Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-02-05

C",' u" "'ueT I'D separate missouri from
~, being under consideration
Mr.. LLOYD, OF Maryland, expressed
his hope that the motion which had
been made bv The gentleman from Penn
sylVania would moi prevail. He had moi
been sufficiently long member of this
BODY io know precisely the usual mode of
proceeding in cases of this kind but he
should have thought the more direct
course would have been TO move TO strike
out the amendment, instead of moving a
rfconlml'ment. This, however, was mai
Ter "i form he objected to the motion
on principle. II had becn said the two
SUBJECTS were different in their nature
MS, Mr.. l.. did not admit. WhaI, asked
ne Is ,iie question presented by the bill
ana me proposed amendment? Ii is
ms :-Siali Maine aud Missouri be adj.
mi'ied- INTO the Union on an equal foot.
ing with the original states e? Could there.
ne asked, be a palmer quesiion-could
'here he two subjects more intimately
connected, or IN principle more nearly
aiiied, than The two embraced i'm this
question We may imagine, said he, as
mary distinctions between the two eases
as We plesse ; but, if We comfinc ourselves
10 'he power granted TO us by the con
S'ilution, we have but one course 10 pur-
sue-"hich Is, to admit both The states,
OH ne same terms, into the Union.
Mr. l.. readily admitted that. as gen
erai course, IL Was highly improper 10
TACK together Questions depending on
difit rent principles. and relying on differ
eh' arguments for their support. He
denied, however, that this was such a
case. He affirmed, that if the Senate
had right To impose restrictions upon
MlSSnIlrI fhpxy h.L In IL,
gard TO Name, but ne power over The
one which they bad not over the other
Ii Tie novel doctrine, which had been
recently announced. of the restrictions
and provisos on the admission OF new
states, was 10 prevail, how much must
massachusetts and Name have relied on
HE liberaiily OF Congress, in forming
constitution without previously obtaining
me consent OF Congress, and III suppoS-
ing ihey were 10 be admitted into the
Cnion on their own terms How did
they Know, SAID Mr.. l.. but We might I'M
pose restriction upon Maine, 10 compel
her 10 admit slavery within her limits 3
III we nave right to impose a negative
condition in regard to Missouri, We have
a correspondents and equal right TO i'm
pose an affirmative condition i'm regard
10 Maine. Bat, in this case, il seemed
that every thing liberal was 10 be con-
coded IN regard TO Maine, and every
thing illiberal, in his view of it, was To- be
demanded of Missouri
Win regard TO the time limited for the
admission of Maine by The law of Mas
sachnseiis. said Mr. l. are we by such
consideration 10 be hurried into tie dis
cussion OF AN important constitutional
question! Because the people OF Maine
had not foresight enough 10 rake sutfici-
EN- Tine Tor The contamination of the act
OF admission, are We Ia lrgislate precip-
ialeiy ana without regard 10 the true
interests OF the UuIon He presumed
not. There was al least nothing in this
consideration TO change the nature of the
question before The Se,Iaic.
In his opinion, MIR. l.. said, Congress
possessed the power to admit Maine into
the union or not but, if admitted, i,
must be Internationally and the same
might be said of Missouri Ii appeared
TO hI3', then, that the cases which were
connected by The report OF the committee
rested upon the same principles for sup
port that II Justice was done 10 one, ii
must be equally dispensed 20 the other ::
ana There couln be no improperly in a
course which had Tor IFS object 10 place
both OH the same footing. This uucs-
ti0H lie considered not TO be ~ all affect
ed by the argument thai Maine was
formed out Of d state heretofore i'm the
UnloD| She had no higher claim than
missouri each possessed the conslltu-
iionaI requisites, and nothing more was
required 10 place them on tie same
ground. When the states of Kentucky
and Vermont were admitted, Mr.. l.. said.
although u was true they we're admitted
by separate acts, still the provision for
the representation OF the two states IN
Congress Was made by the same act !:
and the same THle which Was then applied
would apply with equal prOprirly in The
present case. BY such a CONNECTION OF
The two subjects, all invidious discrimi-
nation would be avoided between The
Two cases, which did not differ in prin.
clPle, and ought not 10 De separated IN
! fact.
Mr.. J.. said, he presumed il would be
| improper, on the question as now pre-
| seuted TO the consideration OF Tie Senate.
| To- enter IHiO an argument on The urr,,ri.
| ETY., or 10 touch on the policy of imposing
| restrictions IN any new state. lie musi
Therefore defer for the present any Obsrr.
vaiions on that question. But. TOR lis
own part, he SAID, he was on that point
| precisely ia the sane situation as the
gentleman from massachusetts, i've found
no diihculiy IN deciding on IT, lie con
sidered 1t q question OF poiicy whether or
not particular state should be Admitted
INTO the Union and, when lie WAS called
| upon TO admit one state and 10 reject
another unless he would consent fn ira
pose upon her novel and uucOnsillujiena
continuous, lie must of course deeid,
whether I've would admit the one and re
fuse Tie other: and, said lIe, unless 10,
same justice be dealt To- al, is shall. q.
Tar rs my vote will dccideii, be measured
io n0he. II was question OF policy. n.
4 rPug.sfpd al of sor,,..-