New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-02-13

place in the interval between the two great debates
In Congress on the admission Of Missouri a. State
AZ the result Of the first debate, Missouri had been
authorized to form Constitution without any re-
strction on the subject Of Slavery. Previous 70 the
Presidential election, che had formed State Con-
stitution, had organized State Government, and
had appointed Presidential Electors, who had met
and voted. But when the votes came to be counted,
in convention Of the two Houses Of Congress, the
question Of the admission of Missouri into the
Union was still pending objection being made on
the ground that certain clause in her Constitution,
for the prevention Of the immigration Of free ne
Qrces, was in violation Of the rights Of citizens Of
the other States.
A large portion Of the Southern members Of
Congress insisted that Missouri was State already,
and that as such her vote ought to be counted.
Those who considered her Cons!ita as objec-
tonabe maintained that, until she was formally ad-
mitted BY Joint resolution to that effect, she was
no State, and could not vote. AS the admission or
rejection Of her vote would not attest the Presi-
Dental election either way, to avoid any contro-
versy in the joint Convention for counting the
votes, it had been agreed, on the report Of joint
Committee, that the result should be announced
both ways, including Missouri and leaving her out
10 be followed by declaration that by either count
Monroe and Tompkins were elected-a precedent
that clearly ought to have been followed in
the present case. Upon that occasion, indeed,
owing to the high state of excitement on the Ms
sour question, it did not prevent some trouble
The ultras on both .des dissatisfied with this
peaceful arrangement, and determined, if they
could, to throw the Convention into confusion
When. at the close Of the count, the vote of Mis-
souri, was announced, LvermOre, member of the
House from New. Hampshire, objected to its recep-
ton becauie Missouri was not a State of the
Union. At this interruption the Senate withdrew,
and after their departure Floyd, member Of the
House from Virginia, offered resolution that MIS-
souri, was State and entitled to vote. Considerable
discussion ensued, but at length on Clays motion
Floyd's proposition was laid on the table end
message was sent to the Senate that the House
ready to proceedwith the count The jontsession
having been reconstructed the President Of the
Senate proceeded to announce the election Of Mon
roe and Tompkins, but be was interrupted in the
midst of it by inquiries from Floyd and John Ran
dolph whether the vote of Missouri had been
counted or not Some confusion ensued, but
the two members were declared out of
order, and were required as well by the
Speaker of the House as the President of
the Senate to take their seats, upon which the sn-
nunciation was completed and the joint session i'm
mediatey closed by the departure of the President
of the Senate and the other Senators, no notice be-
ing taken of John Randolph, who was struggling
to get the floor. As soon as the Speaker had re-
samed the chair, Randolph offered resolution de-
clariDg the late proceedings irregular because the
vote of Missouri had not been counted. The
House was thrown into great state Of excitement;
but an adjournment was soon carried, and the next
day the House refused TO consider Randolph's reso-
luton, and there the matter ended.
The difficulty on that occasion was in the excite
ment of the Mis- souri, question, and the wish to drag
that question into the formal counting Of the votes
No such subject of immediate interest and sectional
excitement hung upon the skirts OF the Wisconsin
csse; and bad provision been made beforehand for
announcing the result both ways, including the vote
of Wisconsin and leaving it out, the President of
the Senate would have been saved from the impu-
tations now thrown upon him, of having assumed
TO himself the decision Of the question.
But though Congress omitted to provide in sea-
.on, as they might have done, for the immediate
emergency, they seem to be very anxious to settle
matters for the future, and for yet to occur
in which the rejection or admission Of the vote of
State may affect the result of the election. But
how they are to do this do not exactly perceive.
We are inclined to think they will DO we'll to act on
the maxim, Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof" leaving to their successors to meet such
cases as NAV occur. As a precedent this case
would never have any weight, from the very fact
that it was not case affecting the ultimate result
Nor do we see that any legislation can settle the
matter for the future. The Constitution, though it
gives Congress the right Of determining the day Tor
choosing the Electors expressly provides that that
day "shall be the same throughout the United
States" We do not deny that under GER
tain circumstances of inevitable necessity, vote
cast on the 4th might and ought to be taken
and accepted as a vote cast on the Sd, but
tina. is question of which the solution
must depend upon general principles OF right and
justice, applied to the particular circumstances,
the settlement of which is not to be aided in
any way that we can gee by any action on the part
of the present Congress. Tha: body has quite too
many importan. matters to act upon to have
any time to waste upon the settlement of ques-
ton which, in the first place, may never arise, and
upon the settlement of whi:h, when it does arise,
the opinions and discusslons Of the present Con-