other day, that it was proper that petitions to this House should contain the truth. It was of infinitely more importance, Mr. R. said, that the Journal should contain the truth; and he pronounced that the Journal for yesterday, in its present mutilated, mangled, and garbled state, did not speak the truth. It holds out that, said he, which we know to be false. And is it a mere matter of form that we should send out to the people, as the record of our proceedings, a paper which contains, on the face of it, a palpable and atrocious falsehood?

Mr. LITTLE called for the reading of the memorial; it was read in part, when Mr. L. expressed himself satisfied, and said he was sorry the Chair had departed from the uniform practice and regular rule in recording the proceedings of the House.

Mr. RHEA was in favor of the proposed amendment. It was the duty of the House, he thought, to see that facts were correctly stated on the Journal This House had, in its public acts, styled Missouri a State; and why should she not be so called on the Journal? He read the caption of one of the memorials to show that it purported to be from the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Missouri, in General Assembly, &c. The Journal,

[H. OF R.

he said, ought to describe the memorial as it really was.

The question on Mr. COBB's motion was then taken-yeas 76, and nays 76.

The years and nays being equal in number, the SPEAKER declared his vote with the nays. So Mr. COBB's motion was rejected.

The vote

On this result being declaredMr. PARKER, of Virginia, rose. which had just been taken, he said, was, with a few exceptions, of that geographical character which had marked the whole proceedings in regard to Missouri. For his own part, he said, he did not at first consider this question as involving any matter of principle; but, being a new member, he had referred to the Journal, and he found that, in all cases of memorials from States, they have been stated to be from States; and that the same uniformity of practice prevailed as to memorials from Territorial legislatures. He saw no reason why a deviation from this uniformity of practice should have occurred in this particular instance of Missouri, and not in any other. There was, he said, something in it he did not say what it was-but he was for consistency, at all events, in the records of the Congress of the Union. He was for the records of this House speaking, in the words of the law, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Under this impression, as the House had refused to acknowledge Missouri to be a State, and as she must be a territory, if she be not a State, he moved to insert in the Journal, before the word "Missouri," the words "the Territory of."

Mr. BRUSH objected to this amendment, for reasons which he assigned at length. He was of opinion that Missouri was constitutionally and politically a State, and not a territory. But, as it was the custom of this Government to give to its territories a first and second grade of government, preparatory to their assuming the rank of a State of the Union, he did not see why it could not give to them a third, fourth, or fifth grade of government. He considered Missouri to be in a grade between territorial dependence and the condition of a member of the Union; which idea he illustrated by reference to the situation of the State of Vermont, before she adopted the Federal Constitution.

Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, apprehended that this proposition would operate as a trap question, producing embarrassment without benefit, and expressed his hope that the mover would withdraw it.

Mr. LIVERMORE made a few remarks to this effect: that the House ought to regard the substance and not the shadow; that the name was of no importance to the actual condition of Missouri. When the question should present itself in a proper form, he was ready to decide it; but it could not be affected, either in one way or the other, by the appellation which should be given to Missouri on the Journal of this House.