Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-12-31

tisipate, on that day, the discussion Oh the
subject in another form.
Mr.. Mercer, was sure, from the first, That
nothing like compromise would grow out OIL
the adoption and reference Of the former re-
solution. because one party founded their O.
pinion, honestly he bad no dout, on what they
conceived the solemn obligations OF justice;
and the other party founded theirs on the
solemn obligations Of an oath. AS respected
the discussion Of hissubject, il had bceo re-
.ferred TO the second Monday in January, and
i was considered settled that it would not
come up before. 1t was. therefore. imp'o'
per TO take up the discussion now, IN the alb
sence of many members, who had l"tl here
in confidence that the subject would not be
discussed until iyed day and. in way
too, which would commit the House on The
question -Nhenever mem1erw ished 10
bring in bill, he always gave notice, and
was required TO do so; because solemn
character was given to subject when once
entertained by the House, and it was consi-
dered fair TO give notice. Mr.. M. observed
that his objections TO the resolution grew out
of no hostility TO its object When the qGes
ton proposed should come fairly before the
House, he should support the proposition
Standing here as a Representative of the
people west of the Mississippi, he should re-
cord his vote against suffering The dark cloud
of inhumanity, which now darkend his coun'
try. from rolling on beyond the peaceful
shores OF the Mississippi.
Mr. Taylor rose again TO say that the dis
cussion could not come up without abundant
notice. The bill would take its course at
the foot of the orders, when reported, aud
would come up in its turn. The effect of Mr..
Smiths motion would he to discuss the sub
iecttn ice--first on the resolution in commit
tee OF the whole, and then on the bill itself.
The discussion of the resolution he per-
ceived was superllons-the question could
be fully debated on the bill.
Mr.. Smith said, it certainly could not be
expected that the resolution could be adopt
ed without discussing the whole merits OF
The subject, ina5much as the resolution call
ed the house TO sanction what there was a
difference of opinion on If the question
WAS taken now it would be taking advan-
tage of the absent members.
Mr.. Holmes. of Massachusetts,, did not a
gree with the mover Of this resolution. II
proposed to instruct a committee TO bring IN
4 bill for particular object This PROPOSE.
ton tested The opinion of the House on the
measure because he voted for insructing
committee for any object, it would be ex'
pected OF him to vote for the bill, wien II
should be reported, pursuant to the instruc-
tion-unless he wished to he thought incon'
sstent. To vote for the instruction would
certainly be considered as pledge to sup
port the object of the bill He was not pre-.
pared to say whether he would vote Tor such
bill as the one proposed or not ne melt
ned to think he should not. But he was sa'
tlsfed of one thing. and that was, that this
question was very different from that OF the
Missouri bill and he thought that bill Dug
TO be first acted ONT had been once already
discussed and had priority OF the proposition
now before the House. Mr.. II. observed
that whatever he might think about prohibit
ing slavery in the territories OF the United
States. he could entertain no doubt on the o.
Their question. His mind was fully made up
and settled, that the house had no right to
inhlbit state in this particular. The con-
stilu,ion of the Countrywide treaty OF cession,
settled his opinion on this question, and tor
bad him to hesitate in declaring that Con-
gress had no power TO prohibit the exercise
Of this privilege by the state OF Missouri.
Mr.. Livermore, OF n. II. made few OBJ
servations, the object of which was 10 shew,
that vote in favor OF thi resolution pledg'
ed neither the House, nor the members indl-
viduslIy to vote for any bill which should be
reported in pursuance oft, ifadopted.
MIR. Holmes said be had not commended tina:
a vote for the resolution would absolutely
bind members TO vote for the bill; because
they had right to be inconsistent, if they
chose. IF they were consistent, however,
they would vote for the resolution, if they
did not intend also TO vote for the bill.
The question was then taken on postpo'