Resolve of 1780; and yet it has been seen that that Resolve was never supposed to inhibit the authority of Congress, as to the introduction of slavery. And it is clear, upon the plainest rule of construction, that in the absence of all restrictive language, a clause, merely providing for the admission of a territory into the Union, must be construed to authorize an admission in the manner and upon the terms which the Constitution itself would justify. This construction derives additional support from the next clause. The inhabitants shall be admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States." The rights, advantages, and immunities here spoken of must, from the very force of the terims of the clause, be such as are recognised or communicated by the Constitution of the United States; such as are common to all citizens, and are uniform throughout the United States. The clause cannot be referred to rights, advantages, and immunities derived exclusively from the state government, for these do not depend upon the Federal Constitution. Besides, it would be impossible that all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the different states could be at the same time enjoyed by the same persons. These rights are different in different states; a right exists in one state which is denied in others, or is repugnant to other rights enjoyed in others. In some of the states a freeholder alone is entitled to vote in elections; in some a qualification of personal property is sufficient; and in others age and freedom are the sole qualifications of electors. In some statos, no citizen is permitted to hold slaves: in others he possesses that power absolutely; in others it is limited. The obvious meaning, therefore, of the clause is, that the rights derived under the Federal Constitution shall be enjoyed by the inhabitants of Louisiana in the same manner as by the citizens of other states. The United States, by the Constitution, are bound to guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government; and the inhabitants of Louisiana are entitled, when a state, to this guarantee. Each state has a right to two senators, and to representatives according to a certain enumeration of population, pointed out in the Constitution. The inhabitants of Louisiana, upon their admission into the Union, are also entitled to these privileges. The Constitution further declares, “that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." It would seem as if the meaning of this clause could not well be misinterpreted. It obviously applies to the case of the removal of a citizen of ne state to another state; and in such a case it secures to the migrating citizen all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the state to which he removes. It cannot surely be contended, upon any rational interpreta

tion, that it gives to the citizens of each state. all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of every other state, at the same time, and under all circumstances. Such a construction would lead to the most extraordinary consequences. It would at once destroy all the fundamental limitations of the state constitutions upon the rights of their own citizens; and leave all those rights to the mercy of the citizens of any other state, which should adopt different limitations. According to this construction, if all the state constitutions, save one, prohibited slavery, it would be in the power of that single state, by the admission of the right of its citizens to hold slaves, to communicate the same right to the citizens of all the other states within their own exclusive limits, in defiance of their own constitutional prohibitions; and to render the absurdity still more apparent, the same construction would communicate the most opposite and irreconcilable rights to the citizens of different states at the same time. It seems, therefore, to be undeniable, upon any rational interpretation, that this clause of the Constitution communicated no rights in any state which its own citizens do not enjoy; and that the citizens of Louisiana, upon their admission into the Union, in receiving the benefit of this clause, would not enjoy higher or more extensive rights than the citizens of Ohio. It would communicate to the former no right of holding slaves except in states where the citizens already possessed the same right under their own state constitutions and laws. * *

Upon the whole, the memorialists would most respectfully submit that the terms of the Constitution, as well as the practice of the governments under it, must, as they humbly conceive, entirely justify the conclusion that Congress may prohibit the further introduction of slavery into its own territories, and also make such prohibition a condition of the admission of any new state into the Union.

If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibi tion 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 origi nal states the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; and your memorialists have no wish that that compact should be dis turbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely different character, when a new state proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith plighted; and where is the reason that she should come into the Union with more than an equal share of politi cal importance and political power? Already the ratio of representation, established by the

Constitution, has given to the states holding | sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the slaves twenty members of the House of Rep- permission of government, great facilities to resentatives more than they would have been commit offences. The laws of the United entitled to, except under the particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability this number will be doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, renouncing the right in question, and establishing a constitution prohibiting it for Without dwelling on this topic we have still thought it our duty to present it 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.

ever.

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 convenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating evil. We

cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted 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 any portion of the American confederacy. The Missouri territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the government will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, inhuman, To enact laws to punish the traffic, and at the same time to tempt cupidity and avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government by Buch a course would only defeat its own purposes, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people, if the power of moral

States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws: We appeal to this justice and humanity: We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud, and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind?

As inhabitants of a free country-as citizens of a great and rising republic-as members of a Christian community-as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of religion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire.

Whigs, Address to.

THE following address, taken from the National Intelligencer of the 27th of Oct., 1840, was issued by the State Whig Central Committee to the Whig party in Maryland, and shows the doctrine of the Whig party, both as to the naturalization and the Catholic question.

TO THE WHIGS OF MARYLAND.

The undersigned, as members of the Whig Central Committee of the state, have deemed it their duty to present this statement of their views. The Whigs of Maryland will, we have no doubt, sustain this proceeding, and acquiesce in its propriety.

General Duff Green, as editor of the Pilot, has discussed in his paper subjects which, in the opinion of the undersigned, have no proper connexion with the Presidential election. Within a few days this gentleman has published a prospectus for a newspaper, in which he expresses his determination to continue, after the election, discussions on questions with which the Whig party has not been, and will not be identified. As an individual, Gen. Green has an undoubted right to take such a course as his own judgment may approve. As an editor of a party paper he has thought proper to persevere in conduct which he knew was disapproved of by the Whig party of

ADDRESS OF CERTAIN WHIG REPRESENTA
TIVES IN CONGRESS AGAINST THE NOMINA-
TION OF GEN. SCOTT IN 1852.

