H. OF R.] Missouri-Her Anomalous Position. [JANUARY, 1821. Mr. Foor rose to show, by example, that the motion to lay this resolution on the table was not unprecedented. He agreed fully in opinion with the gentleman from Ohio, that the resolution ought to be laid on the table, and should not agree to take it up again until the resolution from the Senate should have been finally acted on. Mr. STORRS wished the resolution to lie on | in every quarter of the country, it is anticipated the table, for this reason-that he wished gen- that the discussion will be revived on the resotlemen to have time to obtain the necessary in-lution from the Senate: in the paper from formation to enable them to act on the subject. Richmond received to-day, there were two or He had himself no information whatever which three letters from Washington to that effect. went to show that Missouri was not in the same The understanding was, he believed, that persituation now that she had been for the few haps next week the resolution on the table of years past, except that her convention had met, the Clerk might be called up and decided on. and agreed upon a form for her future govern- If every effort should fail for the admission of ment. He did not say that he had not heard, Missouri, it would be proper to adopt such a out of doors, that she had elected a Governor, resolution as this, but, in his opinion, not till Legislature, &c. But he did not wish to pro- then. ceed to the consideration of this resolution until the information was given to him officially, | on which he was to act. A resolution addressed to the Executive, who was charged with the execution of the laws of the United States, would, he supposed, elicit the necessary information. For aught we know officially, said Mr. S., the officers of the United States in that Territory may be at this moment in the full discharge of all their functions. He could not consent to assume it as a fact, that the authority of the United States in Missouri was in full operation. He could not assume it as a fact, that the President has failed in his duty of appointing a Governor and other officers, in pursuance of the laws. By entertaining this inquiry, said Mr. S., the House would assume, in some degree, the duties of the Executive, and bring us in collision with that department. For his part, he said, he could not consent that this House should thus take upon itself the responsibility which belonged to another department of the Government. Whenever the authority of the United States in Missouri was set at defiance, or whenever, from any cause whatever, the authority of the United States in that Territory should be at an end, he presumed Congress would receive from the Executive department information of it. Until such information was received, he could not agree to consider the subject. When it did come, he reserved to himself to decide what course ought to be taken. But the proper course for gentlemen at the present time appeared to him to be, to call on the Executive to inform the House whether the laws of the United States were at present duly executed in Missouri, &c. If the President should say, in reply, that the laws are not executed, and our authority not in existence, it would then be time enough to refer the subject to a committee. Mr. LOWNDES said, a very little reflection would satisfy any one that it was not necessary to postpone this resolution until the other question referred to should be decided. He submitted to the House the consideration, that the report of the committee under this resolution might have considerable influence on the question to be decided on the proposition from the Senate. It appeared to him, he had no hesitation in saying, that no man could vote on the various propositions which had been alluded to, unless his mind was made up on the topics presented by the resolution now before the House. Whilst up, Mr. L. adverted to what had fallen from his friend from New York, who opposed the resolution because we know nothing officially of any change in the actual condition of Missouri. If we knew nothing on that subject, said Mr. L., it would be reason enough for inquiry that there is out-of-door conversation on the subject. We must not act on such information, but was it ever before heard that we must not inquire into any matter because it has been spoken of out-of-doors only? The practice of every day was different. But, if official information was necessary, the House had that information. It had information, from the constitution presented by Missouri, that, at a certain time, the authority of the United States was to determine, and that of a new State to commence. He did not here speak of the question of right in regard to the people of Missouri, but of the question of fact. It was Mr. CAMPBELL said the time might come, dur-true that there was a question of fact presented ing the present session, when he should not have the smallest objection to this resolution; but, he must be allowed to state, that he did not think the present was the proper time. It was well understood that there were several projects on foot for the admission of Missouri into the Union. When all these failed, he said, he should be as ready as any gentleman to assent to this resolution. If gentlemen were prepared to say that no further efforts would be made to accomplish that object, he was ready to vote for the resolution now. But, he said, by this resolution, but it was also true that there was a question of law, and nothing was more usual than, in regard to questions of law, to refer them to the committee of this House consisting of legal men, constituted to consider such questions, being the committee to which it was proposed to refer this resolution. Mr. STORRS