of the Ohio, required that the territory ceded should be laid out and formed into States containing a suitable extent of territory, &c., "and that the States so formed should be distinct republican States, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States." It was completed, I think, in March, 1784.

It is stated in a paper read by Governor Coles before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in June last, that a few days after the deed of cession, at the instance of Mr. Jefferson a committee was raised, consisting of Thomas Jefferson of Va., Samuel Chase of Maryland, and David Howell of Rhode Island, for the purpose of organizing and providing for the government of the territory. Mr. Jefferson, as chairman of the committee, made a report, now to be seen in the archives of Congress, in the Department of State at Washington. It provided, "that the territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States to the United States, 'shall be formed into distinct States,' the names of which were given and the boundaries defined; and the divisions thus made contemplated and embraced all the western territory lying between the Florida and Canada lines. That is, it included the territory which had been 'ceded' to the northwest of the Ohio River, and that 'to be ceded' to the southwest of that river, or elsewhere, by individual States to the United States." There was a proviso, that both the Territorial and State Governments should be established on a basis, the fifth article of which was, that after 1800 there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of said States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, &c. On the 19th of April, on motion of Mr. Spaight of North Carolina, this article was struck out. There were six States in favor of the article, three against it, and one

divided; but it required two thirds of the ten States voting to adopt it. This plan of government, as thus amended, was adopted April 2d, 1784, but no organization appears to have been had under it.

In March, 1785, Mr. King of Massachusetts moved a similar provision, which was committed to a committee, but what further action was taken upon it does not appear.

In July, 1786, Congress recommended to Virginia, to revise her act of cession so as to empower Congress to divide the territories into not more than five, nor less than three "distinct republican States," which should thereafter" become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States."

Before this was done by Virginia, Congress adopted the immortal Ordinance of July 13th, 1787, and in anticipation of the consent of Virginia, inserted in the 5th article, a provision that there should be formed in the Territory, not less than three, nor more than five States, the boundaries of which should become fixed and established as soon as Virginia should alter her act of cession. And the 6th article prohibited slavery, with a proviso by which a fugitive slave might be reclaimed. This Ordinance passed unanimously.

On the 30th of December, 1788, Virginia passed an act, which, after stating, by way of preamble, the recommendation of Congress; and setting forth the passage of the Ordinance of 1787; recited, ratified, and confirmed the fifth article of the Ordinance; thus complying with the recommendation.

Now, it seems quite clear, that neither Virginia nor Congress supposed that the prohibition of slavery rendered the States to be formed under the restriction, inferior to the other States; or in any way deprived them of "the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other

States," which they were to have by the deed of cession, and by the act of Congress requesting an alteration of it. The only change was in limiting the number of States and establishing certain boundaries.

The several acts admitting the States northwest of the Ohio, like the act respecting Louisiana, admit them "into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever." And yet slavery is for ever prohibited there.

A prohibition of slavery, then, does not deprive a State of its equality with the other States.

The six free States in the Northwest, will learn with some surprise probably, that they hold any degraded rank in the Union. Until the shining of the light which has recently burst forth from the darkness of slavery, no one had a surmise that they were not in the Union upon "an equal footing with the original States."

66

Again; the admission of Louisiana was clogged with divers "fundamental conditions." It is admitted that Congress may annex some conditions." Why not a condition restricting slavery? What is there in this condition that renders it improper above all others? Nothing! Nothing whatever. On the contrary, it seems to be just the thing respecting which, a condition should be imposed because of the difference of situation of the different States in that respect, and the inequality of the representation. As some of them are already prohibited from having slaves, they may well insist that if others are admitted it shall be with the same prohibition which rests on them. And what they may insist on, other States are at equal liberty to contend and vote for. But still further. The article authorizing Congress to admit new States, does not prescribe the terms on which they

shall be admitted. There is nothing, then, against the annexation of any condition which Congress pleases to attach. Any condition, therefore, which is not in conflict with the great principles of the republic, is admissible; and slavery, thank God! is not yet one of those principles. The debate, and the action of the Constitutional Convention, striking out the restriction which had been reported, show that Congress was intentionally left free to impose conditions upon the admission of the new States within the contemplation of the article; and that this was designed to extend even to a restriction upon equal representation in Congress, if the case should appear to require it. Virginia provided against the exercise of this power of Congress to restrict slavery, in the case of Kentucky, by her act of consent. And so did North Carolina, in relation to Tennessee. It is quite clear, then, that when new States are formed out of territory not within the United States at that time, the admission may be upon any terms which Congress sees fit to annex, if they are consistent with the existence of a republican government. the admission is by an act of sovereign power not warranted by the Constitution, the act of power will of itself determine the limits of its exercise. If it be by a new construction of a constitutional article, such construction may authorize an exercise of the power upon any limitations or conditions, provided they are not in contradiction to the express terms of the article, or to the rest of the instrument, so as to make the Constitution at variance with itself.

If

It may be asked, "If the Constitution does not confer upon Louisiana and Missouri a right to a representation on account of their slaves; and if the admission of a State upon terms of equality does not give a right to hold slaves, and have such a representation; how is it that those States have now,

each a representative upon the slave basis? The answer is, that they have such representation by the last apportionment act. Congress has seen fit to place them in the same condition as if they were within the constitutional provision. And as the House is the judge of its own elections, they are secure of it until the next apportionment. In fact, so long as the apportionment stands, the House, it may be said, is bound to recognize the right to the representation that it gives. Congress has admitted the State. The thing is done and the admission stands. It cannot be repealed. Congress has apportioned the representation, and it stands according to the apportionment until terminated.

Those States having had a representation founded on the slave basis, may be unwilling to part with it hereafter; and I, for one, am quite content that they shall retain it, upon a compromise that there shall be no farther extension of slavery; provided the compromise may be one which shall not be compromised over again.

The argument which I have thus stated respecting the constitutional right to admit new States, is of no practical value so far as it regards the admission of the territories now belonging to the United States. Their admission is a political necessity; and, moreover, the power has been so often exercised, that the further exertion of it in respect to the territories now acquired, may be said to be settled by construction. But it may serve to show that no other territories ought to be acquired for the purpose of admission. It may serve to show that the territories now existing, even if admitted with slavery, will not be entitled to a representation upon the slave basis. It may serve to show, that if a State should be