-^ »w~-. T f55\ I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, E 373 Chap. Shelf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. =2 THE SUBSTANCE OF TWO SPEECHES, BELrV'ERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MISSOURI BILL. ] Y THE HONOURABLE RUFUS KING, OF NEW YORK. Jamaica (L. /.), J^ov. 22, 1819. Conformably to your request in behalf of the committee appointed by the late meeting in the city, on the business of the Missouri Bill, I have the honour to send to you the substance of two speeches that I delivered in the Senate of the United States, when this bill was under its consideration. As my notes are imperfect, I may have omitted some remarks made on that occasion, and added others which were not made ; the communication however contains the sub- stance of my observations, and present opi- nions on this important subject. I am parti- cularly anxious not to be misunderstood in this case, never having Ihouglit m)'self at li- berty to encourage, or to assent to any mea- sure that wovild affect the security of pro- perty in slaves, or tend to disturb the politi- cal adjustment which tlie constitution has established respectin;^- them. I desire to be considered as still adiiering- to this reserve ; and that the observations which I send \ ou should be construed to refer, and to be confined, to the prohibition of slavery in the new states to be formed beyond the original limits of the United States — a prohibition, which in my judgment Congress has the power to cstablisli, and the omission of which may, as I fear, be productive of most serious consequences. With great respect and esteem, i have the lionour to be. Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant, KUFUS KING. Messrs. John B. Coles, and John T. Irving, cliairman and secretary of the committee appointed by the late city meeting respect- ing the Missouri Bill ' ' The Substance of two Speeches on the Missovr ' Bid; delivered by Mr. King, in the Senate of the United Slates, during their last Session. ■ The constitution declares, "that Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States." Under this power Congress has pass- ed laws for the survey and sale of the pub- lic lands, for the division of the same into se- parate territories; and has ordained for each of them a constitution, a plan of temporary government, whereby the civil and political rights of the inhabitants are regulated, and the rights of conscience and other natural rights are protected. The power to make all needful regulations, includes the power to determine what regu- lations are needful ; and if a regulation pro- hibiting slavery within any territory of the United States be, as it has been, deemed needful. Congress possesses the power to make the same, and moreover to pass all laws neccssaiy to carry this power into exe- cution. The territory of Missouri is a portion of Louisiana, which was purchased of France, and belongs to the United States in full do- n"inion ; in the language of the constitution, Missouri is their territory, or property, and is subject, like other territories of the United States, to the regulations and temporary go- vernment which has been, or shall be, pre- scribed by Congress. The clause of tlie con- stitution, which grants this power to Con- gress, is so comprehensive and unambiguous, and its purpose so manifest, that commentary will not render the power, or the object of its establishmc-nt, more explicit or plain. The constitution farther provides, that "new states may be admitted by Congress into the union." As this power is conferred without limitation, the time, tenns, and cir- cumstances of the admission of new states, Ij are referred to the discretion of Congress; " which may admit new states, but are not IIO.V. HL'FCS KLNG'S SPJEClIES oblit^d to tlo so: of rigfkt, no new state can dci.i.i .tt ailihissiuii ii)to tlie union, unless such dcniuiKl be founded uj)on some previous cn- gapcme^t of the United States. ^^'llen uiimittcil by Congress irjto the union, whcUier by compact or otiicrwise, tlie new BtMte '.iciimcs entitled to tlie enjoyment of Uje same rights, and bound to pcrlbrm the like duties, as the other states ; :u'd its citi- zens \^ill be entitled to all privileges and im- mutiitJes of citizens in the several states. The citizens i>f each state possess rights, and owe duties that are peculiar to, and arise out of the constitution and law s of the several states. 'Ihcse rights and ilutics difi'er from each other in the different states; and among these diflcrences, none is so remarkable or important as that which proceicls from the constitution and laws of the several states re- specting slavery — the same being permitted in some states, and forbidden in others. The (juestion respecting slavery in the old thirteen states, had been decided and settled before the adoption of the constitution, which grants no power to Congress to interfere with, or to change, what had been so pre- viously settled : the slave states Iheiefore arc free to continue or to abolisli slavery. Since the year 1808, Congress has possessed power to prohibit, and has prohibited, the further migration or'importation of slaves into any of the old thirteen states, and at all times under the constitution has had power to prohibit such migration or importation into any of the new slates, or territories of the Unilecl States. The constitution contains no express provi- sions respecting slaven in a new