Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-02-08

erection Of new States in our own CONAN. w .
Madison says: (No 43, Fed) with great. pIopri
ETY., therefore, has the new system snpphed 'hii
defect, thereby intimatng, that there was no re
intended, but remedy OF lis defect
AT an early period Of the Convention, MIR
Randolph proposed resolution "ior The adlnis
sion Of STATES lawfully arising within Inc ilmit
Of the United States" the restriction whicn !
said by the Wings 10 exist al present. (See Ma
dison's Papers 734.) n
A similar proposition made by Mr. finchnel
omis this restriction, and adopts very Inuch ,n'
language Of the present clause (See M. r
H5.)
The proposition Of Mr. Randolph was after
wards adopted, IN. p, 194 During me tm.
that it enjoyed the favor of the Convention,
was mentioned incidentally in reference 70 I'M
admission OF Western States, formed oui Oh Ter
ritory belonging 10 the United States; thus evi
dencing that under that clause, no other appre
tensions were 10 be felt but such as arose from
fear OF Western power and influence, M I.
1887
This proposition came before the Convention
in the modified form given 10 by The Commil
tee Of Detail-"New States, idacfnly conau"ted
and established acithin lie lmiis of Me y. States
may be admitted" &C., (M. P, l2lo)
Upon the discussion Of The proposition before
the Convention, MIR. Gouverneur Morris proposed
an amendment, which struck oHt me trords M NaI
les in the above proposition, and made II reac
thus-"New States may be admitted by the Le
gislature into the Union" Would so important
a change have been adopted without designl-
And yet it was carried, mem. con. M. r, l45o.,
Would a restriction so important, because OF us
extent, have been erased, without the wise pa.
,rols of the Convention being conscious oil il, and
without any such intention? No one can believe
SO.
But its design appeared the next day, in pro.
position which had in view events which il will
be necessary briefly 10 relate.
Vermont is a State formed Out OF 4 part of the
territory OF New York She had erected herself
into distinct people, independent OF the control
Of the mother State; she remained in This sepa-
rate condition during the whole Of the Confede-
ration, not uniting in those articles, nor bound by
them; as will he seen by referring TO them and
looking al the names OF the States adopting them.
Nor by similar observation will her name be
found represented in the Federal Convention OF
1887.
OF the same origin, having like interests, il
was natural that some solicilude should exist as
to her introduction into the present Union. I'm
der such feelings, the following proceedings OF the
Convention took place:
The clause, as il came from The Committee
on Detail contained limitation that States arr
sing within sihe limits Of a Stale" could only be
introduced by the consent of the Legislature OF
such State Mr.. Morriss proposition already al
luded 10, the first of which was adopted mem CON,
concluded with similar restriction. "But no
new States shall be erected within the hmis ofany
Of The present States, without the consent OF the
Legislature" &c. DR.. Johnson Immediately ex-
pressed fear, that "as The clause stood, Vermont
would be subjected 10 New York" He expressed
an opinion favorabeto her admission.
On the next day, proposition was made, that
'lhe Legislature shall have power 10 admit other
States into the Union; and States 10 be formed by
the division or junction of States now in the u
MON, with the consent OF the Legislatures" sc.
1t was nega,ived. MIR. Madison adds in pa
renthess, "the first part was meant for the case of
Vermont, to secure its admission" II intended
to draw the distinction clearly between Vermont,
State already formed out OF the limits OF ano-
Their State, and those 10 be tOrmcd; the former TO
be admitted with0ut, and the latter 1riM the con-
sent Of the Legislatures.
Was Vermont, them 10 be excluded? Facts,
occurring after The rejection OF the last PROPOSE
ton, show that the whole object Of the friends OF
Vermont was not to arden the basis of admission,
but to withdraw her from that class OF States,
whose admission depended on the Legislature OF
the State out Of which they were TO be formed
1t was feared that New York would object TO her
admission If this was not done, and thus force her
people again TO subsection.
DR.. Johnssn with this view, Gas will presently
appear,) moved to insert the words thereafter
formed or" after the words "shall be" in the pro-
position, SO as 10 read, "but no new State shall be
hereafter formed or erected, within the iimiis OF
the present States, without The consent of the Leg
islalure OF such State, &c. Adopted. Mr.. Ma
Olson adds in parenthesis "the more clearly 10
save Vermont, as being already formed into a
Stale, from depeadfncc on The consent III Ner
York for her admission
Mr.. Morris moved to strike out the word "lm-
ils and insert jurisdiction" Adopted. Mr..
Madison adds: "this also was meant TO guard the
case OF Vermont, the jurisdiction Of New York
not extending over Vermont, which was in the
within the asserted limbs Of New York.
The whole clause was then adopted. For
sketch of these proceedings see M. p, li62, 1863,
l464
From review OF these facts, deduce iinpor-
Iant conclusions
lst. From The repeatedly expressed wishes for
admitting Vermont, from the wish SO TO modify
the clause as to place her admission under as
little restraint as possible infer The intent ofthe
Convention 10 admit her under the clause which
they would frame. She could not have been ad-
mitted under the original proposition from The
Committee of Detail. She was not lawfully
constituted and established within the limits OF the
United States" She was independent. Is il
NOT reasonable 10 infer, that the striking out OF
the restriction was due the desire 10 admit Yer
mont, and was prompted By liz
Again: From the facts that all Of the mod-
(icallons of Mr. Morris's proposition, were aimed
at withdrawing Vermont from dependence upon
W 4. H. In fhn
of the po,rer of admission, infer clearly that it
was Intended ,ha, the words "New States" should
include such case as Vermont. She was ex-
pressly Withdrawn from those cases whose adms.
iondepends on The consent Of The Stale Legisla-
lures Why? To exclude her altogether? To
proven, her admission forever? Mo- Toremove an
unjust obstacle to her admission and to allow her
10 come in under the general power Of admitting
States II she does not come in under the latter
the bars are closed 10 her forever: for, she is
expressly excluded from The restricted class OF
cases.
Thus then we have shown conclusively, that
Vermont was intended 10 come into the Union
under the general clause, New States may be adj
mitted by the Congress into The Union"
II remains 10 ask, wha, was Vermont A por.
ton of United States tejrii0ruo No; il she had
been. there would have been no difficulty about
W
Ne,r York. The United States never had any
title to her. and never put in any. Was she a
palt of New York? lfshe was, there would have
been no difficulty; for She would have been adj
mittcd as part OF The State OF New York. She
had also been expressly relieved, by the Consli
tuition from the later condition.
Then. what was Vermont? We have the an
swer in the fact of her long continued independ
ence, under the Confederation, oil every State ant
power. We have it in the declarations Of Mr.
Madison, quoted above, that she was Without thu
jurisdiction Of New York-lhat she was in lh'
'.srerei,e Of sorereignty"-hat she was as he ase
declares already formed into State-and, finally
that there was no lie between her and the Union
or any State or power on the globe
Was Vermont then Foreign State2 In ever.
sense of the word. But have shown that Yer
mont was intended TO be admitted under the gene
raj grant, in the Constitution. conclude, there
FORE that il was intended 10 admit Foreign States
mt formed ont Of United States Territory, int
this Union.
have thu. shown, from the history Of thi
subject that an express clause, restricting The ad