The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-03
SPEECH OF HON. JAMES d. wEsroorr, Jr.,

or FLORIDA, Ed
Ia The Senate of the United States, the 25M day of
II L,lv lsis, on The "Isrrifora biH," reported by the
n select committee Of the Senate.
R,posi by Senate snographer f. w. Leeds E1
[coNCLuDED.]
n Twill now consider the argument urged with such
arnestness here and elsewhere. that the sth section OF
he act Of March g, $780, called the compromise act'
making provision for the formation of State constiiu
ION by the people of Missouri, virtual concession OF
Il he full power of Congress.
II Is said southern members voted for il southern
President Mr Monroe,) with majority OF his cabinet
from the sayehoding States. (Mr Crawford Of Georgia,
Mr. Calhoun Of South Carolina, and Mr. Writ of Virginia,
approved it and that the South acqaesced in it. though
gave M the principles now contend for. We have
been asked it they had then regarded the prohibition Of
slavery in Territories BY act Of Congress usupa-
t;on of power why did the savehoding States submit
to that act' Why was the Executive veto interposed,
4 or State nterposlton resorted to?
Mr. President no one who is old enough to have wit
messed the occurrences of 1919, 1870, and 1884, who
has read the history OF that day atenlvely after full and
impartial consideration OF all the circumstances connected
with the formation OF the State constitution OF Missouri
in June 1920 and her admission State in 1921,
Justly resort to such argument' All know with what al
most entire unanmy and earnesness the South resisted
the restrictions proposed in 1910 in the bill which
lost and in 1920 the act referred to, and that restrc
ton in the resolution OF 1921 and others OF like charac-
Ter then attempted. All know Ahsy denounced the
else of congressional power impose them as an usurp
ton excited debates for three successive sessions in
il this and in the other house OF Congress shall append
to these remarks, when published, interesting let
tiers and from President Monroe from and to dstn
guished citizens of different parts OF The Union, while the
Missouri controversy was going on and after II was set
tied in vcrfcation of what now say. have procured
them from his valuable manuscripts in possession OF his
son-in law D. L. Gouveneur, esq, OF this CITY, AS they
have before been published, they may shed some
light on the of that and beg leave here
tracts from Of them. in +, No. to IS inclusive,
sppendx] will also direct the notice OF the Senate and
the country to the tone OF the then leading southern
paper the Richmond Enquirer, edited by T. Richie, esq
The editor nj the IInon | have cODipI r.
tracts from his paper, which shall publish. [See note
Z, Nos 10 and FL, appendix
For several successive years the Enquirer contained
able editorials. and essays written by others, specially
aimed at and denouncing unconstitutional the at
emps in Congress TO interfere with slavery either in the
States or Territories, and in strong language In Decent
be 1919, and in January, 1920, President Monroe caused
his n-law lMr George Hay, OF Richmond, Va.) to
publish in the Enquirer series OF articles from No. to
No s, signed 'fn American contrasting the power of
Congress by cogen arguments The identity of language
in these essays, and Mr. Monroes letters, &c. and the
letter of Mr. Hay, (Note =, No y shows that if Mr..
&C., from which they were written; and that they express
edhis conpicons. But in February, 1920, he was con-
and on the 18th Of that month Mr. Hay furnished the
Enquirer with article puportng to be an extract from
letter from Washington &c. which it appears (see
counenance and the conclusion Of thus extract presses The
compromise! Mr. w. here read this extract note K, No.
2O Mr. Ritchie in the same paper displays his hostility
tohe compromise neither agreeable the constitution
interests. and in his next he denounces it in the
most decided terms, and says the ''scheme of com
PROMISE" suggested in this extract was received in
Virginia "wth universal burst of Reproduction" and
is inmated that the letter could not be from Virgin
IAN" Until the compromise adopted, every Enquirer
contained strong and emphatic denunciations OF the
scheme" violation of the constitution, as an out
ae, insult &C.; and after it had passed though,
stated If should submit J" it said instead of joy, we
scarcely ever recollect tasting bittere! cups and still
continued to declare the pernicOus, and predict
ed lis violation and that it would be used entering
wedge for additional usurpations. This was continued
through 1920 and in 1921 when the further compromise
Of Mr. Clay on the resolutions admitting Missouri were
under consideration. the denuncations OF the first CON-
promise renewed and for the nine years following
that have looked into the files of the Enquirer, have
not found that the compromise bill of 1920 was alluded
to without reterang the opinions it expressed in 1890.
1t is due to Mr. Richie, however, that should state
that he has expressed TO his DESIRE that If referred
to those opinions, should also say that his present con-
vctions in favor of the extension OF the Missouri
Compromise line to the PACIFIC; He has apprehensions
of peril to the harmony of the Union, if the question is
not settled, that consrran him to accommodate his
opinions 10 such adjustment as the most likely to be
made refer to his former opinions for no purpose OF
assailing those entertained as being incOnsist-
ent with Them but solely 10 show that those hold in
unison with those he held in common with the whole
South in lsl9 1890, 1921 and 1922 should be spared
from very harsh denuncation, and as being too ultra
from that quarter at least The bill OF 1919, and that
Of 1920, and the resolutions of 1921, were denounced
while pending in Congress- and after they had been passed
by southern legislatures and by the people of the South
and by nearly every southern newspaper IN equally en-
phac language. Truly this was strange mode of
connecting "a novel JOfHl OF dSSeIteu
right But they oveborne by numerical force here
They were constrained to acquiesce in them or more
odious imposions, to ''siand on their reserved
rights" Devotion to the Union and of the love OF har
mony and peace, subdued their impulses 10 resistance
which the outrage caused. This alone, and not any
conviction of the rghtfuness of the power exercised
induced the acquiescence tortured into admission
OF that power
brief history of the Missouri bills, and OF the resolu-
tons for the admission OF that Sa,e will show these
facts.
The first bill respecting Missouri introduced April
g. 1885, but it not acted the session of 1S171s
II considered at the session the House, Feb
ruary 49, 1919 and passed the House February IT,
The Senate amended it. The House refused to concur in
amendment, and finally, March 2, 1910, both houses
"adhering the bill lost This bill provided for the
formation of State constitution by the free phite male
fitisen OF Missouri Territory, and prohibited the fur
ther introduction of slavery there, erccpt for crimes, &c.
DC held 10 scrpice LABOR H tpenty fue gears Of age
The amendment which the two houses disagreed on
that OF the Senate striking out all these clauses respect
ing slavery The in the Senate % TO IS, and
IN the House 76 to 49, During the progress of the bill
through the House, various amendments proposed
adjacent territories, and TO all territories Mr. John Ser
geants resolutions to prohibit slavery in all the terrific
lies proposed January IS, 1919 All those PROPOSE
hons were either rejected not finally acted on Great
excitement prevailed throughout the Union after Con-
eress adjourned 1t entered into the congressional and
pared " the OIL Of lsls-l9 had passed the Senate IN the
form passed The House of REPRESENTATIVES, to pco IT,
l hold IN my hand, ~ has 0pn Handwriting, the rough
draugh or notes OF reto message he had prepared to
meet such contingency, and which will presently read
to the Senate There is other evidence of his deierni.
friends OF the constitution in the Senate defeated it
Before reading this veto message, would ask leave of