Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-09

the State. 1t was insisted that free negroes
and mulattoes were citizens Of the United
States, and had right nnder the constitu-
tien Of the United States 10 go into Mis-
souri,, and inasnuch as this prohibition was
contrary to the constitution Of the United
States, they refused to admit Missouri into
the Union.
Well, now, look OF this matter. If this
provision in the constitution Of Missouri was
not in violation of the constitution of the Uni
ted States, she had the power 10 make it;
and as far as these objecting repres sentatives
were concerned, she had right to make it.
If she did not think that free negroes and
mulattoes were the best associates for her
white or her black population, she had a
right, by provision of law, to select the
company, color, and description that should
be allowed TO come within her borders; and
therefore, il was an attempt to impose new
condition upon the State, in defiance of the
solemn compact, whose holiness has been so
much invoked and pressed upon US.
Then, on the other hand, suppose these
people were citizens Of the United States,
did not everybody know that if they were
citizens Of the United States, and had rights
under the Constitution of the United States,
which were withheld under this prohibition
of the Missouri constitution, it was null and
absolutely void? 1t was, therefore, a need
less attempt 10 fasten a new difficulty on this
State, and not exclude her from the Union
| for doing what believe, Illinois, Indiana
and do not know but other free States oi
the Union, have felt themselves compelled
to do in order to preserve the bodies polite,
which their public authorities represent
from an insuferable nuisance.
Mr.. Toombs. Massachusetts, had such
law on her statute-book then.
Mr.. Badger. My friend suggests that
Massachusetts had law on her statute-book
at that very time, prohibiting their coming
in. do not know how that is; but, then,
suppose it is very different thing between
allowing the free negroes to come into Mass.
achusetts, and turning them over into Mis-.
souri,, that is, supposIng it to be so. Their
how was the State got in at last? By amar'
vcllous contrivance, to which I must refer
really think 1t is one Of the most remarka
bic pieces of humbuggery that ever was
palmed off on any legislative body, composed
of people who had attained the age of matu.
rlty-I do not say those who had come tc
the age of twenty one, but those who hat
passed fourteen, if any such ever acted a
Legislators. Here is joint resolution, pro
viding for the admission of Missouri int,
the Union on a certain condition. What wa
il?
"Resolved, &c., That the State of Mis-
souri, shall be admitted into this Union on al
equal footing with the original States, in al
respects whatever, upon the Fundamental
condition that the fourth clause OF the TWEEN
ty-sixth section Of the third article of tn,
constitution, submitted on the part Of saic
State TO Congress, shall never be construed
to authorize the passage of any law, and tha
no law shall be passed in conformity theret
b. which any citizen OF either Of the State
in this Union shall be excluded from any o
the privileges and immunities 10 which sucl
citizen is entitled under the Constitution 0
the United States"
In other words, Missouri was admitte,
upon the Fundamental condition" that III
State should agree that her Constitution wa
not paramount to the Constitution of the U
S. That is The whole of it. Then mari
the next provision Of this resolution:
provided, That the Legislature CT tn
said State, by solemn public act, shall de
clare the assent of the said State 10 tie sal
fundamental condition, and shall transmi
to the President of the United States, on o
before the 4th Monday in November next
an authentic copy of the said act" SC.
have pointed ont the folly, the absolut
nonsense-but suppose it was the best tha
could be done-of requiring as prerequis
ite that the State should declare that the Con
stitution Of the United States was and shoul
be actually paramount to the constitution @
Missouri, and that then this declaration @
what the constitution of Missouri should b
ascertained, how? Not by a solemn publ
act of convention, representing, in fuI
sovereignty, the people of Missouri, but b.
solemn act ofthe Legislature Of Missouri
Under the constitution, repeating, if necessa
ry this provision of the constitution.
/ Mr.. Everett. Did not Mr.. Clay draw u
, that provision?
Mr.. Badger. do not know. think
recollect hearing Mr., Clay once on this foo
I say, in substance, that he laughed in hi
sleeves at the idea that people were SO easi
l ly satisfied.
: Mr.. Butler. | heard him say it.
{ Mr.. Badger. Now, Mr.. President | pre-