Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-02-10

y
ces forinfOrmation, and gentlemen would
find as much Massachusetts bleod was
spin IN The late war, as of any other state
in the Union.
Mr.. SMITH said he had no inientnu
to raise the nonourable gentleman's feei.
ings-bui was very glad 10 be informed
on the subject from authority SO sails.
factory, OH this point, as thai Of the bou
Durable gentleman.
MIR. ROBERTS said he thought il in.-
portant 10 bring back the attention of live
Senate to the question actually before il.
tie dlselalmed any intention, by his mo-
ton, To censure any member for HE
course he had taken but, in order To
come 10 a separate decision on the TWO
subjects, he was DESTROYS of disconnecfisg
lhem-and his motion was the regular
one for that purpose. He was willing 10
consider both the bills on The same day.
bu, he did not wish them 10 be connected.
Mr.. *. made various remarks on the poin;
OF order, going 10 show the uon-co2ior-
nifty ofihe report oithe committee la lie
practice of the house. With respec; 10
the surprise expressed BY his friend from
North Carolina al his Mr.. r. havirs
made the motion now under discussion.
MIR. X. said he had thought there was g
peculiar.proprieiy IN bis dong il, from his
having no immediate personal interest IN
II, as The representatives from Massarhu-
sells might be supposed 10 have. With
regard 10 preparation for the question, he
assured the Senate that lie lad made ;be
motion without consultation or advice
with any other member, &c. lie again
arged the proprieiy OF Disseminating the
Two subjects. As respected the Missouri
question, lie said, he was ready, If his
Judgment did not mislead him, or his in
formation was not incorrect, 10 shew hat
there were restrictions in the bill which
showed the absurdity of tire argument
that the restriction which had been allnd-
ed TO was contrary 10 the treaty, &c. He
might fail in this object, but such was his
confidence on that question, and that too
after full examination OF il, that lie was
| as ready as them 10 come 10 the poins--
He doubted whether. on that question:
| even The fascinaiiOns OF genius could lead
him Tor Il moment astray. On this point
he said no more but, as 10 The question
! Immediately before toe Senate, he might
| ask, as a matter OF courtesy, rs a member.
tina, the question should be divided bus
he preferred 20 ask il as matter of rigLi,
due TO the magnitude OF the subipcis
involved.
| Mr.. DANA, of Connecticut, concluded
the Debate by some remarks on "a point
| which had not been adverted TO by o:hcfs,
| or, he said, he would not have spoken -
! He objected TO the course proposed by
| The report OF the select committee and
was in favor of recommitmen,. Mine
states, he said. had ALREADY been admitted
into the Union since The adoption eff fine
constitution aud in no case had there
been connection Of two in one bill and
ihs for a very good reason. An act i,e
| the admission o! a state into the Union.
| (Sai.i Mr.. D. is entirely distinct irou al
other objects oilegiSlaiien. Ii is "a question
whether we will admit a new associate in
The empire. Ii is an individual case in i'll
very nature. Ii Is not a case for which
we can provide by ii general law. We can
no more do that by general law, ilian We
can, by such law, declare whether mem~
bcrs are duly entitled TO "A seat on This
floor, so as 10 supersede the necessity OF
| examining the credentials in each parii.
cular case. The House Of Represenis-
tlves, Mr.. ID. said, had, in It's legislation,
with very great prOprleiS, coniinSd Itself
TO The question whether single state
be admitted. 1t was in vain 10 ranSack
the annals of Legislation. ancient or mo.
| dcrn, for any analogy 10 The case bow
| before the Senate. IL could only have ex-
IsfSd III our history and in thai there
was no example OF the nnloH of iwo states
III one aci Of admission and MIR ID. said
they oaghi not To he united. II The pro :
vision we're not made in The constitution.
Tor the admission of new states, ihe gene-
raj power OF Legislation would not have
extended 10 il. Mr.. ID. cited the case of
Kentucky, as precisely analogous TO That
OF Maine and showed that MassaclII-
seits had followed, in her assent, &c. TO
the independence of Maine, The example
sci by Virginia. There had been case.
he sad, III which, al The same session OF
Congress, Ome territory had been admit
ted into Tie Union, and another auihoriz-
| ed 10 form constitution of slate gOyPrn-
ment; but ilIe idea was never suggested
OF uniting them both in one act Tie fact
being, that ihe reasons Of The Two acts
we're moi The same. On the ground HAT
acts OF this description were entirely dill
icrcnt from all ordinary acts of legislation,
and must ~ their nature be limited 10
particular objects, II was az improper iu
combine these Two questions, as 10 COM
bue tie questions whether two persons
were distinctly qualified to Represent
particular STATES in Ibis body.
Another consideration presented iiscil
TO him; wlether there might not be es-
tablshed system, By which, M ibe first
place, Tic public lands west of Tie
Mississippi should be exposed 10 sale
afterwards distributed into teIriiotie.
sufficient for states, &c.--tlus marking
oui at once d whole system. Helboughj
The subject Of the admission OF Missouri
had not had that full examination il VA.
entitled 10. II was proposed 10 com.
prehend, within the boundaries Of tie BeU
state, the Mississippi, the Missouri, the
Usage, Tie waters ofKsnsas; thus giyint