The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-10

d stitution. Luther Martin had con planned
$ l7Se, that "when our own liberties were
D stake we warmly felt for the common righ
Of man. The danger being thought to .
passed which threatened ourselves, we q,
5 daily growing more and more insensibe
those rights" 1t was this growing insens
, biliiy which led to these departures from or
ginal policy. Afterwards, in the 1903, Louis
i ana was acquired from France. Did we the
hasten to establish geographical linel M
. sir. In Louisiana, as in the territories az
qured from Georgia and North Csrolin;
Congress reffuined from applying the polio
OF i7S7; Congress did not interfere with e,
isting slavery; Congress contented Itse
with ensctments prohibiting, absolutely, tn
Introduction Of slaves from beyond the limit
of the United States; and also prohibtin,
their introduction from any Of the States, ex
cept by bona fde owners, actually removing
10 Louisiana for settlement. When Louisi
ana was admitted into the Union, 1912, n,
restriction was imposed upon her in respec
TO slavery. At this time, there were slave
all along up the west bank OF the Mississippi
as lar as st. Louis, and perhaps even Above
In 1918 Missouri applied for admission int
the Union. The free States awoke to the
daugef OF the total overthrow Of the origina
policy of the country. They saw no Stat,
had taken measures for the abolition o
slavery since the adoption Of the Constitution
They saw that the feeble attempt to restric
the introduction Of slaves into the territories
acquired from Georgia and from France hat
utterly failed. They insisted, therefore, tina
In the formation of constitution, the people
OF the Proposed State should embody in it
provision for the gradual abolition of the ex.
isiing slavery, and prohibiting the further in.
PRODUCTION Of slaves. By this time the slave
interest had become strong, and the slave
power wa, pretty firmly established The
demand of the free States was vehementy
contested. A bill preparatory to the adms.
sion Of Missouri, containing the proposed re.
str'ction, was passed by the House and sent
10 the Senate. In the body the bill was
amended by striking out the restriction; the
House refused to concur in the amendment;
the Senate insisted upon it, and the bill failed.
AT the next session of Congress the con-
troversy was renewed. In the tnean time
Maine had been severed from Massachusetts.
had adopted constitution, and had applied
for admission into the Union. A bill pro-
vlding for her admission passed the House,
and was sent to the Senate. This bill was
amended in the Senate by tacking to it a bill
for the admission of Missouri, and by the
addition Of section prohibiting slavery in
all the territory acquired by Louisians north
Of SO 30. The House refused to concur in
these amendments, and the Senate asked for
a committee of conference, to which tthe
House agreed. During the progress of these
events, the House, after passing the Maine
bill, had also passed a bill for the admission
of Missouri, embodyng the restriction upon
slavery in the State. The Senate amended
the bill BY striking out the restriction, and
by inserting the section prohibiting slavery
north Of Sc 80.
This section came from the South, through
Mr.. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, who had
uniformly voted with the slave States against
all restriction. 1t was adopted on the, l7th
February, 1920, as an amendment to the
Maine and Missouri bill, by "a ayes, against
10 noes.*
Mr.. HUNTER. think that the provi-
sions passed without division in the Senate.
Mr.. CHASE, The Senator is mistaken.
Fourteen Senators from the slave States, &,
twenty from the free States voted for that
amendment. Eight from the former, and two
frJm the latter voted against it. No vote ty
ayes and noes was taken when the same
amendment was engrafted upon the separate
Missouri BILL few days later; the sense oi
the Senate having been ascertained by the
former vote.
This was the condition Of matters when
the committee Of conference, for which the
Senate had asked, made their report. The
members of the committee from the Senate
were, OF course, favorable to the Senate
amendments. In the House, the Speaker
HENRY CtAY, was also in favor Of them, &
he had the appointment Of the committee
OF course he took care, as he has since in.
formed the country, to constitute the com.
mi:tee in such manner and of such persons
as would be most likely to secure their adop-
ton. The result was what might have been
expected. 1t recommended that the Senate
should recede from its amendments to the
Maine bill and that the House should con.
cur in the amendments to the Missouri bill
Enough members from the free States were
found to turn the scale against the proposed
restriction of slavery in the State: and tht
amendment Of the Senate striking it ou
was concurred in by ninety yeas agains
eighty-seven nays. From this moment sue
cessiul opposition to the Introduction o
Missouriswith slavery was impossible. Moth
| ing remained but to determine the character
of the residue OF the Louisiana acquisition
and the amendment prohibiting slavery nortf
Of 80 80 was concurred in by one hundret
and thirty -four yeas against forty-two nays
! or the yeas, thirty-eight were from slave
ninety six from free States; of the nays
thirty-seven were from SLAVE States and fv
lfrom free. Among those who voted with tn
4Tbe vote wac as follows; ...4
! AYES-Messrs. Morrill, and Parrot, OF Ne,
! Hsmpshire, Mellen and Otis, of Massachusett:
! dam and Lanman, of Connecticut; Burriil an
| Hunter of Rhode Island; Palmer and Tichenor, G
Vermont; King and Sanford, OF New York; Dicker
son and Wilson, ct New Jersey, Lowrie and: Rot
eru, of Pennsylvania, Rusgles and Trimble, {
| Ohio; Horsey and Van Dyke, ot Delaware Lloy
and Pinkney. Of Maryland; Stokes. Of North Care
= | - I 81 Kpn EV. Eat m