ledged principles of the constitution, the sceptre of power, in this country, is passing towards the northwest. Sir, there is to this no objection. The right belongs to that quarter of the country. Enjoy it: it is yours. Use the powers granted, as you please. But take care, in your haste after effectual dominion, not to overload the scale by heaping it with these new acquisitions. Grasp not too eagerly at your purpose. In your speed after uncontrolled sway, trample not down this constitution. Already the old states sink in the estimation of members, when brought into comparison with these new countries. We have been told, that New Orleans was the most important point in the union." A place, out of the union, the most important place within it! We have been asked, "what are some of the small states, when compared with the Mississippi territory?" The gentleman from that territory, (Mr. Poindexter,) spoke the other day of the Mississippi, as" of a high road between"--good heavens! between what? Mr. Speaker-why" the eastern and western states!" So that all the northwestern territories, all the countries, once the extreme western boundary of our union, are hereafter to be denominated Eastern States!

[Mr. Poindexter explained. He said, that he had not said that the Mississippi was to be the boundary between the Eastern and Western states. He had merely thrown out a hint, that in erecting new states, it might be a good high-road between the states on its waters. His idea had not extended beyond the new states, on the waters of the Mississippi.]

I make no great point of this matter. The gentleman will find, in the National Intelligencer, the terms to which I refer. There, will be seen, I presume, what he has said, and what he has not said. The argument is not affected by the explanation. New states are intended to be formed beyond the Mississippi. There is no limit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of California and Columbia river. When

I said that the bill would justify a revolution and would produce it; I spoke of its principle and its practical consequences. To this principle and those consequences, I would call the attention of this House and nation. If it be about to introduce a condition of things, absolutely insupportable, it becomes wise and honest men, to anticipate the evil; and to warn and prepare the people against the event. I have no hesitation on the subject. The extension of this principle to the states, contemplated beyond the Mississippi, cannot, will not, and ought not to be borne. And the sooner the people contemplate the unavoidable result, the better; the more likely that convulsions may be prevented; the more hope that the evils may be palliated or removed.

Mr. Speaker, what is this liberty of which so much is said? Is it to walk about this earth, to breathe this air, and to partake the common blessings of God's providence? The beasts of the field and the birds of the air unite, with us, in such privileges as these. But man boasts a purer and more ethereal temperature. His mind grasps in its view the past and future, as well as the present. We live not for ourselves alone. That, which we call liberty, is that principle, on which the essential security of our political condition depends. It results from the limitations of our political system, prescribed in the constitution. These limitations, so long as they are faithfully observed, maintain order, peace and safety. When they are violated, in essential particulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush against each other; and disorder, derangement and convulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences.

With respect to this love of our union, concerning which so much sensibility is expressed, I have no fear about analyzing its nature. There is in it nothing of mystery. It depends upon the qualities of that union, and it results from its effects upon our, and our country's happiness. It is valued for "that sober certainty

of waking bliss," which it enables us to realize. It grows out of the affections; and has not, and cannot be made to have, any thing universal in its nature. Sir, I confess it, the first public love of my heart is the commonwealth of Massachusetts. There is my fireside; there are the tombs of my ancestors

"Low lies that land, yet blest with fruitful stores,
Strong are her sons, though rocky are her shores;
And none, ah! none, so lovely to my sight,

Of all the lands, which heaven o'erspreads with light."

The love of this union grows out of this attachment to my native soil, and is rooted in it. I cherish it, because it affords the best external hope of her peace, her prosperity, her independence. I oppose this bill from no animosity to the people of New Orleans; but from the deep conviction that it contains a principle, incompatible with the liberties and safety of my country. I have no concealment of my opinion. The bill, if it passes, is a death-blow to the constitution. It may, afterwards, linger; but lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, be consummated.

SPEECH OF GEORGE POINDEXTER,

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 14, 1811,

On the passage of the bill to enable the people of the territory of Orleans, to form a constitution and state government; and for the admission of such state into the union.

MR. SPEAKER,

It is with extreme reluctance that I claim the indulgence of the House, to participate in the discussion of the subject now under consideration. I should deem it, not only useless, but inexcusable to trespass on your time, and delay the final question on the passage of the bill before you, but for the novel and extraordinary aspect which has been given to the debate by an honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy.) The tendency of the remarks, made by that gentleman, is manifestly hostile to the best interests of the nation, and calculated to excite, so far as their influence extends, a spirit of revolt among the people of the United States. I cannot, therefore, forbear to enter my protest, in the only form* constitutionally provided for the peculiar situation which I occupy on this floor, against the establishment of principles fraught with such disastrous consequences. But, sir, as various objections have been made to the passage of the bill, and as I profess to be friendly to its general objects, I shall endeavor to give some of these objections a concise examination, before I proceed to notice the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

* Mr. Poindexter was a delegate, and consequently could not vote, although he could participate in the debate.-COMPILER.

[Mr. Poindexter here replied to numerous arguments which had been urged against the passage of the bill; after which, he proceeded as follows.]

Permit me, now, sir, to call the attention of the House to the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We are told by that gentleman, that the provisions of this bill are in direct hostility to the constitution, and materially affect the rights and liberties of the whole people of the United States. That the creation of new states or "political sovereignties" without the original limits of the United States, is a usurpation of power not warranted by a sound construction of the constitution. In the consideration of this subject, two questions arise; first, whether the United States can acquire foreign territory, and by what means; and whether the territory so acquired can be admitted into the union as an independent state? By the fourth article of the constitution, Congress are authorized, "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States." This provision contains an express recognition of the right, not only to possess territory, but to dispose of and regulate it in any manner which Congress may think consistent with the general good. If, then, the power to hold territory, and to regulate it without limitation, is expressly given to the general government, the right to acquire it follows as an indispensable attribute of sovereignty. And this opinion is supported by the enumeration of powers given to Congress in the constitution. A nation can extend its territorial limits either by conquest or treaty. If in the prosecution of a just and legitimate war, or by a fair and bona fide contract, one nation acquires the possession of territory which originally belonged to another, it becomes incorporated with the domain of the power to whom it is thus transferred, and cannot be distinguished from any other portion of territory over which the sovereign authority of the nation extends.

By the eighth section of the first article of the con