Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1850-09-06


State members construed as an inter-
ference with the rights of citizenship
under the constitution. 1t was on
this distracting question that Mr..
Clay obtained the appointment of
his compromise committee, and re-
ported from that an amendment
which was SO ingeniously worded as
to save the point of pride with both
parties, and leave the details of the
question to the Judiciary.
The restrictive amendment to the
bill of 1920 was, as we have stated,
passed in the House, and sent to the
Senate. In that body the successful
effort was then made to free Missouri
entirely from restriction, and to adopt
the line of division of Sc 30 for the
territories.
Mr.. Barbour, Of Virginia-March
ID, 1S20-moved to strike out the
whole proviso requiring the State TO
interdict slavery. 1t was carried
yeas 81, nays Is, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs, Parrott of New
Hampshire, Hunter Of Rhode Island,
Lanman of Connecticut, Thomas and
Edwards of Illinois, Barbour of Vir-
ginia, Brown of Louisiana, Eaton of
Tennessee, Elliot of Georgia, Gal
lard of South Carolina, Horsey of
Delaware, Johnson of Kentucky,
Johson of louisiana, King of Alabama
Floyd of Maryland, Logan of Ken
lucky, Leake of Mississippi, Macon
OF North Carolina. Pinkney of Mary
land, Pleasants of Virginia, Smith of
South Carolina, Stokes of North
Carolina, Van Dyke of Delaware,
Walker of Alabama, Walker of
Georgia, Williams of Mississippi,
Williams ofTennesse.-
Nays-Messrs. Burrill of Rhode
Island, Morrill, OF New Hampshire,
Otis and Mellen of Massachusetts,
Dana Of Connecticut, King and San
ford of New York, Dickerson and
Wilson of New Jersey, Lowrie and
Roberts of Pennsylvania, Ruggles
and Trimble of Ohio, Noble and
Taylor of Indiana.
Absent-Tichenor and Palmer of
Vermont.
Lit will be seen that this was a sec
tional vote with the exception that
five Senators from free States voted
for striking out the restriction. They
were Parrott, of New Hampshire;
Lanman, of Connecticut; Hunter, of
Rhode Island; the two Illinois Sena-
tors Thomas and Edwards. The
Union then consisted of twenty-five
States, and they were equally divi-
ded into slaveholding and non-slave-
holding States.
After striking out the restriction in
the Senate, the compromise proviso,
as to the territories, was adopted
without division, and the bill was re-
turned to the House for concurrence.
On the same day the House con
sldered these amendments and adop-
ted them both. The first, striking
out the restriction on Missouri, was
concurred in by a very close vote
yeas 80, nays 87-majority 3. We
have no room for full list of the
yeas and nays. The point of inter-
est is the sectional character of the
vote, and the names of the parties
who decided the question by voting
with the South. The whole number
OF representatives from the Southern
States voted for concurrence, with
fourteen members from non-slavehol-
ding States. These were Mason,
Hill, Shaw, and Holmes, of Massa.
chusetts; Foot and Stevens of Con-
necticut; Eddy, of Rhode Island;
bloomfield, Kinsey and Smith, of
New Jersey; Meigs and Storrs, of
New FORK; Baldwin and Fullerton;
of Pennsylvania. With these excep-
tons every vote from free State
was cast against concurring, of which
the effect would have been to retain
the prohibition of slavery in the State
of Mo.
The cIoseness of the vote may be
further judged by the fact that there
were eight absentees, of whom five
were estimated to be against concur
ring and three for it. The actual
majority in full House, against i'm
posing, by act of Congress, restriction
upon the admission of slavery into
the State, was only one, excluding
the Speaker, MIR, Clay, who was not
entitled to vote.
After the restriction was asexpunged
tho Missouri compromise line was
adopted by large majority, I34 to
~, Thirty-seven Southern men,
who had voted to strike out the re-
striction, voted against inserting the
compromise proviso. Forty South
ern men "a nnaiorifuA voted with tho