their state rights, their all, he should consider it as a dereliction of his duty, as retreating from his post, nay, double criminality, did he not raise his voice against their adoption. glory, hangs but as an appendage to the extended empire | presented, were immediately concerned. But when a Sir, we have been told, with apparent confidence, that we have no right to annex conditions to a State, on its admission into the Union; and it has been urged that the proposed amendment, prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, asserted with so much confidence, remains unsupported by any argument, or by any authority derived from the Constitution itself. The Constitution strongly indicates an opposite conclusion, and seems to contemplate a difference between the old and the new States. The practice of the government has sanctioned this difference in many respects. Sir, we have been told that this is a new principle for which we contend, never before adopted, or thought of. So far from this being correct, it is due to the memory of our ancestors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by them, as the policy of our country. Whenever the United States have had the right and the power, they have heretofore prevented the extension of Slavery. The States of Kentucky and Tennessee were taken off from other States, and were admitted into the Union without condition, because their lands were never owned by the United States. The Territory northwest of the Ohio is all the land which ever belonged to them. Shortly after the cession of those lands to the Union, Congress passed, in 1787, a compact, which was declared to be unalterable, the sixth article of which provides that, "there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted." In pursuance of this compact, all the States formed from that Territory have been admitted into the Union upon various conditions, and, amongst which, the sixth article of this compact is included as one. Let gentlemen also advert to the law for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union; they will find it filled with conditions. It was required not only to form a Constitution upon the principles of a republican government, but it was required to contain the "fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty." It was even required, as a condition of its admission, to keep its records, and its judicial and its legislative proceedings, in the English language; and also to secure the trial by jury, and to surrender all claim to unappropriated lands in the Territory, with the prohibition to tax any of the United States' lands. After this long practice and constant usage to annex conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is unconstitutional, and talk of our principles being novel and extraordinary? Mr. Scott, of Missouri, said: He trusted that his conduct, during the whole of the time in which he had had the honor of a seat in the House, had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects than those on which the interest of his constituents, and of the Territory he re Mr. Scott entertained the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the power to impose this, or any other restriction, or to require of the people of Missouri their assent to this condition, as a pre-requisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. The short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those who were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principles of our government, or who were not desirous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expediency. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union." The only power given to the Congress by this section appeared to him to be, that of passing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and prominent of which was that of forming and modifying their own State Constitution, and over which Congress had no superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." This end accomplished, the guardianship of the United States over the Constitutions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and conditions beyond this, was so much power unwarrantably assumed. In illustration of this position, he would read an extract from one of the essays written by the late President Madison, contemporaneously with the Constitution of the United States, and from a very celebrated work: "In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such an union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other, and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be substantially maintained. But this authority extends no further than to a guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a preëxisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance." Mr. Scott believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citizens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the necessary consequence of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise, discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality. For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, must have the same right to decide whether they would or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more rights, privileges and powers in their advantages and immunities, with the other cit the United States, but in the privilege to submit crastination of their rights, and in the advantag scribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, a powers, even without a hearing? Those people w "to be admitted into the Union as soon as p Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that i understanding of the parties, that so soon as any of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form should contain the number of inhabitants require to entitle them to a representative on the floor House, that they then had the right to make the admission, and this admission, when made, was to on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedi on conditions referable to future political views conditions that the Constitution the people shou should contain a clause that would particularly o door for emigration from the North or from the not on condition that the future population of th should come from a Slaveholding or Non-Slave State, "but according to the principles of the Constitution," and none other. Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who profe be actuated by motives of humanity and principl not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by a of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of M to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was ing to believe, that political views alone led gentle this or any other occasion; but, from the languag member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was con to suspect that they had their influence upon him gentlemen has told us, that if ever he left his pres sidence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. M begged that gentleman to relieve him from the aw prehension excited by the prospect of this access population. He hoped the House would excuse hin he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, h or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and pendent freemen. The member says that the lati too far North to admit of Slavery there. WOL gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and land, were as far North as the Northern boundary proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would tha gentleman if he would condescend to tell him wha cise line of latitude suited his conscience, his hur or his political views, on this subject. Could tha ber be serious, when he made the parallel of latitu measure of his good-will to those unfortunate b Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious ment and absurdity, without creating one blush e his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve t groes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasse fine them to Southern latitudes, to long, scorching of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinc the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that man, his brothers, and sons? He expected from t jority of the House a more liberal policy, and bett dence that they really were actuated by humane m The House bill, thus passed, reached Senate, February 17th, when it was read and sent to a Select Committee already on a like application from Alabama, consisti Messrs. Tait, of Georgia; Morrow, of Ohio; Willia Mississippi; Edwards, of Illinois; Williams, of Tenn On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, from this Comm reported the bill with amendments, strikin the Anti-Slavery restrictions inserted b House. This bill was taken up in Commit The people were not left to the wayward discretion of this or any other government, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was different and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that they were to form a constituent part of this republic, the Whole, on the 27th, when Mr. Wilse that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses New-Jersey moved its postponement to th negatived: Yeas 14; Nays 23. and national gains; as a Territory they were not an es- of March-that is, to the end of the sessi sential part of the Government; they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the General Government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory, they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union, Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales of the public lands, to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this Government, or many The Senate then proceeded to vote on a ing to the amendments reported by the S Committee, viz.: 1, to strike out of the H bill the following: And that all children of slaves born within th State, after the admission thereof into the Union be Free, but may be held to service until the a twenty-one years. Which was stricken out by the following Yeas-Against the Restriction-27. Naysthe Restriction-7. The vote on this clause was as follows: The bill thus amended was ordered to be en- [The record shows hardly a vote changed from Yea, on the original passage of the Restriction, to Nay now, but many members who voted then were now absent or silent.] The vote was then taken on concurring in the Senate's amendments, as aforesaid, and the House refused to concur; Yeas 76; Nays 78. [Hardly a vote changed; but more members voting thân on the previous division, and less than when the Restriction was carried.] The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a message of non-concurrence; when Mr. Tait moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment, which was carried without a division. The bill being thus remanded to the House, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the House adhere to its disagreement, which prevailed. Yeas 78; Nays 66. So the bill fell between the two Houses, and was lost. The Southern portion of the then Territory of Missouri (organized by separation from Louisiana in 1812) was excluded from the proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territory, entitled Arkansas. The bill being under consideration, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved that the foregoing restriction be applied to it also; and the clause, proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at twenty-five years of age, was carried (February 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing against the further introduction of Slaves was lost; Veas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arkansas of course became a Slave Territory, and ultimately (1836) a Slave State. THE SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE. A new Congress assembled on the 6th of December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Territorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, praying her admission into the Union as a State, be referred to a Select Committee; carried, On the 14th, Mr. Taylor, of New-York, moved a Select Committee on this subject, which was granted; and the mover, with Messrs. Livermore, of New-Hampshire, Barbour, (P. P.) of Virginia, Lowndes, of South-Carolina, Fuller, of Massachusetts, Hardin, of Kentucky, and Cuthbert, of Georgia, were appointed such committee, A majority of this Committee being Pro-Slavery, Mr. Taylor could do nothing; and on the 28th the Committee was, on motion, discharged from the further consideration of the subject. On the same day, Mr. Taylor moved: That a Committee be appointed with instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of slaves into the Territories of the United States West of the river Mississippi. On motion of Mr. Smith, of Maryland, this resolve was sent to the Committee of the Whole, and made a special order for January 10th; but it was not taken up, and appears to have slept the sleep of death. In the Senate, the memorial of the Missouri Territorial Legislature, asking admission as a State, was presented by Mr. Smith, of SouthCarolina, December 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted of Messrs. Smith, of South Carolina; Leake, of Mississippi; Burrill, of Rhode Island; Logan, of Kentucky; Otis of Massachusetts. DANIEL WEBSTER ON SLAVERY EXTENSION. The following is extracted from the "Memorial to the Congress of the United States, on the subject of restraining the increase of Slavery in New States to be admitted into the Union," in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, assembled at the State House on the 3d of December, 1819, which was drawn up by Daniel Webster, and signed by himself, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, etc. It is inserted here instead of the resolves of the various New England Legislatures, as a fuller and clearer statement of the views of the great body of the people of that section during the pendency of the Missouri question : "MEMORIAL To the Senate and House of Representatives of the The undersigned, inhabitants of and its vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and humbly to represent: That the question of the introduction of Slavery into the new States to be formed on the west side of the Mississippi River, appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it seems to the undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false step taken now, cannot be retraced; and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply and essentially those objects of common defense, general welfare, and the perpetuation of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution itself was formed, we have presumed, in this way, to offer Legislature. And, as