dition imposed by the resolution of Mr. Clay, and on the 10th of August, 1821, President Monroe issued his proclamation declaring the admission of Missouri complete according to law. This resolution of Mr. Clay was, properly speaking, the Missouri Compromise, and of itself had nothing to do, whatever, with the question of slavery in the territories. That question had been settled nearly a year prior to the passage of this resolution, under which that State became a member of the confederacy.

For the purpose of showing what the doctrine of the Southern States, and of that party in the North that acted with the South in that struggle, was upon the subject of the power of Congress to restrict slavery in the territories, we make the following extracts from the speeches of those most prominent in that debate, North and South. The reader will of course understand, that those who advocated the power of restriction in Congress, used, necessarily, the same arguments that are used at the present time upon that subject. It is only in reference to what was, at that time, claimed as the national view of the slavery question, that we compile this chapter; and, in compiling it, we have sought to give the opinion of those who, from their position and talents, may be fairly supposed to have reflected that view at that day. Some of the extracts refer to the State restriction, which was abandoned, but most are upon the amendment of Mr. Thomas, of the Senate, introduced in the House by Mr. Storrs, of New York, involving the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. This was the first debate ever had in Congress upon the subject.

January 26, 1821. The Bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union being under consideration, Mr. Storrs, of New York, offered the following proviso:

"And provided further, and it is hereby enacted, That, forever hereafter, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.

(except in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,) shall exist in the territory of the United States, lying north of the 38th degree of north latitude, and west of the river Mississippi, and the boundaries of the State of Missouri, as established by this act: Provided, That any person escaping into the said territory, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any of the States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed, according to the laws of the United States in such case provided, to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

Mr. Meigs, of New York, said:-It is now at least twenty years, that I have, with some pain and apprehension, remarked the increasing spirit of local and sectional envy and dislike between the North and South. A continued series of sarcasms upon each other's circumstances, modes of living, and manners, so foolishly persevered in, has produced at length that keen controversy which now enlists us in masses against each other on the opposite sides of the line of latitude.

Gentlemen may dignify it by whatever titles they please. They may flatter themselves that all is logic, reason, pure reason. But certain I am, that it is neither more nor less than sectional feeling.

Feeling, sir, however gravely dignified, has brought us in hostility to this singular line of combat, and we, who are, you know sir, "but children of a larger growth," are now most aptly comparable to those celebrated and eternal factions of "Up-Town and Down - Town Boys." I put this observation to every one who hears me, with the wish that he may apply his own recollections and reflections to it.

Gentlemen may exhaust all their arguments, all their eloquence upon the question before us; they may pour ont every flower of rhetoric upon it; but, sir, I view their labors as wholly vain, and I fear that their flowers will be

found to be the most deleterious and the most poisonous in the whole range of botany. They poison the national affection.

Reason divided by parallels of latitude! Why, sir, it is easy for prejudice and malevolence, by aid of ingenuity, to erect an eternal, impenetrable wall of brass between the North and South, at the latitude of thirty-nine degrees! But, in the view of reason, there is no other line between them than that celestial arc of thirty-nine degrees which offers no barrier to the march of liberal and rational men.

It is forgotten that the enlightened high priest, the archbishop of one belligerent, goes to the temple of the Almighty and chants "Te Deum laudamus," for the victory obtained by his country, with carnage and devastation, over the enemy; while the archbishop of another belligerent is at the same time entering the house of God, and singing also, "Te Deum laudamus pro victoria," upon the other side of the line, the creek, or the river? We, who know these things, should profit by our knowledge, learn liberality, and practice it. It is true, and I glory in the knowledge of the truth, that in matters of religion, this country has, in its constitutions, attained a high point of reason and liberality.

Men, after forty or sixty years of religious intolerance, here, at last, may worship the Creator in their own way. What a privilege! how dearly acquired! how much to be prized! It fills us with astonishment, when we reflect how hard it is for us to refrain from forcing by power our opinions upon our brother men! how readily each individual imagines that the light is alone in his own breast, and how enthusiastically he engages in propagating it among mankind by all possible means, fancying, dreaming that he is a prophet, a vicegerent of Almighty God.

January 27, 1830. Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, rose and spoke as follows:-Mr. Chairman: When a man is

fallen into distress, his neighbors surround him to offer re lief. Some, by an attempt at condolence, increase the grief which they would assuage; others, by administering remedies, inflame the disorder; while others, affecting all the solicitude of both, actually wish him dead. It is so with liberty. Always in danger-often in distress-she not only suffers from open and secret foes, but officious and unskillful friends. And among the thousands and millions that throng her temple from curiosity or policy, how few-very fewthere are, who are her sincere, faithful, and intelligent worshipers? Among these few, I trust, are to be found all the advocates for restriction in this House. And I readily admit, that most of those out of doors, whose zeal is excited on this occasion, are of the same description.

But is it not probable that there are some jugglers behind the screen who are playing a deeper game-who are combining to rally under this standard, as the last resort, the forlorn hope of an expiring party. But while we admit this in behalf of the respectable gentlemen who advocate the restriction of slavery in Missouri, we ask, may we demand of thera the same liberality. We are not the advocates or the abettors of slavery.

For one, sir, I would rejoice if there was not a slave on earth. Liberty is the object of my love-my adoration. I would extend its blessings to every human being. But, though my feelings are strong for the abolition of slavery, they are yet stronger for the Constitution of my country. And, if I am reduced to the sad alternative to tolerate the holding of slaves in Missouri or violate the Constitution of my country, I will not admit a doubt to cloud my choice.

Sir, of what benefit would be abolition, if at a sacrifice of your Constitution? Where would be the guarantee of the liberty which you grant? Liberty has a temple here, and it is the only one which remains. Destroy this, and she

must flee-she must retire among the brutes of the wilderness to mourn and lament the misery and folly of man.

The proposition for the consideration of the committee is, to abolish slavery in Missouri, as a condition of her admission into the Union.

This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, I am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial exposition, but as I shall understand it; not as private interest or public zeal may urge, but as I shall believe; not as I may wish it, but as it is.

I have carefully examined this Constitution, and I can find no such power. I have looked it through, and I am

certain it is not in the book.

This power is not express, and if given at all, it must be constructive.

This amplifying power by construction is dangerous, and will, not improbably, effect the eventual destruction of the Constitution.

That there are resulting or implied powers, I am not disposed to deny; but they are only where the powers are subordinate and the implication necessary.

All powers not granted are prohibited, is a maxim to which we cannot too religiously adhere.

How comes it that Congress can prohibit a transfer of a slave from one State to another, and under this power to regulate commerce, when they are expressly forbidden to compel a vessel bound from one State to enter, clear, nor pay duties, in that of another? If Congress has this power under this clause in the Constitution, then slaves are to be prohibited as commerce.

And, sir, where is the authority to prohibit the transfer of an article of commerce from State to State? A man leaves a State to go into another with his family, slaves, cattle, and implements of husbandry, to clear up and culti