explained, that he had reserved the question of the expediency of an inquiry into this matter. His objection to acting on the subject now was, that it appeared to him JANUARY, 1821.] Limitation of the Naval Force, and Inquiry into Naval Pensions. the proper course would be, first to call on the Executive. Mr. ARCHER said he acceded to the proposed postponement, only because, as the mover of the resolution, he felt bound to do so. If not thus obliged, he should have voted against postponement. The objections of the gentleman to the resolution, he said, were not consistent-one gentleman opposed it because it proposed an inquiry into facts; another because it proposed an inquiry into a matter of law. Both objections could not be sound. He believed, he said, in conclusion, that the responses to this resolution would be very easy indeed; and he must be allowed to indulge the remark, that, in the reluctance of gentlemen to act on the subject, he found a confirmation of his belief that the answer could be easily given. The question on laying the resolution on the table was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, 91 votes to 58, as follows: H. OF R. Messrs. SOUTHARD, BATEMAN, BLOOMFIELD, House will testify their respect for the memory of on the left arm for one month. Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of the late John Linn this day at three o'clock. Resolved, unanimously, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the death of John Linn, late a member of this House, and that his funeral will take place this day at three o'clock, from the Hall of the House of Representatives. And then the House adjourned. MONDAY, January 8. A new member, to wit, from the State of Pennsylvania, DANIEL UDREE, elected to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Joseph Heister, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. TUESDAY, January 9. YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, Anderson, Archer of Virginia, Baker, Bateman, Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffum, Butler of New Hampshire, Campbell, Clagett, Clark, Cushman, Cuthbert, Dane, Dennison, Dickinson, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Eustis, Fay, Folger, Foot, Forrest, Fuller, Gorham, Gross of Pennsylvania, Guyon, Hall of New York, Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, moved that the Hall of Delaware, Hardin, Hendricks, Herrick, Hill, House do now proceed to consider the resoluHobart, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsley, Lathrop, Lin- tion submitted by him on the 4th instant, in coln, Lowndes, Maclay, McCullough, McLane of Del-relation to the judicial condition of the Terriaware, Mallary, Marchand, Meech, Meigs, Monell, R. Moore, S. Moore, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of Massachusetts, Parker of Massachusetts, Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Plumer, Randolph, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Robertson, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sawyer, Sergeant, Settle, Silsbee, Sloan, A. Smyth of Virginia, Southard, Stevens, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, Strong of New York, Tomlinson, Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, and Wood-91. NAYS.-Messrs. Abbot, Allen of Tennessee, Archer of Maryland, Baldwin, Barbour, Bayly, Bloomfield, Brevard, Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Cook, Crafts, Crawford, Crowell, Culpeper, Earle, Edwards of North Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, Gray, Gross of New York, Jackson, Johnson, Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, Kinsey, Little, McCoy, McCreary, McLean of Kentucky, Metcalf, Montgomery, T. L. Moore, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Simkins, Smith of New Jersey, Smith of Maryland, Swearingen, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Walker, Warfield, Williams of Virginia, and Williams of North Carolina -58. SATURDAY, January 6. Mr. SOUTHARD announced the death of JOHN tory of Missouri. On the question being taken, "Will the House termined in the negative-yeas 66, nays 78. now consider the said resolution?" it was de THURSDAY, January 11. Limitation of the Naval Force, and Inquiry into Naval Pensions. Mr. CоBB submitted for consideration the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting by law the number of able seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys, to be annually employed in the service of the United States; and also into the expediency of reducing the number now in actual service. Resolved, That the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the pensions now allowed under the acts of Congress, to certain persons in the land and naval service of the United States, on continental establishment, during the Revolutionary war; [so that hereafter the pension allowed to each officer shall be twelve dollars per month, and to the privates five dollars per month.] The first of these resolutions was agreed to without a division. The second met with great objection, in conLINN, one of the members of this House, from sequence of which Mr. CоBB modified it so as to the State of New Jersey. Whereupon, make the inquiry general, by erasing the words in brackets. Resolved, unanimously, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of John Linn, deceased, late a representative from the State of New Jersey. On the resolution thus modified, there were ayes 53, noes 59. So the resolution was not agreed to. H. OF R.] Amendment of the Journal-Missouri Question. FRIDAY, January 12. Amendment of the Journal-Missouri Question. The first entry in the Journal of yesterday was read, in the following words: "Mr. Lowndes presented three memorials of the Senate and House of