state that may be admitted into the union: every regu- lation upon this subject, belongs to the power whose consent is necessary to the formation and admission of such state. Congress may therefore make it a condition of the admission of a new state, that slavery shall be forever prohibited within the same, x We may with the more confidence pronounce this to be the true construction of the constitution, as it has been so amply confirmed by the past decisions of Congress. Although the articles of confederation were drawn uj) and approved by the old f^ongress in the \ ear 1777, and soon afterwards were ratilieil by some of the state.s, their complete ratification did nut take place until the year 1781. The states which possessed small and already settled territorj', withheld their rati- fication, in order to obtain from the large states a cession to the Ignited States of a por- tion of tluir vacant territory. Without en- tering into the rexsons on which this demand was urged, it is well known that they h:id an influence on .Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia; which states ceded to the L'niteon can vote fof representatives to Congress unless he he a freeholder. As the admiiwion of a new state into the union confeni upon its citizens only the rights deno- • lchil)ited, as of those in wITkIi it is allowed, it follows that the prohi- bition of nUvrr)' in Missouri will not impair the fcdcml rights of its citizens, and that such prohibition is not restrained by the clause of the treaty which has been cited. 'I'he remaining clause of the article is ex- pressly confined to the period of the territo- rial government of Missouri, to the time be- tween the first occupation of the country by the United States, and its admission as a new state into the union. Whatever may be its import, it has no reference nor application to the terms of the admission, or to the condi- tion of Missoin-i after it shall have been admit- ted into the union. The clatise is but the common formida of treaties, by which inha- bited territories arc passed from one sovereign to another; its object is to secure .such inha- bitants the permanent or temporary enjoy- ment of their former liberties, property, and religion; leaving to the new sovereign full power to make .such, regulations respect- ing the same, as may be thought expedient, pro\ ided these regulations be not incompati- ble with the stipulated security. What were the liberties under the French government, the enjo\ mcnt of which under ours called for protection, we are unable to explain; as the United States have no power to prevent the free enjoyment of the Catho- lic religion, no stipulation against their inter- ference to disturb it could be necessary ; and the only part of the clause whose o'oject can be readily understood is that relative to " property." As all nations do not permit sK-wery, the term property, in its common and universal meaning, does not include or describe slaves. In treaties therefore between nations, and especially in those of the United States, whenever stipulations respecting slaves were to be made, tlic word " negroes," or " slaves," have been employed, and the omission of these words in this clause, increases the un- certainty whether by the term property, sfiives were intended to be excluded. But admitting that such was the intention of the parties, the stipulation is not only temporary, but extends no further than the property ac- ttially possessed by the inhabitants of Mis- souri, when it was first occupied by tlie United States. Property since acquired by them, and ]>r(ipcrfy ac([uired or possessed by the new inliabitaiits of Missouri, has in each case been accpiircd under the laws of the U'nited States, and not during and under the laws of the province of Louisiana. Should therefore the future introduction of slaves into Missouri be forbidden, the feelings of the citizens would soon become reconciled to tlieir exclusion, and the inconsiderable num- ber of sla\ts owned by the inliahitants :it the date «)»' tile cession of Louisi:ina would \c emancipated or sent for sale into slates where slavery exists. It is further objected, that the article of the act of admission into the union, by which slavery should be exehideil from Missouri, would be nugatory, as ihc new state in virtue of its sovereignly would be at liberty to re- voke its consent, and annul the article hv which slavcrv should be excluded. ON THE MISSOURI BILL. .•> Such revocation wcjiild be contrary to the obligations of good tuitli, whicli enjoins the observance of our engaj^emcnts — it would be repugnant to the principles upon which go- vernment Itself is founded. Sovereignty in every lawful government is a limited power, and can do oidy what it is lawful to do — sove- reigns, like individuals, are bound by their engagements, and have no moral power to break them. Treaties between nations re- pose on this principle. If the new state can revoke and annul an article construq>ted be- tween itself and tiie United States, by which slavery is excluded from it, it may revoke and annul any other article of the compact ; it may, for example, annul the article respect- ing public lands, and in virtue of its sove- reignty, assume the right to tax and to sell the lands of the United Siates. There is yet a more satisfactory answer to this objection. The judicial power of the United States is coextensive with their legis- lative power, and every question