Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-16

ihoIiiies 10 which we refer for light in
difficult cases of construction of The cnn /
sii,ution, II WAS said that this very clause |
was HE 4" basis at the union." Strange, |
indeed, that this clause should have |
been considered the basis of The union,
aud set so equivocal that a construction |
could not be given TO Al ~ l
II there was difficulty in defining pre-
cisely the scope Of HAT clause OF The
constitution, there could be none in The
deciding that il does give thr cIi'zeus Of
each state-in The union The humblesl and
lowest righ, enjoyed by free mau. Did
any one doubt, Mr.. $. asked. tina, this
clause gives TO citizens of every state the
Tree right 10 go into any other stale, 10
return, or TO remain there Ii that Was
denied, then he would agree that This
clause oil the constitution WAS all words
! and no mesning.-E then, was The
very point OF this quesiiOn.--lf the CON
| sliiuilou OF the state of Missouri has, ci-
| ther by us own positive provisions, or by
erjoining il on lis legislature, excluded
| altogether from tlie state of Missouri sny
man who is citizen OF anoiher state in
tins aniou, then II is Impossible 10 recon-
| ciie that constitutions Ia The constitution
| oi The United States. Ii would be "a de-
| nance, which WAS " orse than resistance
1
| Is II had been intentional hat Mr. S. ac.
! Quilted Missouri OF any such intention.
Mr.. ). declined going into The question
bow FAR state had hight 10 make laws
nnh regard tO Il certain class of persons
referred io III the objected clause of the
| Missouri constitution. He briefly exam
| med HE suggestions OF MIR. Lswnies
! That that clause did not in,eud 10 exclude
| SUCH persons as 1ere citizens IN other
states, but The clause itself, Mr. S. said,
, made no distinction of classes, but ex-
tended equally 10 both classes. MiSsou-
~ nilgli make the distinction If she CLOSE.
| Was II Tor congress 10 make an exception
| tor her which sIe did not chuse 10 make
| herself, aud which the legislature of Mis-
s"uri might not chuS 10 consider "a any
| part OF that clause of The constitution q
| Congress had no right 10 Interpret for
Their own meaning Mr. S. then went on
TO show III what states free persons OF
color we're citizens, and mentioned y.
Carolina, Ne" York aud Massachusetts
among them. To make them citizens in
any s'ate,li Was not necessary they should
| 'aye right 10 vote, as MIR. S showed,
| by various reicren es. That more Than
| NAN me "hite men IN some OF our states
din mol vote, because they we're not iree-
! holders; yet no one would deuy fliegi 10
| DE ciIZShS ol those states, &c.
| Ii "as the humble, simple privilege of
| locomoilsn only That was now claimed for
| these persons; II was right indispensa.
bic 10 ciiZeusliip. and il was ali that was
asked Tor IN the present case. If there
WAS amy way IN which a citizen OF one
STATE can enjoy all the privileges and ina
muniiies OF citizen OF another stale,
and yet not he permitted 10 set his fool in
II, Mir ). SAID BE- should be glad 10 be
informed OF it. With respect 10 III RICH,
OF Mis- sour or ct any STATE OF the Union
20 regulate lis own citizens, or 10 pre-
scribe laws for their government, no, in
consistent viii the laws OF the United
States, Mr. s. said no one pretended 10
! inIrtiero. She must regulate her own
concerns, upon such policy as she thinks
best, &c. On "hat would br her true po-
ley MIR. :. made iew remarks which
| The rePerIrr did not hear with sufficient
dlstinviness 10 report them.
| Upon The while, Mr. S. said il was
clear that uaics- something Nas in,roduc
ed, by Interpretation, into the clause of
the constitution OF Missouri, respecting
lEee people Ut color. which the trainers oi
II nave nei introduced, and which II -
noi knowa that HEY would be willing TO
introduce, II Ia PLAIN and palpable in.
traction OF Ike constitution of the United
States
The plain course. then, he believed,
was net o receive IN" consiituii n formed
by lie people Of Mis- ouri. For him
sell, he believed, and with HIM mauy
members "f This house believed. that il
@as The duty al This house 10 look into
The constitution, and, If they found il
contrary 10 the constitution, HAT il was
The duly OF This house to reject It,
Nhal tie consequences OF doing so
might he, II was moi for him to anticipate
bat, whatever they might be, they could
mol be worse tiian the recognition Of the
constitution in lis present shapc.-But
Why apprehend any disagreeablc conse
queuces Might not congress discuss a
question OF this SOFT Without reference
10 danger Might il not reject this con
silluiIon OF Missouri without giving her
any right to unqualified Independence z?
Or was THIS house TO give way, right or
wrong? True, MIR. s. said, congress
had been much divided in opinion on the
quesIlon al HE last session, and they
mlghf be on this. But, as far as gentle
men might think the copseourpces of
such division dangcrOus-tbe conse1ucn-
ces they dreaded we're the consequences
OF free and fair imvesligaiion-the con.
sequences Of men doing what they be-
lieve 10 be right and when men Weld
tn fears excited by such causes. they
give up Tie right Of free discussion-the
right Of maintaining what in their con.
sciences they think to be right. Does il
follow, because there rs q strong oppesi
ton To any measure, because there is
great feeling and warmth on il, thai
therefore principle is TO be- abandoned
That no one would maintain. Neither
was II cOnsiSicni with tie theory of our
government because, At last, Tie will of