Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-25
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
DECEMBER IL
Debate on Me resolution declaring the admis
siOM of n!issOnrt into TIE Umon.

EeOdfe on Hf resolution declaring tie ddllIS-
siOn Of 2isSourt into the Union.
CONTINUED
Mr.. ARCHER, o vs. SAID, that, having
had some share in protraciing the trial.
10 which the patience of The House was
10 be- subjected in the debate. he owed
ii The aionement of making his irespass
as briei as possible. HIS inducememt 10
trouble the House at all grew entirely out
OF The circumstance OF views having been
stated in support Of The resolution, IN
which he could not concur, aud 10 which
he should be considered as AS seniing If
The grounds of his vote were not explain
ed. The deli, ale relation OF the ques-
lion, however, 10 the slave holding STATES,
would furnis! sutIi cien, excuse 10 any
member. coming from that quarter of the
Union, for wishing TO bestow on i, the
fullest examination.
Mr.. A proceeded Ie remark that.
whist he utterly diSclsmed The consc
quences which had b ell inferred from II
= he was by no means prepared 10 contest
tie right or The STATES 10 admit the cor
ioreA persons, born within their rcspec-
tive limits, 10 the privileges Of citizenship.
Tue states had delegated, in relation TO
fhlS subloci only, the power OF nainrali-
tn extend only to persons horn beyond
the limits of The community, by whose
authority il was exerIed. The collateral
connected power Of determining the right
aud copdiiIon Of admission 10 the pIIvi-
g"s of citizenship a. respected persons
bprn within th"ir respective limits. could
not, then, be denied TO the states. or
bridged IN It's exercise, without a con
sirnciion which might equally be employ
ca TO diveSt every other reserved riyii.
aud 10 dlsman'ie every safeguard TO be
found Ia The constitution. We bad been
tolf. indeed, ,tai The exercise of tins right
IN relation io colnred pc. sons, could not
ba considered - contemplated by the
constitution of the United States. Sun
posing " wee rot, the rights Of The
states did not depend. for their validity
or exercise, on The recognition of the Fee
dcra! Constitution. which, in IFS true cha
racter, was M more than the s0nrce of,hc
limitations on them nor had the adj
vance OF encrUack ment vat reached a
construction, by which The spcuritv OF
these rights would not simply be impair.
Ell, bni ,seir independent existence alb
solnIely subveried. The mode, to0. of
The 9rvaiIou OF the inference " hirII tx
cluntd Tie exercise of the right i'm uurs
ton, was AZ lille warranted AZ the source
OF It's derivation. II was derived. not
fro IN any thing iutle language Of The con-
siHuilon, but from the prculiariiy Of The
circumstances OF sorle Of the parties 10
u, which we're supposed Ia preclude the
intention 10 allow such an exercise If right.
his was not case, however, IN which a
iesor, OF This kiHd was admissible. Coy
Tie ascerlainment OF intention. Where
language was of doubtful import. this
resort might be admitted with little dan.
ger, because there was Il limit 10 the pos
sIOle variety or Interpretation Of which
language was susceptible. But where
lhrIe was no doubt arising in the inter
probation n' language. ner any lsnguage
on Tie subject ct doubt 10 be Interpreted
the allowance oil resort 10 The circuai,
! stances OF parties, 10 an instrument f.,
the aSccriainmeHi Of lis purport, would
| be admitting the supply, and not the ex.
| pianatIon q! al Intention. To such ?
principle Of substitution and enlargement
Of ll0 operation of instruments. ther,
was evidently no limit short Of The ex
hdus'ion OF ingenuity. II vas better Il
admit any defect whatever. in the COW
stituiInn, Than liability 80 indefinite. {,
dccrrt,on and n,ctdmorptosis.
The obi ciIOh 10 tie RECOGNITION If fb
right ~ question was founded im an en-
tire misrepresentation oftbe consequence
OF lis exercise. II had been supposed
thar 1t The right we're admitted. il woult
follow tlai eOlored persons, emigrailn
from state iu which they we're above,
ihe privileges OF citizenship. 10 anoihc
~ which they were excluded from ihes
privileges, would become entitled 10 a
privileges Of this character in the state !
which they removed, notwithstanding
the exclusion. Such an inference wa
founded on view which was altngcthc
erroneous, nf the operation Of lie lir
clause OF The . sec. of the fourth arficl
Of the constitution of the u. States. assui
ing reciprocity of the privileges to IN
citlzens Of The several states respeciivcl,
That clause, like every other, in that
any other instrument must receive 4 cor
| siructiOn which would not violate reason
which would not carry the operation ,
| liie clause beyond the Intention whic
, Dictated il. and Which would render i
-. operation consistent, IL possible. Vith "a
established rights Of other uar,ies. A
these inconirovertible principles of inie
probation vOuld be violated by ihp col
e siruciion which had been supposed.
persons IemOWng from one state ~ ant
lher we're IN be considered IS bec0mii
I. entitled, under The operation Of III
[ Clansr ~ ihr constitution, ~ III the ~
viIcgps of citizens oil the state 10 w,lit
= they removed, and we're not restricted
d the pr, gees accorded TO persons Of 4
IS | same class aud description with iher
selves, iSeu ne a8c maiy yca!d be TT