arising un- der the constitution or laws of the United States, is cognizable b)' tlie judiciary thereof. Should the new state rescind any of the arti- cles of compact contained in the act of ad- mission into the union, that, for example, by which slavery is excluded ; and should pass a law authorizing slavery, the judiciary of the United States, on proper application, would immediately deliver from bondage, any per- son detained as a slave in said state ; and in like manner, in all instances affecting indivi- duals, the judiciary might be employed to de- feat every attempt to violate the constitution and laws of the United States. If Congress possess the power to exclude slavery from Missouri, it still remains to be shown that they ought to do so. The exami- nation of this branch of the subject, for ob- vious reasons, is attended with peculiar diffi- culty, and cannot be made without passing over arguments which to some of us might appear to be decisive, but the use of which, in this place, would call up feehngs, the in- , fluence of which would disturb, if not defeat, the impartial consideration of the subject. Slavery unhappily exists within the United States. Enlightened men in the states where it is permitted, and every one out of them, x-egret its existence among us, and seek for the means of limiting and of mitigating it. The first introduction of slaves is not imputa- ble to the present generation, nor even to their ancestors. Before the year 1642, the trade and ports of the colonies were open to foreigners equally as those of the mother country, and as early as 1620, a few years only after the planting of the colony of Virginia, and the same year in which the first settle- ment was made in the old colony of Ply- mouth, a cargo of negroes was brought into and sold as slaves in Virginia by a foreign ship.* From this beginning the importation of slaves was continued for nearly two centu- ries. To her honour, Virginia, while a colony. * Sliih's History of Virginia. opposed the importation of slaves, and svm the first state to prohibit the same, by a law pas^icd for this purpose in 1773, thirty years befi)re the general prohibition enacted by Congress in 1808. The laws and cii.stonis jf the states in which slavery has existed for so long a period, mu.st liave had their influence on the opinions and hal)its of tlK: citizens, which ought not to be disregarded on the present occasion. Omitting therefore the arguments which might be urged, and which by all of us might be deemed conclusive, were this an original question, the reasons which shall be offered in favour of the interposition of the power of Congress to exclude slaveiy from Missouri, shall be only such as respect the common de- fence, the general welfare, and that wise ad- ministration of the government, which as far as possible may produce the impartial distri- bution of benefits and burdens throughout the union. By the articles of confederation, tlie com- mon treasury was to be supplied by the .se- veral states according to the value of the lands, with the houses and improvemciits thereon, within the respective states. From the difficulty in making this valuation, the old Congress were unable to apportion the requi- sition for the supply of the general trcasun', and obliged the states to propose an altera- tion of the articles of confederation, by which the whole number of free persons, with three - fifths of the slaves, contained in the respec- tive states, should become the rule of such apportionment of the taxes. A majority of the states approved of this alteration, but some of them disagreed to the same ; and for want of a practicable ride of apportion- ment, the whole of the requisitions of taxes made by Congress during the revolutionary war, and afterwards, up to the establishment of the constitution of the United States, were merely provisional, and subject to revisioa and correction as soon as such rules should be adopted. The several states were credited for their supplies, and charged for the ad- vances made to them by Congress; but no settlement of their accounts could be made, for the want of a rule of appoilionment, un- til the establishment of the constitution. "When the general convention that formed the constitution took this suliject into their consideration, the whole question was once more examined, and while it was agreed that all contributions to the common treasur}' should be made according to the ability of llie several states to furnish tlie same, the old dif- ficulty recurred in agreeing upon a rule whereby such ability should be ascertained, there being no simple standard by which the ability of individuals to pay taxes can be ascertained. A diversity' in the selection of taxes has been deemed requisite to their equalization. Between communities, this dif- ficulty is less considerable, and although the rule of relative members would not accu- rately measure the relative wealth of nations, in states in the circumstances of the United HON. KL'FLS KtNG'S Sl'EECnES SMea^ whote institutions, laws, and cmploy- nirnts, are so iniicli alike, tlie rule of number is probably as nt-arly ei|uul im any «»i1ict sim- ple and pradiciblc rule can be exjjcctcil to be (tliouf,'li bel\vi-en the old and new stateb its eipiitv IS dt-rectixc): tlicse considerations, aiided to tlie approbation \\lii«;li bad already been given to the rule, by a niajorily of the htates, induced tJie convention to af^ree, that