Representatives of Missourione praying that the purchasers of public lands may be permitted to apply the payments already made to such of their entries as the said payments will cover, at two dollars per acre, relinquishing the residue of the land to the United States-another praying that persons entitled to the right of pre-emption in the purchase of public lands, may be permitted to make payment for said lands within the times heretofore prescribed by law, or prompt payment, at the option of the persons holding such pre-emption right-the other, praying that the right of pre-emption in the purchase of public lands may be extended to certain settlers therein described; which memorials were referred to the Committee on the Public Lands." Mr. ROBERTSON, conceiving that Missouri had, in this entry, been styled a Territory, objected to her being so styled; but, on examination, finding it was not so, waived a motion he was about to have made to amend it. Mr. COBB, however, adverting to the terms of the memorial, said, that it appeared to be from the Senate and House of Representatives of "the State of" Missouri, though not so stated in the Journal. Mr. C. moved to amend the Journal in this particular, by inserting the words "the State of," before the word "Missouri." When the reporter entered the Hall, Mr. BARBOUR was up, arguing in favor of an amendment, which would make the Journal conform to the fact, which, he contended, it did not as it now stood. Mr. ANDERSON expressed his opinion that the Journal, as it stood, expressed truly the fact of a memorial being presented from Missouri. Though it might have been more distinctly stated, yet the omission of the words proposed to be inserted did not take from Missouri the character of a State, it being a frequent mode of expression in regard to other States, to speak of them without the prefix of "the State of." Mr. A. also suggested a wish that his friends should not press the objection they had set up, by way of obtaining a decision of the Missouri question, on a motion to amend the Journal. Mr. ROBERTSON made some remarks in favor of the motion. The memorials, he said, professed to be from the Legislature of the State of Missouri. If Missouri had not been considered as a State, of course the memorials in that shape would not have been received. Having been received as memorials from the State, why should not the fact be correctly stated on the Journal? Mr. McLANE, of Delaware, was in favor of the proposed amendment, on the general ground that, if it took place, the Journal would correspond more precisely with the fact than in its present shape. [JANUARY, 1821. Mr. WARFIELD said, that a decision in favor of the proposed amendment would not express the sense of the House, either in one way or the other. Conceiving that the entry on the Journal, as it now stood, was an entry of that description which would explain sufficiently what was the nature of the memorial, he was opposed to the amendment. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, proposed, in order to obviate the difficulty, to insert in the Journal the words "purporting to be," a memorial from the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Missouri, &c. Mr. Cook was opposed to the proposed amendment. If made, he said, it would decide no principle. If Missouri was not a State, calling her so would not make her so. It would be an equally appropriate amendment to style her the Republic of Missouri, as her convention had styled her in the preamble to the constitution which had been formed for her government, &c. Mr. Cовв, in reply to a wish which had been expressed, that he would withdraw his motion, said that he could not consent to do it. He wished the Journal to conform, as it ought, to the fact. Three memorials had been presented from a body, organized under a constitution of government, formed by virtue of a law of Congress authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State government. In that shape having been presented, in that and in no other shape could the memorials have been received; and the Journal ought to state the fact as it occurred. Mr. BALDWIN was sorry, he said, that any discussion should have arisen as to the description of any paper presented to the House in the shape of a memorial. It had been the uniform practice, in making up the Journal, to give to memorialists the name which they themselves assumed. By way of illustration, he referred to the memorial presented at the present session from persons styling themselves the National Institution for the protection of domestic industry, from the delegates of agricultural societies, from the delegates from various interests at Philadelphia, &c., all of which, without investigating the merits of the pretensions of the respective memorialists, had been announced in the Journal in their own language. We pay that respect to petitioners, said Mr. B., that we designate them as they choose to designate themselves. The annunciation on the Journal of their designations, was, properly, a mere recital of what they chose to call themselves. If the principle were now to be introduced, that every person or association of persons were to be held to prove that they really are what they profess to be, it would involve the House in endless difficulties. He was therefore in favor of the amendment proposed by Mr. COBB. Mr. RANDOLPH, after a preliminary remark or two, not distinctly heard from the pressing of members around him, said that he rose to JANUARY, 1821.] Amendment of the Journal-Missouri Question. introduce a precedent applicable to this occasion, which, he trusted, would be received with all the respect due to so high and transcendental authority. The conduct, said he, which this Government has to this