and immunities of citizens of the United 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 the elections; in some a qualification of personal property is sufficient; and in others, age and freedom are the sole qualifications of the electors. In some states, 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 guarantee 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 two 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 one 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 interpretation, 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 government under it, must, as they hnmbly 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 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 should be disturbed, 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 political importance and political power? Already the ratio of representation, established by the constitution, has given to the states holding slaves twenty members of the house of representatives more than they would have been 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 ever. 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.

"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, te 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 this 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 fields 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 such 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 sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of government, great facilities to commit offenses. The laws of the United 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."

On the 17th January, 1820, the legislature of New York passed the following resolutions unanimously:

'WHEREAS, The inhibiting the further extension of slavery in these United States is a subject of deep concern among the people of this state; and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension; and that the constitution of the United States clearly gives congress the right to require of new states, not comprised with the original boundaries of these United States, the prohibition of slavery, as a condition of its admission into the Union: therefore,

"Resolved, That our senators be instructed, and our representatives in congress be requested, to oppose the admission, as a state, into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission: therefore,

"Resolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of the senate and assembly of this state, to transmit copies of the preceding resolution to each of our senators and representatives in congress."

The following resolutions of the state of New Jersey were communicated to congress, by Mr. Wilson, of N. J., on the 24th January, 1820:

"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 the legislative council and general assembly of the said state, now in session, deem it a duty they owe to themselves, 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 state 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.

"3. Resolved, As the opinion of the representatives aforesaid, that inasmuch as no territory has a right to be admitted 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 restrains congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves, until after the year 1808, does, by necessary implication, admit the general power of congress over the subject of slavery, and concedes to them the right to regulate and restrain such migration and importation after that time, into the existing, or any newly to 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 United States."

The following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted in the legislature of Pennsylvania, Dec. 16, 1819:

"The senate and house of representatives of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual states to express their opinion upon all public measures proposed in the congress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must in a great degree depend upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are moments when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty.

"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