direct taxes should be apportioned anionji^ the st:ites. according to the whole number of free pcrxnus, :ind three-fifths of the slaves which they nii^lit res|>ecti\ely contain. The rule for the ajiportionnient of taxes, is not necessarily the most equitable rule for the apportionment of representatives among the states ; — ()roperty nuisl not be disregartl- td in the composition of the first rule, but frequently is overlooked in the establishment of the scconil; u rule wiiicii mi;fht be ap- proved in respect to taxes, would be disap- jjfoved in respect to representatives, as one in- dividual possessing twice as much properly as anollier, might be required to p:n' double Uic taxes of such other; but no man has two votes to another's one; rich or j)oor, each L:is but a single vote in Uie choice of repre- sentatives. In the dispute between England and the colonies, tlie latter denied the right of the former to tax them, because thc}' were not represented in the English parliament. They contended, that according to the law of the land, taxation and representation were inse- parable. Tlie nile of taxation being agreed upon by the convention, it is possible that the maxim with which we succcssfally ojiposed the claim of England, may have had an influ- ence in procuring the adoption of the same rule for tiie apportionment of representatives ; the true meaning, however, of this principle of the English constitution, is, thai a colony or district is not to be taxed wliich is not re- prfsented ; not ihal its number of represen- tatives shall be ascertained by its (juota of taxes If three-fifths of the slaves are virtually represented, or their o\\ ners obtain a dispro- portionate po\*cr in legislation, ami in the api>oinlm( III of the President of the United >stute», why should not /jther [property he virtually represented, and its owners obtain tL like poMcr in legislation, :tnd in the choice of the president .'' Property is not confined to slaves, but exists in liouses, stores, ships, capital in tnule, and manufactures. 'I'o se- cure to the ownen of properly in slaves, yrrnXvT political power than is allowed to the IS of cither and ecpiivalcnt propuropean colonies in the West Indies ; colonies whose future condition can hardly be regarded as problematical. If Missouri, and the other states that may be formed to the west of the river Mississippi, are permit- ted to introduce and establish slavery, the re- pose, if not the security, of the union may be endangered; all the states south of the inver Ohio and west of Pennsylvania and Delaware, will be peopled with slaves, and the establish- ment of new states west of the river Missis- sippi, will serve to extend slavery instead of freedom over that boundless reaion. Such increase of the states, whatever other interests it may promote, will be sure to add nothing to the security of the public liberties, and can hardly fail hereafter to require and produce a change in our government. On the other hand, if slavery be excluded from Missouri, and the other new states which may be formed in this quarter, not only will the slave markets be broken up, and the prin- ciples of freedom be extended and strength- ened, but an exposed and important frontier will present a barrier, which will check and keep back foreign assailants, who may be as brave, and, as we hope, will be as free as our- selves. Surrounded in this manner by con- nected bodies of freemen, the states where slavery is allowed, will be made more secure against domestic insurrection, and less liable to be aflcctcd by wliat may take place in the neighbouring colonies. It ought not to be forgotten, that the first and main object of the negotiation which led to the accpiisition of Louisiana, was the free navigation of the Mississippi ; a river that forms the sole passage from the western states to the ocean. This navigation, although of general benefit, has been always valued and desired, as of peculiar advantage to the west- ern states; whose demands to obtain it, were neither equivocal or unreasonable. But with the river Mississippi, by a sort of coercion, we acquired, by good or ill fortiuie, as our fu- ture mea;;ures shall determine, the whole pro- vince of Louisiana. As this acquisition was made at the common expense, it is very fairly urged that the advantages to be derived from it should also be common. This it is said will not happen, if slaver}' be excluded from Mis- souri, as the citizens of states where slavery is permitted will be shut out, and none but citizens of states where slavery is prohibited can become inhabitants of Missouri. But this consequence will not arise from the proposed exclusion of slavery : the citi- zens of states in which slavery is allowed, like all other citizens, will be free to become inhabitants of the Missouri, in like manner as they have become inhabitants of Ohio, India- na, and Illinois, in which slavery is forbidden. The exclusion of slaves from Missouri, will not therefore operate unequally among the citi- zens of the United States. The constitution provides, " that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to enjoy all the rights and immu- nities of citizens of the several states" — ever}' citizen may therefore remove from one to another state, and there enjoy the riglits and immunities of its citizens. The proposed provision excludes slaves, not citizens, whose rights it will not, and cannot impair. Besides, there is nothing new or