der of the session.

At the next session, on the 13th February, 1819, the house went into committee of the whole, Gen. Smith, of Maryland, in the chair, and took up the Missouri bill, which was considered through that sitting, and also Gen. Tallmadge, of New York, moved the following

on Monday, the 15th. amendment:

"And provided that the introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly convicted, and that all children born within the said state, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be declared free at the age of twenty-five years."

Mr. Fuller, of Massachusetts, said, that in the admission of new states into the Union, he considered that congress had a discretionary power. By the 4th article and 3d section of the constitution, congress are authorized to admit them; but nothing in that section, or in any part of the constitution, enjoins the admission as imperative, under any circumstances. If it were otherwise, he would request gentlemen to point out what were the circumstances or conditions precedent, which being found to exist, congress must admit the new state. All discretion would, in such case, be taken from congress, Mr. Fuller said, and deliberation would be useless. The honorable speaker (Mr. Clay) has said that congress has no right to prescribe any condition whatever to the newly-organized states, but must admit them by a simple act, leaving their sovereignty unrestricted. [Here the speaker explained-he did not intend to be understood in so broad a sense as Mr. Fuller stated.] With the explanation of the honorable gentleman, Mr. Fuller said, I still think his ground as untenable as before. We certainly have a right, and our duty to the nation requires, that we should examine the actual state of things in the proposed state; and, above all, the constitution expressly makes a REPUBLICAN form of government in the several states a fundamental principle, to be preserved under the sacred guarantee of the national legislature.-[Art. 4, sec 4.] It clearly, therefore, is the duty of congress, before admitting a new sister into the Union, to ascertain that her constitution or form of government republican. Now, sir, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tallmadge, merely requires that slavery shall be prohibited in Missouri. Does this imply anything more than that its constitution shall be republican? The existence of slavery in any state is, so far, a departure from republican principles. The Declaration of Independence, penned by the illustrious statesman then, and at this time, a citizen of a state which admits slavery, defines the principle on which our national and state constitutions are all professedly founded. The second paragraph of that instrument begins thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident-that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." Since, then, it cannot be denied that slaves are men, it follows that they are, in a purely republican government, born free, and are entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Mr. Fuller was here interrupted by several gentlemen, who thought it

improper to question in debate the republican character of the slaveholding states, which had also a tendency, as one gentleman (Mr. Colston, of Virginia,)

⚫ said, to deprive those states of the right to hold slaves as property, and he adverted to the probability that there might be slaves in the gallery, listening to the debate.] Mr. Fuller assured the gentleman that nothing was farther from his thoughts, than to question on that floor, the right of Virginia and other states, which held slaves when the constitution was established, to continue to hold them. With that subject the national legislature could not interfere, and ought not to attempt it. But, Mr. Fuller continued, if gentlemen will be patient, they will see that my remarks will neither derogate from the constitutional rights of the states, nor from a due respect to their several forms of government. Sir, it is my wish to allay, and not to excite local animosities, but I shall never refrain from advancing such arguments in debate as my duty requires, nor do I believe that the reading of our Declaration of Independence, or a discussion of republican principles on any occasion, can endanger the rights, or merit the disapprobation of any portion of the Union.

My reason, Mr. Chairman, for recurring to the Declaration of our Independence, was to draw from an authority admitted in all parts of the Union, a definition of the basis of republican government. If, then, all men have equal rights, it can no more comport with the principles of a free government to exelude men of a certain color from the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," than to exclude those who have not attained a certain portion of wealth, or a certain stature of body, or to found the exclusion on any other capricious or accidental circumstance. Suppose Missouri, before her admission as a state, were to submit to us her constitution by which no person could elect, or be elected to any office, unless he possessed a clear annual income of twenty thousand dollars; and suppose we had ascertained that only five, or a very small number of persons had such an estate, would this be anything more or less than a real aristocracy, under a form nominally republican? Election and representation, which some contend are the only essential principles of republics, would exist only in name-a shadow without substance, a body without a soul. But if all the other inhabitants were to be made slaves, and mere property of the favored few, the outrage on principle would be still more palpable. Yet, sir, it is demonstrable that the exclusion of the black population from all political freedom, and making them the property of the whites, is an equally palpable invasion of right, and abandonment of principle. If we do this in the admission of new states, we violate the constitution, and we have not now the excuse which existed when our national constitution was established. Then, to effect a concert of interests, it was proper to make concessions. The states where slavery existed not only claimed the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a general emancipation of slaves could not be asked of them. Their political existence would have been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must have been involved in the most fatal consequences.

To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the constitution

"that the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the existing states think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited till 1808."-Art. 1, sec. 9. And it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to service by the laws of any state, shall be given up by other states, to which they may have escaped, etc.-Art. 4, sec. 2.

These provisions effectually recognized the right in the states, which at the time of framing the constitution held the blacks in slavery, to continue so to hold them until they should think proper to meliorate their condition. The constitution is a compact among all the states then existing, by which certain principles of government are established for the whole, and for each individual state. The predominant principle in both respects is, that ALL MEN are FREE, and have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY, and all other privileges; or, in other words, the predominant principle is REPUBLICANISM, in its largest sense. But, then, the same compact contains certain exceptions. The states then holding slaves are permitted, from the necessity of the case, and for the sake of union, to exclude the republican principle so far, and only so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and also their progeny, as had been the usage, until they think it proper or safe to conform to the pure principle, by abolishing slavery. The compact contains on its face the general principle and the exceptions. But the attempt to extend slavery to the new states, is in direct violation of the clause, which guarantees a republican form of government to all the states. This clause, indeed, must be construed in connection with the exceptions before mentioned; but it cannot, without violence, be applied to any other states than those in which slavery was allowed at the formation of the constitution.

