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

now IN allowing them weight, provided
they have the character OF uniformity.
lie Mas mistaken VI, upon examination,
they III! not iuru out differently irom
what the member from :. Carolina had
supposed. In examining them, a. prece.>
dent might be matte out 10 wariamt amy
course gentlemen chose, they differed so
much from each other among them
might be fouud one Tor a people making
4 constitution Without previous authority
trom Congress, and that loo Out OF the
territory oi the u. S,ates-for " ich no-
body woula contend. MIR. ) here briefly
ram over The cases 81 admission into The
Union, commenting on each. Kentucky,
Vermont, Tennessee, ONO, and Lonisia.
ma were Admitted up Ia 1911. inclusive,
aud ia every case some ACT OF tie govern
meni had been thought necessary, pre-
cedent or Subsequent, TO en,i,lc them TO
admission. From The year 1911, hove.
yer, every slate admitted Give in NUM- Der,
besides Maine, whose case was pecuhaD
had been formed by previous authority,
aud had come into The Union By virtue
OF an ACT or resolution expressly admit
ting her. Would gentlemen, then, take
the single precedent of Kentucky, OF
Tennessee, of Vermont, with their pecu-
lariiies, and apply il to stale formed
out ot new territory purchased by The
u. ). or would they lake the case of other
states, which tormeda series OF preredents,
each distinctly recognizing the power Of
Congress TO give previous authority 10 "A
people 10 form constitution, and also
In" authority aud right OF Congress 10
admit them into ihe Union, and The ncccs-
silly oi such an act OF admissinu
With respect 10 elections by The incho
ale states, he considered them az PROV
slonal, and made valid by the ratification
OF The constitution. The representative
from Indiana taking his seat before the
passage OF the act tor her admission he
considered an oversight. And was not
The tact at the representative from Mis-.
sour remaining absent, assertipgno righ,
as representative, and no. being admit.
ted as such, (and so of her senators also }
stronger evidence of The opinion, not
only OF the cd STATES, but OF the rew
states too, than single precedent or IT.
regularity, as that OF Indiana!
Having shown, in his opinion, that Con
gress possessed the rig'l and power In
examine this question, Mr.. 5. proceeded
TO The remaining points in the discus sion.
In Tins particular case, the mode Of pro-
ceeding proposed, struck him as the inust
Objectionable tina, could be devised; be
cause II seemed 10 him that The report
and the observations OF the chairman OF
the comniltre, did admit that there Was
something IN the constitution formed hy
the people OF Missouri, upon which, if
HE house was called upon TO speak, gem
tlemen would b. obliged to say they are
OF opinion 1t iS uncomsiituti NAL; for, in
the first place, the committee are willing
4 4 Il
10 The Judiciary in The next place, thew
think II susceptible of all Interpretation
moi Inconsistent with The constitution OF
the United States, and. il is lastly suggest
ed, that Congress may avoid The Difficult
~ by Il protest, or explanation, or inter.
probation of the clause, az they desire il
10 be understood. All this seemed To
convey the impression that there was
something there. which gentlemen wish
ed TO avoid voting and deciding upon.
10 refer the subject 10 the Judiciary
was one mode proposed for getting over
n. 10 tins course, there were a great
many objections. which doubtless had
already occurred 10 the minds Of the COM
miitse. Among these, Mr.. s. dwell par
iiculariy on The following, that, il it be
The duty OF this iionse 10 pronounce on
any question, they had 10 right 10 shit
The responsibility on The Judiciary and
Thar Congress cannot send The question:
to the Judiciary, there being no mode
prescribed IN The constitution by which
they could do il.
With regard 10 leaving it to chance 10
bring u before The Judiciary, that chance
might never come, &c. lfthe Judiciary were
indeed The iribunalto decide the qursiioe,
they ought To decide il before the house
acted on II. Another great objection to
the course proposed was, thai II would
necessarily throw on the Judiciary the
performance OF an Odious duty, which he
this 10 be; ami il seemed
t him gentlemen showed too strongly.
by their node of proceeding, and Their
to throw il from themselves.
that they felt il 10 be so. But this house
was much better able to bear The odium
OF II than the judiciary. Mr.. S. said
lie never would consent that the con-
gress of the United States should, for their
own relief, burlhen the Judiciary with
that sort OF question, the decision OF
which makes it most obnoxious, ex-
poses II most 10 that excitement IS hich.
OF all departments Of tie government. i,
vas least capable OF contending against
The effects OF unpopular de isiUus in tie
stale courts showed what might possibly
be the effect, in similar cases, on the u s
Judiciary. He wished the whole strength
OF the federal Judiciary might be main
tanned Unimpaired for cases wherein tie
exeriiOn OF il might be necessary, vs. kicb
II was not in,lie present case. Another OBJ
lection 10 the course proposed was, thai,if
The argument III lsfavpr provedany king.
it proved too much. The more obi ciiona-
BILE a clause at the constitution is, The
stronger ~ the reason against The refer
ence OF il 30 the Judiciary, because il
would there more certainly be declared
SO. full consideration Of all The views
which could be taken Of The subject, MIR.
8 said MnnIh hrin.r linn hnrL 10 L.