Washington, July 3, 1852. To prevent all mistakes and misapprehension, we, the undersigned, members of Congress, adopt this method of making a joint statement to our constituents, respectively, and to all who may take an interest in the subject, that we cannot and will not support General Scott for the Presidency, as he now stands before the American people, for the following, amongst other reasons:

He obstinately refused, up to the time of his nomination, to give any public opinion in favor of that series of measures of the last

Congress known as the compromise; the permanent maintenance of which, with us, is a question of paramount importance. Nor has he since his nomination made any declaration of his approval of those measures as a final adjustment of the issues in controversy.

It is true the resolutions of the convention that nominated him are as clear and as explicit upon this question as need be; but General Scott, in his letter of acceptance, which contains all that we have from him on that matter, does not give them the approval of his judgment. This he seems studiously to have avoided. He accepts the nomination, "with the resolutions annexed." This is, he takes the nomination cum onere, as an individual takes an estate, with whatever encumbrances it may be loaded with. And the only pledge and guarantee he offers for his "adherence to the principles of the resolutions," are "the known incidents of a long public life," &c.

Amongst these "known incidents" of his life there is not one, so far as we are aware of, in favor of the principles of the compromise. In one, at least, of his public letters, he has expressed sentiments inimical to the institutions of fifteen states of the Union. Since the passage of the compromise he has suffered his name to be held up before the people of several of the states as a candidate for the Presidency by the open and avowed enemies of those measures. And in the convention that conferred this nomination upon him he permitted himself Le used by the Free Soilers in that body to defeat Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster, because of their advocacy of these measures and their firm adherence to the policy that sustained them.

To join such men, and aid them in completing their triumph over and sacrifice of the true and tried friends of the Constitution, and the faithful discharge of all its obligations, is what we can never do. The dictates of duty and patriotism sternly forbid it.

We consider General Scott as the favorite candidate of the Free Soil wing of the Whig party. That his policy, if he should be elected, would be warped and shaped to conform to their views, and to elevate them to power in the administration of the government, can but be considered as a legitimate and probable result. And believing, as we do, that the views of that faction of mischievous men are dangerous not only to the just and constitutional rights of the southern states (which we represent in part), but to the peace and quiet of the whole country, and to the permanent union of the states, we regard it as the highest duty of the well-wishers of the country everywhere, whatever else they may do, to at least withhold from him their support. This we intend to do.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS of Ga.,
CHARLES JAS. FAULKNER of Va.,
W. BROOKE of Miss.,
ALEX. WHITE of Ala.,
JAMES ABERCROMBIE of Ala.,
R. TOOMBS of Ga.,
JAMES JOHNSON of Ga.

For reasons to some extent indicated in speeches and addresses heretofore made by the undersigned, they deem it to be their duty to withhold their support from General Scott as a candidate for the Presidency. If it should seem to be necessary, we will hereafter, in some form, exhibit more fully to our constituents the facts and reasons which have brought us to this determination. M. P. GENTRY of Tenn., C. H. WILLIAMS of Teun.

Whig Convention and Platform of 1856.
PRESIDENT: Hon. Edward Bates of Mo.
Vice Presidents: Col. Jos. Paxton of Pa.;
Luther V. Bell of Mass.; Dr. James W.
Thompson of Del.; Charles P. Krevals of
Conn.; James A. Hamilton of N. Y.; Ex-Gov.
Charles Stratton of N. J.; Ezekiel F. Cham-
bers of Md.; Wyndham Robertson of Va.;
Gov. Wm. A. Graham of N. C.; Elbert A.
Holt of Ala.; A. M. Fonte of Miss.; Dr. Geo.
W. Campbell of La.; Gov. Allen Trimble of
O.; Henry T. Duncan of Ky.; John Shanklin
of Ind.; Walter Coleman of Tenn.; James II.
Matheny of Ill.; Gov. Wm. C. Lane of Mo.
John Finney of Fla.; Col. E. A. Holbrook of
Ark.; G. T. Dortie of Ga.

Secretaries: Laz. Anderson of O.; James
M. Townsend of Conn.; Hon. Thomas Jones
York of N. J.; E. V. Machette of Pa.; S. H.
Kennedy of La.; James H. Charless of Mo.;
Col. Huntingdon of N. Y.

The Convention adopted the following platform:

Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States now here assembled, hereby declare their reverence for the Constitution of the United States; their unalterable attachment to the National Union; and a fixed determination to do all in their power to preserve them for themselves and their posterity. They have no new principles to announce; no new platform to establish; but are content to broadly rest-where their forefathers rested-upon the Constitution of the United States, wishing no safer guide, no higher law.

Resolved, That we regard with the deepest interest and anxiety the present disordered condition of our national affairs-a portion of the country ravaged by civil war, large sections of our population embittered by mutual recriminations; and we distinctly trace these calamities to the culpable neglect of duty by the present national administration.

Resolved, That the government of the United States was formed by the conjunction in political unity of wide-spread geographical sections, materially differing, not only in climate and products, but in social and domestic institutions; and that any cause which shall permanently array these sections in political hostility and organized parties, founded only on geographical distinctions, must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the National Union.

1 Resolved, That the Whigs of the United

the parties in the field in the present Presi-bers of Congress was held in the Senate Chamber on Tuesday evening, April 20, 1852. dential campaign-one claiming only to reAt a quarter before eight o'clock Mr. MANpresent sixteen northern states, and the other GUM took the chair. appealing mainly to the passions and prejudices of the southern states; that the success of either faction must add fuel to the flame which now threatens to wrap our dearest interests in a common ruin.