The honorable speaker cites the first clause in the 2d section of the 4th article, "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states," which he thinks would be violated by the condition proposed in the constitution of Missouri. To keep slaves, to make one portion of the population the property of another, hardly deserves to be called a privilege, since what is gained by the masters must be lost by the slaves. But, independently of this consideration, I think the observations already offered to the committee, showing that holding the black population in servitude is an exception to the general principles of the constitution, and can not be allowed to extend beyond the fair import of the terms by which that exception is provided, are a sufficient answer to the objection. The gentleman proceeds in the same train of reasoning, and asks if congress can require one condition, how many more can be required, and where these conditions will end? With regard to a republican constitution, congress are obliged to require that condition, and that is enough for the present question; but I contend, further, that congress has a right, at their discretion, to require any other reasonable condition. Several others were required of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi. The state of Louisiana, which was a part of the territory ceded to us at the same time with Missouri, was required to provide in her constitution for trials by jury, the writ of habeas corpus, the principles of civil and religious liberty, with several others, peculiar to that state. These, cer

tainly, are none of them more indispensable ingredients in a republican form of government than the equality of privileges of all the population; yet these have not been denied to be reasonable, and warranted by the national constitution in the admission of new states. Nor need gentlemen apprehend that congress will set no reasonable limits to the conditions of admission. In the exercise of their constitutional discretion on this subject, they are, as in all other cases, responsible to the people. Their power to levy direct taxes is not limited by the constitution. They may lay a tax of one million of dollars, or of a hundred millions, without violating the letter of the constitution; but if the latter enormous and unreasonable sum were levied, or even the former, without evident necessity, the people have the power in their own hands-a speedy corrective is found in the return of the elections. This remedy is so certain, that the representatives of the people can never lose sight of it; and, consequently, an abuse of their powers to any considerable extent can never be apprehended. The same reasoning applies to the exercise of all the powers entrusted to congress, and the admission of new states into the Union is in no respect an exception.

One gentleman, however, has contended against the amendment, because it abridges the rights of the slaveholding states to transport their slaves to the new states, for sale or otherwise. This argument is attempted to be enforced in various ways, and particularly by the clause in the constitution last cited. It admits, however, of a very clear answer by recurring to the 9th section of article 1st, which provides that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states then existing shall admit, shall not be prohibited by congress till 1808." This clearly implies that the migration and importation may be prohibited after that year. The importation has been prohibited, but the migration has not hitherto been restrained; congress, however, may restrain it when it may be judged expedient. It is, indeed, contended by some gentlemen, that migration is either synonymous with importation, or that it means something different from the transportation of slaves from one state to another. It certainly is not synonymous with importation, and would not have been used had it been so. It cannot mean exportation, which is also a definite and precise term. It cannot mean the reception of free blacks from foreign countries, as is alleged by some, because no possible reason existed for regulating their admission by the constitution; no free blacks ever came from Africa, or any other country to this; and to introduce the provision by the side of that for the importation of slaves, would have been absurd in the highest degree. What alternative remains but to apply the term "migration" to the transportation of slaves from those states where they are admitted to be held, to other states? Such a provision might have in view a very natural object. The price of slaves might be affected so far by a sudden prohibition to transport slaves from state to state, that it was as reasonable to guard against that inconvenience as against the sudden interdiction of the importation. Hitherto it has not been found necessary for congress to prohibit migration or transportation from state to state. But now it becomes the right and duty of

congress to guard against the further extension of the intolerable evil and the

crying enormity of slavery.

The expediency of this measure is very apparent. The opening of an extensive slave market will tempt the cupidity of those who, otherwise, perhaps, might gradually emancipate their slaves. We have heard much, Mr. Chairman, of the colonization society; an institution which is the favorite of the humane gentlemen in the slaveholding states. They have long been lamenting the miseries of slavery, and earnestly seeking for a remedy compatible with their own safety and the happiness of their slaves. At last the great desideratum is found a colony in Africa for the emancipated blacks. How will the generous intentions of these humane persons be frustrated if the price of slaves is to be doubled by a new and boundless market? Instead of emancipation of the slaves, it is much to be feared that unprincipled wretches will be found kidnapping those who are already free, and transporting and selling the hapless victims into hopeless bondage. Sir, I really hope that congress will not contribute to discountenance and render abortive the generous and philanthropic views of this most worthy and laudable society. Rather let us hope that the time is not very remote, when the shores of Africa, which have so long been a scene of barbarous rapacity and savage cruelty, shall exhibit a race of free and enlightened people-the offspring, indeed, of cannibals or claves; but displaying the virtues of civilization and the energies of independent freemen. America may then hope to see the development of a germ, now scarcely visible, cherished and matured under the genial warmth of our country's protection, till the fruit shall appear in the regeneration and happiness of a boundless continent.

"

One argument still remains to be noticed. It is said that we are bound, by the treaty of cession with France, to admit the ceded territory into the Union as soon as possible." It is obvious that the president and the senate, the treaty-making power, cannot make a stipulation with any foreign nation in derogation of the constitutional powers and duties of this house, by making it imperative on us to admit the new territory according to the literal tenor of the phrase; but the additioual words in the treaty, "according to the principles of the constitution," put it beyond all doubt that no such compulsory admission was intended, and that the republican principles of our constitution are to govern us in the admission of this, as well as all the new states in the national family.

Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, rose: Sir, said he, it has been my desire and my intention to avoid any debate on the present painful and unpleasant subject. When I had the honor to submit to this house the amendment now under consideration, I accompanied it with a declaration that it was intended to confine its operation to the newly acquired territory across the Mississippi; and I then expressly declared that I would in no manner intermeddle with the slaveholding states, nor attempt manumission in any one of the original states in the Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated that I was aware of the delicacy of the subject, and that I had learned from southern gentlemen the diffi