The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-03-07
MUNIC Alto N.
TO MARTIN VAN BUREN.-No. s.

into the Union, an attempt was made to impose
restriction prohibiting the Introduction Of SID
very into the State as condition OF the admls-
sion. On that occasion the question was elabo-
rately argued and resisted whether Congress pos
sessed the constitutional power TO impose such
restriction, upon the ground that the prescribing
such condition is repugnant to the sovereignty
Of State to be admitted, and its political equality
with the other States of the confederacy.
Before we proceed any further in this lnvestl-
cation, let US refer to the restricting resolutions
as adopted by the Legislature of New York, and
which received your support IN that body. These
resolutions it will be observed, were adopted with
the view of controlling the action of Messrs. King
and Sanford, then members of the Senate OF the
United States.
PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.
aWhereas, the controlling the further extension
Of Slavery in these United States is a subject of
deep concern to the people of this State; and
whereas, we consider slavery as evil much to be
deplored, and that every constitutional barrier
shouldbe nterposed to prevent its further extern
sion; and that the Constitution OF the United
States clearly CITING 10 Congress The right TO
REQUIRE of new States not comprehended within
the boundaries of the United States the prohibit
ING of slavery as condition of this admission into
the Union: therefore.
"Resolred, (if the honorable Senate concur
I0cr0lD,J THAT our ScLdtOE6 20 dhu Oui
Representatives in Congress be requested, to op-
pose the admission as State into the Union of any
Territory not comprised as aforesaid. making the
prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable
condition of admission"
On the 29th of January, 1920, the Senate took
up the resolution, and passed the same unan-
mousiy, the following Senators being present !:
Messrs. Adams, Austen, Barnnnl, Barlow. Bruine,
Childs, Dudley. Dayton, Ditmiss, Evans, For
Ellington. Hammond. Hart Livingston, Lounds-
berry, McMartin, Moons, Mallory, Moore, Noyes,
Payne, Ross, Rozencrants, Swami, VAN BUREN,,
Wilson, Young-26.
1t is contended that under the Constitution
Congress had the power to impose this or any
other restriction, or to require of the people OF
Missouri their assent to this condition, as pre-
requisite to their admission into the Union This
position is supported by the language Of the Con-
stitution, from the practice in the admission OF
ned States under that instrument, and from the
express terms of the treaty OF cesslon.
The advocates of this restriction never con-
tended, on the other hand, that they derived the
power to impose restrictions on the admission of
q State into the Union from an original grant, but
= derivative power included in the mass Of Incl
dental powers. The clause of the Constitution
which relates to the admission OF new States Is
in these words: The Congress may admit new
States into this Union. dsc and the advocates Tor
the restriction maintained on the floor OF Con-
gress that the use of the word z may" imputed
discretion to omit or reject and in this large dis
erection it involved another-that of prescribing
the terms and conditions of admission in case
Congress is disposed to admit.
1t was contepded by Mr.. King, who was in
structed by you to support restriction prohibit
ing the Introduction of slavery into the Territory
of Missouri, that as this power of admitting new
States is conferred without limitation, the time
and circumstances of the admission OF new States,
are referred to the discretion of Congress, which
may admit new States, but are not obliged to do
SO but according to his reasoning, it is mere
matter of discretion, and nothing obligatory, in
Congress to admit new State into the Union,
and that Congress, judging of the circumstances
of the admissions may annex conditions OF the
most degrading character"
Let us return to the restriction which was sup
ported by Messrs. King and Sanford, in obe-
dience to instructions emanatlng from the Legls-
lature of New York.
A Senator from Pennsylvania moved the follow
ing amendment to the bill to admit Missouri into
the Union. (See journals of the Senate, January
IL, lS2O) "Prouided, That the further intro
duction into said State of persons to be held to
slavery or involuntary servitude within the same,
shall be directly and irrevocably prohibited"
In opposition tothis restriction it was contended
that if the power Of prohibiting the introduction
OF slaves IN new State belong 10 congress, tney
have the other and much more important right Of
regulating the institutions of slavery in the sew
era States Of the Union. Will the exercise of
such power add to the solidity or permanency
of this confederacy! The State Of Missouri
claimed to be admitted into the family Of States
under the treaty with France and the Constitution
of the United States. No objections were raised
except on the subject of slavery. She asked for
her rights. The citizens demanded the right of
retaining their slaves in bondage, and that emf
grants might bring within the borders of the State
their slaves and hold them in servitude. These
rights you denied them. You contended that I'M
der the Constitution the Congress of the United
States possessed the power of prohibiting the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into the State of Missouri,
and that she could not be admitted into the
Union upon an equal footing with the other States
of the confederacy
What said Virginia on this deeply interesting