instant pursued towards the State of Missouri, is sanctioned by the conduct which was pursued towards these States when colonies, by His Britannic Majesty and his faithful Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled. What was their language after our independence was declared? What was their conduct which led to the long and bloody war which terminated in the acknowledgment of our independence? The very language which we are holding, and the very conduct we are pursuing towards Missouri. The parallel, said Mr. R., runs on all fours. In our extreme tenderness for the rights and privileges of the colored citizens, we have already brought into jeopardy the rights and privileges of our white fellow-citizens as well as of those colored ones who are the objects of our solicitude. Mr. R. said he had intended to abstain, as he had until now abstained, from taking any part or lot in this affair. But when he saw the Congress of the United States pursuing a course of conduct in servile imitation of the British Parliament, he could no longer refrain. He would stake his salvation, he said, dear to him as that was, that, if the constitution of Missouri had contained an inhibition of slavery, the House would never have heard of the objection now raised to it; and, were he to engage in the discussion of it, he would take that ground. However that might be, he said, it was a more important matter that the Journals of this House should contain the truth. An honorable member behind him had uttered the sentiment, the other day, that it was proper that petitions to this House should contain the truth. It was of infinitely more importance, Mr. R. said, that the Journal should contain the truth; and he pronounced that the Journal for yesterday, in its present mutilated, mangled, and garbled state, did not speak the truth. It holds out that, said he, which we know to be false. And is it a mere matter of form that we should send out to the people, as the record of our proceedings, a paper which contains, on the face of it, a palpable and atrocious falsehood? Mr. LITTLE called for the reading of the memorial; it was read in part, when Mr. L. expressed himself satisfied, and said he was sorry the Chair had departed from the uniform practice and regular rule in recording the proceedings of the House. Mr. RHEA was in favor of the proposed amendment. It was the duty of the House, he thought, to see that facts were correctly stated on the Journal. This House had, in its public acts, styled Missouri a State; and why should she not be so called on the Journal? He read the caption of one of the memorials to show that it purported to be from the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Missouri, in General Assembly, &c. The Journal, [H. OF R. he said, ought to describe the memorial as it really was. The question on Mr. COBB's motion was then taken-yeas 76, and nays 76. The years and nays being equal in number, the SPEAKER declared his vote with the nays. So Mr. COBB's motion was rejected. On this result being declared Mr. PARKER, of Virginia, rose. The vote which had just been taken, he said, was, with a few exceptions, of that geographical character which had marked the whole proceedings in regard to Missouri. For his own part, he said, he did not at first consider this question as involving any matter of principle; but, being a new member, he had referred to the Journal, and he found that, in all cases of memorials from States, they have been stated to be from States; and that the same uniformity of practice prevailed as to memorials from Territorial legislatures. He saw no reason why a deviation from this uniformity of practice should have occurred in this particular instance of Missouri, and not in any other. There was, he said, something in it-he did not say what it was-but he was for consistency, at all events, in the records of the Congress of the Union. He was for the records of this House speaking, in the words of the law, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Under this impression, as the House had refused to acknowledge Missouri to be a State, and as she must be a territory, if she be not a State, he moved to insert in the Journal, before the word "Missouri," the words "the Territory of." Mr. BRUSH objected to this amendment, for reasons which he assigned at length. He was of opinion that Missouri was constitutionally and politically a State, and not a territory. But, as it was the custom of this Government to give to its territories a first and second grade of government, preparatory to their assuming the rank of a State of the Union, he did not see why it could not give to them a third, fourth, or fifth grade of government. He considered Missouri to be in a grade between territorial dependence and the condition of a member of the Union; which idea he illustrated by reference to the situation of the State of Vermont, before she adopted the Federal Constitution. Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, apprehended that this proposition would operate as a trap question, producing embarrassment without benefit, and expressed his hope that the mover would withdraw it. Mr. LIVERMORE made a few remarks to this effect: that the House ought to regard the substance and not the shadow; that the name was of no importance to the actual condition of Missouri. When the question should present itself in a proper form, he was ready to decide it; but it could not be affected, either in one way or the other, by the appellation which should be given to Missouri on the Journal of this House. H. OF R.] Amendment of the Journal-Missouri Question. [JANUARY, 1821. Mr. MERCER was gratified that this motion | tween the proceedings of the British Parliament had been made. As this was the commencement of our intercourse with the people of Missouri, he was desirous that every step of it should be marked. Mr. M. made some further remarks, in the course of which he expressed his regret that the course of the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. Cook,) had been, in his view, disrespectful to Missouri. Mr. Cook disclaimed any intention to speak disrespectfully of the people of Missouri, whom, on the contrary, he said, he held in high respect; and he sincerely hoped that Missouri would be admitted into the Union, and soon. during our Revolution, and those of the present Congress. He did remember himself many instances in which the petitions of the people of these States were refused to be received in Parliament, because the petitioners did not correctly describe themselves. He remembered the letter of Washington was refused to be received, because it purported to come from General Washington. Had not the people of Missouri a right to baptize themselves by such name as they chose? Mr. T. said he regretted that the Chair should have thought itself under the necessity of altering the Journal. The subMr. BUTLER, of Louisiana, said, that, on in- ject, in itself not very important, had been specting the Journal, it appeared that the orig- made so by the alteration of the Journal, which inal entry in it corresponded with the caption alteration it seemed had been made by the of the memorial, in which the word State is Speaker. It appeared to betray an unreasonaemployed. As the Journal now reads, more- ble jealousy on this subject, to say the least of over, in the part speaking of the public lands, it. He begged the Speaker's pardon, he saidthe words "within the said State" had been he did not mean to say that he felt this jealerased in two instances, to avoid the word ousy; but, in the course which he had taken, State, which made the whole entry absurd, in- there was an overweening caution-an appearasmuch as the memorial is made to apply not ance of a jealousy which ought not to have to purchasers of land "within the said State," been betrayed towards this people. Mr. T. which words were erased, but to purchasers of said he trusted gentlemen would not feel much land throughout the United States. Mr. B. difficulty in voting on this question. We find, said he would therefore ask whether the Clerk he said, that the question just taken, small as it had undertaken to make these alterations. was, has drawn a line across the United States. Let the Journal stand as it ought to do. Do not tell the people of Missouri, We are so jealous of you, we are fearful of your thrusting The SPEAKER then stated from the chair, that it was the practice that the Journal should be written by the Clerk. The rules of the House made it the duty of the Speaker to "ex-yourself into the Union, and partaking at the amine and correct the Journal before it is read." If, being so examined and corrected by the Speaker, it should not, in the opinion of any member, be correct, it was competent for any member to move to amend it, and for the House, should such be its pleasure, to direct it to be amended. In the present instance, the presiding officer had thought proper so to correct the Journal, as that it should not be taken either to affirm or deny that Missouri was a State, that being a question on which the House was greatly divided in opinion. Mr. TRIMBLE requested the Clerk to state the date of the petition, in order to show that the petition was not posterior to the decision of this House against declaring the admission of Missouri into the Union, and that therefore Missouri had not assumed a name which had been denied to her by Congress. Mr. T. expressed his satisfaction that Mr. Cook had explained his meaning; having believed, until he had made it, that his observations in regard to Missouri had been ironically intended. Mr. T. did not by any means consider the present motion as a trap, but as a serious proposition, which gentlemen would not find it easy to dispose of. There were members of this House who believed that Missouri was yet a territory. Mr. T. said he was not one of them; but those who did believe so, would of course vote for the resolution. He was obliged, he said, to the gentleman from Virginia, for having suggested what he had done in regard to the parallel be sacred board and drinking of the cup of wine. Do not say to them, We are so apprehensive you will come to the communion table by the name which you give yourselves, that we will give you no name. Mr. T. said he should vote against the proposed amendment, because, in his opinion, Missouri was a State, and not a territory. Those who held the other opinion must be compelled to vote in favor of this proposition, or acknowledge that their ground was untenable. Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, said, in regard to this motion, he did not, when up before, mean to insinuate that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PARKER) had meant to set a trap for others. He might have laid a snare without designing it. For himself, Mr. E. said, he believed Missouri was a State. He feared that the motion of the gentleman might be adopted, and that the misnomer would be entered on the Journal. For no other reason had he wished the motion to be withdrawn. He should vote against the motion with pleasure, because he believed Missouri had lost her territorial character, and could not be otherwise than a State. Mr. PARKER said he was placed in a difficult situation, by the application to him to withdraw his motion. Other friends were opposed to his withdrawing it. He had concluded to persist in it. It was not intended as a trap for any one. Had it been so intended, he did not know but that he might have found illustrious |