Washington sentinel., 1854-05-02

ture is impressed with the correctness of the sen
timents so communicated 10 our senators and rep
resentatives: therefore
"ReSoit,ed, (if the honorable the Senate concu
herein) That this legislature does approve of th
principles contained in the resolutions Of the las
session; and further, IL the provisions containe
/ in any proposed constitution of a new State den
10 any citizens Of the existing States the privilege
and immunites of citizens of such new States
that such proposed constitution should not be &C
cepted or confirmed, the same, in the opinion Q
this legislature, being void by the Con stituton 0
the United States; and that our senators be in
structed, and our representatives in Congress b.
requested TO use their utmost exertlons 10 preven
the acceptance and confirmation of any such con
| stitution."
! Two days after this, Vermont responded Al
follows:
"That the legislature views with regret ant
alarm the attempt of the inhabitants of Missouri
| 10 obtain admission into the Union as one of III,
United States under constitution which Rgaff
ses and secures Meths introduction and contiiHGnc
Of slarery, and also contains provisions TO preven
! freemen OF the United States from emigrating tc
and settling in Missouri, account of their ori
gin, color, and features; and that, in the opinion
| OF this legislature, these principles, powers. ant
restrictions, contained in the reputed constitution
of Missouri, are ani-republican, and repugnant &c
the Constitution of the United States and subver
| sive Of the inalienable rights of man.
| Now, sir with due respect to the gentleman
| from New York, Mr.. MATTEsoN,1 and the
| gentleman from Vermont, Mr. MEAcHAM,
who have so earnestly debated this question
| it seems to me, if they would preserve the
| honor of their State free from stain or blemish
| they should forever desist from holding up the
act of 1920 as a sacred agreement, to which
| the faith of the several States was plighted.
| In one Of the latest Of Mr.. Clay's speeches
he had occasion to declare the surprise he felt
in having been generally regarded as the au-
| thor of the restriction in the act of 1920 when
| it did not originate in the House of which he
was member; nor did he even remember
whether he had voted for it. If sir, he had
heard this debate, his surprise would have been
| greatly increased by the complete misappre-
| hension and misstatements of the entire trans
action which have characterized the discus
sion. Why, after the 81 atement of Mr.. Clay
himself as to his relation to the act Of 1920,
the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.. CuLLoM, |
who last addressed the committee, drew from
certain quarter of the House quite burst Of
merriment at the alleged inconsistency Of my
friend from Kentucky, Mr. BREcKINRlDcE,
now absent from this city.
| Now, in what did thatinconsistency consist
| That in his eulogy on the death of Mr.. Clay,
1 Mr.. B. had said:
l T. w no uOeS HOt KNOW lnat, Wnen history Snal
relate The struggle which preceded and the dan
| gers which were averted by the Missouri compro-
| mise, the tariff compromise Of 1882, and the ad-
i justment of 1850, the same pages will record the
eloquence and the patriotism OF Henry Clay"
/ While, in his late speech, the gentleman from
! Kentucky had declared that the name Of Mr..
Clay scould not be invoked as the author Of
the act of 1920" Now, with great Difference,
it appears to me, if there were cause for
4 laughter in this statement, twas in the blunder
Of not recognising the distinction between the
Missouri compromise" of which Mr.. Clay
| was the author, and the act OF 1920" for
which he did not remember whether he had
| even voted
/ might here, Mr.. Chairman, rest the argu-
ment on this head; but there is a question
connected with it OF still higher interest
i question which is not confined to the true in
4 probation of q single act of Congress, but re-
lates to the general power Of legislation under
the Constitution.
4 1t will be remembered that though Missouri
was finally admitted without condition for
the inhibition of slavery, yet that the claim Of
porer on the part of Congress to insist upon
one was sustained. The eighth section of the
act asserts the power, not only to exclude
slavery during the territorial condition, but
through all changes of government. The pro.
hibition is not for limited time, but "FoREvER.'
That this is the true Interpretation, believe is
not questioned. 1t is shown by the words oi
4 the act, by the debates, and by the power as.
serted in reference to the same subject-matter
in the resolution for Texas annexation.
In 1914 the Hartford convention, fatally
/ bent upon disturbing the harmony of the Union,
adopted series of resolutions, in which they
boldly proposed, for the purpose ofchecking the
growth of the south, that the federal Constitu-
ton should be amended, so as to exclude slaves
| from the principle Of representation, and to re-
quire for the admission of new States vote OF
two.thirds Of both houses of Congress As the
country did not respond to these suggestions,
the application Of Missouri, few years after.
wards, afforded an opportunity of accomplish
! ing the same design by different means. The
/ shape it then assumed was the assertion of a
1 power in Congress to make the prohibition OF
slavery a condition precedent to the admission
of future States. Thus q bare majority in Con-
gress, by simple vote, could as effectually ar
rest the growth of the south as the amendments
Of the Constitution submitted by the Hartford
| convention
! do not propose, Mr.. Chairman, to 90 at
large into this question Of constitutional power
but / cannot refrain from expressing surprise
! that so many of the leading minds of that pc
riod were so warped by prejudice as to have
seemingly overlooked the well-marked fact, that
the whole framework of the federal Ccnstitu.
ton is constructed and adjusted upon princi-
Piles of absolute equality between citizens, and
absolute equality between States.
1t is true, sir, that the constitutional provi-
sion as to the admission Of States is not impera.
tive in its terms: New States may be ad-
mitted by the Congress into the Union !" but
the Constitution never intended to confer upon
Congress the power to grant to the new States
greater rights and privileges than the old pos
sessed, thus producing an inequality, in dero-
cation of its provisions; nor, by restricting the
new States to less rights and privileges, pro-
duce the same fatal result. Congress can
neither enlarge nor diminish the powers of the
States 1t is itself the mere creature of the old
States, and can never become the creator of
the new ones.
This subject was SO ably treated by the legis-
lature of Virginia at the time of this discussion,
that beg leave to read an extract from n re-