various reasons have been suggested against prohibiting Slavery in the new States, it may perhaps be permitted to us to state our reasons, both for believing that Congress possesses the Constitutional power to make such prohibition a condition, on the admission of a new State into the Union, and that it is just and proper that they should exercise that power. "And in the first place, as to the Constitutional authority of Congress. The Constitution of the United and Messrs. Scott, of Missouri, Robertson, of our sentiments and express our wishes to the National Kentucky, Terrell, of Georgia, Strother, of Vir- committee. Mr. Strong, of New-York, that day gave notice of a bill "To prohibit the further extension of Slavery in the United States." any portion of the American Confederacy. The Territory is a new country. If its extensive a field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the ment will seem to become a party to a traffic impolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact law ish the traffic, and, at the same time, to tempt and avarice by the allurements of an insatiabl is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government a course, would only defeat its own purposes, an nugatory its own measures. Nor can the law support from the manners of the people, if the moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under mission of Government, great facilities to co fenses. The laws of the United States have de heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, beca traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appe spirit of these laws. We appeal to this justice and ity. We ask her whether they ought not to operat present occasion, with all their force? We have feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slaver cumstances have entailed it on a portion of our co in this view, all the authority which any State Legisla-ty, which cannot be immediately relieved from it ture possesses over its own Territory; and if any State Legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit Slavery within its own limits, in virtue of its general Legislative authority, for the same reason Congress also may exercise the like authority over its own Territories, And that a State Legislature, unless restrained by some Constitutional provision, may so do, is unquestionable, and has been established by general practice. consequences more injurious than the suffering of But to permit it in a new country, where yet no ha formed which render it indispensable, what is it, bu courage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, which we have so long pointed the denunciations penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on faith, and to render questionable all its profession gard for the rights of humanity and the liberties c kind? As inhabitants of a free country-as citizen great and rising Republic-as members of a Cl community-as living in a liberal and enlighten and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictate ligion and humanity, we have presumed to offer ou ments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude event far beyond what a common occasion could in Instead of reprinting the Speeches elicit If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery in a new State, necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of representation, which already exists in regard to the original States. It cannot be expected that those of the original States, which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension as being politically just. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; and your memorialists have no wish that that compact this fruitful theme, which must necessari should be disturbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely a great extent, be a mere reproduction of different character, when a new State proposes to be ad mitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith expressed in the debate of the last se plighted; and where is the reason that she could come already given, we here insert the Resol into the Union with more than an equal share of political importance and political power? Already the ratio of the Legislatures of New-York, New-Je representation, established by the Constitution, has given to the States holding slaves twenty members of the House Pennsylvania, Delaware and Kentucky-th of Representatives more than they would have been en- three being unanimous expressions in fav titled to, except under the particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability, this number will be Slavery Restriction; the fourth, from a doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabi- State, also in favor of such Restriction, th tants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, probably not unanimously agreed to by renouncing the right in question, and establishing a Constitution prohibiting it forever. Without dwelling on Legislature; the last against Restriction, this topic, we have still thought it our duty to present it also (we presume) unanimous. The Legisla to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and we respectfully solicit for it the full consideration of the National Legislature. Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and the danger of this description of population had become apparent in all parts of this country and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new States themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and prosperity of the States north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed, in a great measure, to the consequences of the ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, are the occasions, in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling inconvenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted evil. We cannot forbear to remind the two by the American Government for the abolition of the slave-trade, are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy of another Government. No imputation, thus far, rests on of the Free States were generally unanimou Restriction; those of the Slave States (1 ware excepted) against it. It is not dee necessary to print more than the following State of New-York, in Assembly, Jan. 17, 1820: Whereas, The inhibiting the further extension Slavery in these United States is a subject of deep cor among the people of this State; and whereas we con Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that e constitutional barrier should be interposed to preven further extension; and that the Constitution of the Un States clearly gives Congress the right to require of States, not comprised within the original boundarie these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a co tion of its admission into the Union: Therefore, Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur her That our Senators be instructed, and our Representat in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission State into the Union, any territory not comprised as af said, without making the prohibition of Slavery thereir indispensable condition of admission; therefore, Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit cop of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators Representatives in Congress. (Unanimously concurred in by the Senate.) NEW-JERSEY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 24th, 1820. } Mr. Wilson, of N. J., communicated the following Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New-Jersey, which were read: Whereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision, The representatives of the people of New Jersey, in Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said State, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and, 1. They do resolve and declare, That the further admission of Territories into the Union, without restriction of Slavery, would, in their opinion, essentially impair the right of this and other existing States to equal representation in Congress (a right at the foundation of the political compact), inasmuch as such newly-admitted slaveholding States would be represented on the basis of their slave population; a concession made at the formation of the Constitution in favor of the then existing States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to be inferred from any article or clause in that instrument. 