pecuhar in a provision for the exclusion of slavery : it has been established in the states northwest of the river Ohio, and has existed from the beginning in the old states where slavery is forbidden. The citizens of states where slave- ry is allowed, may become inhabitants of Mis- souri, but cannot hold slaves there, or in any other state where slavery is prohibited. As well might the laws prohibiting slavery in the old states become the subject of complaint, as the proposed exclusion of slavery in the Missouri ; but there is no foundation for such complaint in either case. It is further urged, that the admission of slaves into Missouri would be limited to the slaves who are already within the United States; that their health and comfort would be promoted by their dis- persion, and that their numbers would be the same, whether they remained confined to the states where slavery exists, or are dispersed over the new states that may be admitted into the union. HON. RLFUS KING'S SPEECHES, kc. Tbat none but domestic slaves would be • ' \ into Missouri, and the other new • r states, is most fully disproved by tbc lliuii»»nds of fresh slaves which, in \\o\a- tion of our l:»\vs, arc annually imported into \. . .lUia, IxiuisiaiwL, and MisMssippi. \'> c may renew our clloils, and enact new iws with heavier penalties, ajjainst the im- i;urtaiion of slaves; the revenue cutlers may more tlilijjently watch our shores, and the naval force may be employed on the <-oast of Africa and on the ocean, to break up the sla\ e trade— but these means will not put an end to it : so long as markets are open for the pur- chase of slaves, so long tliey will be supplied ; aiid »o lonjc as we permit the existence of ] jJavery in our new ancr the whole union. That the comlltion of slaves within the I'nlted States has been improved, and the ri- fiours of sbvery mitigated by the establis'n- .lent and progress of our free governments, 3 a fact that imparls consolation to all who have taken pains to incjuire concerning it. The disproportionate increase of free persons of colour, can be explained only by the sup- position, that the practice of emancipation is gaining ground; a practice which there is reason to believe would become more gene- r.u, if a plan could be devised by which the comforts and morals of the emancipated slaves could be satisfactorily provided for. for it is not to be doubted that public opi- nion ever) where, and especially in tlie oldest sute of the union, is less favourable than for- n- rly to the txisUiice of slavery, tienerous III eidightened men, in the states where slavery exists, have discovered much solici- tude on the subject; a desire has been mani- kstcd that emancipation might be encouraged by the ('Stablishnit.nt of a ]lied, and where tlteir fet- ter* nia) be rivetted forever. hbvcry caimot exist in Missouri without llic content of Cungress; the (|uestion may, Uiercforc, be considered, in certain lights, :m » new one, i' ' *! If first itistance in which an iucjuiry u ,,' slavery, in a case so free from the influence of t!ic ancient laws, iLsages and ntanners of the country, has come before the Senate. The territory of Missouri is beyond our an- cient limits, and the inquiry whellier slavery shall exist there, is open to many of the ar- guments that might be employed, had slavery never existed within the United States. It is a question of no ordinary importance. Free- dom and slavery are the parlies which stand this day before the Senate ; and upon its de- cision the empire of the one or the other will be established in the new state which we arc about to admit into the union. If slavery be permitted in Missouri, with tlie climate, and sod, and in the circum- stances of this territory, what hopes can be entertained that it will ever be prohibited in any of the new states that will be formed in the immense region west of the Mississippi. Will the co-extensive establishment of slavery and of new states throughout this region, les- sen the danger of domestic insurrcclion, or of foreign aggression? AVill this maimer of executing the great trust of admitting new states into the union, contribute to assimilate our manners and usages, to increase our mu- tual aiVection and confidence, and to establish that equality of benefits and burdens, which constitutes the true basis of our strength and union P AVill the militia of the natioii, which must furnish our soldiers and seamen, increase as slaves increase P Will the actual dispropor- tion in the military service of the nation be thereby diminished; ix disproportion that will be, as it has been, readily borne, as between ihe original stalej, because it arises out of their comjiact of union, but which may be- come a badge cf inferiority, if required for the provection of those who, being free to choose, i)ersist in the establishment of max- ims, the inevitable effect of which will de- prive them of the power to contribute to the common defence, and even of the ability to protect themselves? There arc limits within \t hich our federal system must stop ; no one has supjiosed that it could be indefinitely ex- tended — we are now about to pass our origi- nal boundary; if this can be done without af- fecting iho princijjles of our free governinent, it can be accomplished only by the most vigi- huit attention to plant, cherish and sustain the principles of liberty in the new states that may be formed beyond our ancient limits: with our utmost cauti