The Portland gazette., 1820-02-29

yond the Mississippi formed no part of
the country for whom the great men OF
our nation were then preparing Consti.
tuition. Look back to that day, and facts
will teach us how TO understand that
/. great instrument. All compacts are to
be construed according TO their subject
matter lin reference TO the state Of
things to which they relate. When the
object in view is ascertained and duly
considered, it guides us safelyto the sure
mode of expounding it. But since we
united under our present Constitution a
new event has taken place: the annexa-
ton of the Western World beyond the
Mississippi to the United States. Mis-
souri,, part of this new territory, now
lrays to be admitted as State into the
Union. This seems to me, sir, to present
new question in some respects-a ques-
ton respecting which certain restrictions
in the Constitution arc inapplicable; a
question about which Congress are at
liberty to legislate as they think just and
proper unresirained either by the let
ter or spirit Of the Constitution, respect
ing slavery and the rights founded on.
or incident to it. The present case
stands on ground entirely different from
that of the new States which have been
formed east of the Mississippi. Ineed
not. sir, particularly recite the principles
of the ordinance Of 1897. My Hon.
friend from Pennsylvania has been par
ticular on this head; by this ordinance
slavery was forbidden in Ohio, Indiana,
and Illinois--or rather in the territory
out Of which these States were formed
ofcoursc slavery was interdicted in those
States when they were admitted into the
Union. The case was different with re-
gard to Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississip-
pi and Alabama: they were formed of
parts of slave-holding States, and by
compact Congress had no authority to
intsrdict slavery in them; and of course
is not interdicted. Missouri stands on
different ground. Can Congress inter-
dict the further introduction of slavery
here Ireioice, Mr.. President, in the
firm belief that they have authority so
to do.
By the Constitution it is provided that
Congress may admit new States into the
Union MAY admit them. II is admitted
by all that Congress is not bound 10 ad.
NIT any. Congress must have the row.
er of deciding: they may refuse, end
many cases NAV he imagined in which
it would be foolish in Congress not to
refuse. They may now refuse TO admit
the territory Of Michigan. part of the
old territory Of tie United States; a for.
tori, they may for good cause refuse 10
admit State composed of part Of the
Louisiana purchase. In fact il is ex-
plicitly admitted in argument that Con-
gress has discretionary power to admit
or refuse, to admit State into the Union.
They are now exercising this discretion
as to Maine. We must presume that
Congress will not abuse this discretion /:
hut act with integrity and intelligence.
Congress may borrow money; may de-
clare war may pass law establishing
uniform system of bankruptcy: but
they will not exercise either Of these
powers except when the public good
may require it. If Congress could not
refuse the admission of a State, the ap-
pIication would be no more than form
and little better than farce.
But. sir. il is said that the Congress
have the power to postpone or refuse the
admission of ia State into the Union yet
when they do admit one they cannot
consiitutionally annex any condition to
such admission. cannot accet,e to this
proposition Practice and principle both
seem to me to contradict it. Look sir
to the law admitting the State OF Louisi-
ana into the Union: Several important
conditions are inserted in ii, 10 be per-
formed on the part of the State. The
trial by jury is secured the benefit Of
the Habeas Corpus; the records of a
public nature are required 10 he kept in
the English language and some other
terms Of equal importance, which are
not now distinctly recolleoted. And
yet until this Missouri question (as by
way of eminence it is called) was agi,a-
Il Al s~1,.o, of Ts1.u,o.. 4, = o...a~< ~ =,