2. Resolved, That to admit the Territory of Missouri as a State into the Union, without prohibiting Slavery there, would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, be no less than to sanction this great political and moral evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast Territory with slaves, and perpetuate all the dangers, crimes, and pernicious effects of domestic bondage. 8. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to be admitied into the Union, but on the principles of the Federal Constitution, and only by a law of Congress, consenting thereto on the part of the existing States, Congress may rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless upon the reasonable and just conditions, assented to on the part of the people applying to become one of the States. 4. Resolved, In the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That the article of the Constitution which re strains Congress from prohibiting the migration or impor- be-created State. 5. Resolved, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people of New-Jersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress have a clear right to refuse the admission of a Territory into the Union, by the terms of the Constitution, they ought, in the present case, to exercise that absolute discretion in order to preserve the political rights of the several existing States, and prevent the great national disgrace and multiplied mischiefs, which must ensue from conceding it, as a matter of right, in the immense Territories yet to claim admission into the Union beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery. 6. Resolved, (with the concurrence of Council,) That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the Uni ted States. A motion was made by Mr. Duane and Mr. The Senate and House of Representatives of the Com- Such an occasion, as in their judgment demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is now presented. A measure was ardently supported in the last Congress of the United States, and will probably be as earnestly urged during the existing session of that body, which has a palpable tendency to impair the political relations of the several States; which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the present and future generations; which, if adopted, would impede the march of humanity and Freedom through the world; and would transfer from a misguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it indelibly upon the present race-a measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruelties of Slavery from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a measure of this character is seriously advocated in the republican Congress of America, in the nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil that already hangs in awful boding over so large a portion of the Union. Nor can such a protest be entered by any State with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This Commonwealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend to the universe, by their example, the unadulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their pride that they have been at all times the practical advocates of those improvements and charities among men which are so well calculated to enable them to answer the purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Slavery from among them. If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several States; if, odious as Slavery is, it was proposed to hasten its extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be among the first to insist upon a sacred observance of the Constitutional compact. But it cannot be pretended that the rights of any of the States are at all to be affected by refusing to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over the boundless regions of the West, a Territory which formed no part of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution; which has been but lately purchased from a European Power by the people of the Union at large; which may or may not be admitted as a State into the Union at the discretion of Congress; which must establish a Republican form of Government, and no other; and whose climate, affords none of the pretexts urged for resorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; such a Territory has no right, inherent or acquired, such as those States possessed which established the existing Constitution. When that Constitution was framed in September, 1787, the concession that three-fifths of the slaves in the States then existing should be represented in Congress, could not have been intended to embrace regions at that time held by a foreign power. On the contrary, so anxious were the Congress of that day to confine human bondage within its ancient home, that on the 13th of July, 1787, that body unanimously declared that Slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the extensive Territories bounded by the Ohio, the Mississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and in the ninth article of the Constitution itself, the power of Congress to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognized; nor is there to be found in the statute-book a single instance of the admission of a Territory to the rank of a State, in which Congress have not adhered to the right, vested in them by the Constitution, to stipu. late with the Territory upon the conditions of the boon. The Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, therefore, cannot but deprecate any departure from the humane and enlightened policy pursued not only by the illustrious Congress which framed the Constitution, but by their successors without exception. They are persuaded that, to open the fertile regions of the West to a servile race, would tend to increase their numbers beyond all past example, would open a new and steady market for the lawless venders of human flesh, and would render all schemes for obliterating this most foul blot upon the American character, useless and unavailing. Under these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsylvania"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby instructed, and that the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a State into the Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate and agree |