Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-08-26

III.
1854"
This was the test question. 1t was not
the proposition of Mr. jefferson, but it is
the proposition of the ordinance. This pro-
position, thus introduced by Mr.. King, was
carried on the following vote, which we re-
cord for the public information. Under the
Confederation the vote in Congress was by
States, and on this question stood thus
the ayes and nays being required by Mr..
King:
NeeO-HdmpShire--Messrs. Foster and
Long.
Observation-Disclosures. Holton and King
| Rhode-ISiand--Messrs. Cook and John
Net0- York-Messrs. w. Livingston and
Platt
Neutrality-suspicious.. Beatty, Cadwalader,
and Stewart
PennsylUania-Messrs. Gardner and VIM.
Henry.
Marylmd-Mr. McHenry, nay j. Hen
ry and Hndman, yea.
NAYS.
Virgiuia-Messrs. Hardy and Lee, nay !;
and Grayson, yea.
North Ca oHna-Messrs. Spaight and
Stgreaves.
South Cvolna-Messrs Ball and Pinck-
ney.
Gcorgid-Mr. Houston.
The question was carried in the aGrma-
the, and this was the way in which the an
ti-slavery clause came into the ordinance.
1t was on the motion of Mr.. Rufus King of
] Toc
ferson nor Nathan Dane was in Congress ;
and so far as that proposition stands in the
ordinance, 1t waS the wOrk Of Rufus King,
and not that of Jefferson or Dane. Mr.
Jefferson had proposed different thing and
failed. Mr.. Dane did not take his seat I'M
til November %, 1S47, more than eight
months after the question of slavery or no
slavery in the Northwestern Territory had
been solemnly settled
In the above vote it will be seen that Del
aware was absent, and Maryland voted for
the anti-savery clause. On the first vote,
in April, 1854, Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.. Will
hanson, of North Carolina, voted on the an
ti-savery side On the second in March,
1885, Mr.. Henry and Mr.. Hindman, of Ma
ryland, and Mr.. Grayson, of Virginia, did
the same. The reader will observe that
Congress was an entire year in settling that
point.
The subject lay over till September, 17S6,
when committee appointed for that pur-
pose, reported an "Ordinance for the gov
eminent of the Western Territory" This
committee, in their order were: Mr. John
son, of Connecticut; Mr.. Pinckney, of
South Carolina; Mr.. Smith, of New-York F.;
Mr.. Dane, of Massachusetts and Mr.. Hen
ry, of MARYLAND. Who wrote the ordinance
| This order of the committee does not show
that Mr.. Dane wrote ESPECIALLY as DR..
johnson, of Connecticut, the first on the
list, was a learned and able man. There
may be some private information to show
that Mr.. Dane wrote it, but the record does
not show it.
The ordinance was debated for several
days, and finally, as it seems, referred back
to another committee, composed of Mr. Car
rington, of Virginia; Mr.. Dane, of Massa-
chusetts; r. II. Lee, of Virginia; Mr..
Keen, of South Carolina; and Mr. Smith,
of New-York
This committee did nothing, it is proba-
BILE, but revise the ordinance, and there is
little question that as it was finally put
forth, it was the writing of Mr.. Dane.
The ordinance was read first July llth,
1857; read July 18th, 1887; and passed
unanimously July 18th, 1887.
This is concise history of one of the
greatest monuments of Civil Jurisprudence,
and one the WiSdom of which is inscribed
on all the political and social prosperity, the
rapid growth and power of these Northwes-
tern States.
The reader will observe that Congress
had this order under deliberation and revs-
ion for three gears and SIR months, and that
every word in it was most deliberately con-
sidered.
This work, like all other great works, was
not the work of any one or two men. 1t
was the work of many heads.
Mr.. Jefferson proposed the abolition OF
slavery in the Territory after 1900. This
was the clause rejected on the motion of Mr.
Spaight.
Mr. Rufus King proposed and carried the
anti-slavery clause, as it now stands in the
ordinance, when neither Jefferson nor Dane
ioere present.
The Convention here agreed upon the
terms of the ordinance. There is reason
to believe that it was finally written by Ma
than Dane.