ADMISSION OF NEW STATES. 7 ^ SPEECH HON. WILLIAM 0. GOODE, OF VIRGINIA. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 9, 1858, On the policy of /idmittini^ new Stnlcii into the Union, and in defense f the South against the charge of perfidy in the repeal of the Missouri Compr mie. / Tlir House being in thi; Comiiiilli-c of tlie Whole on llie Slate oftlie Union- Mr. GOODE said: Mr. Chairman: Oregon is before us, demand- ing; to be recofjnized as an independent Slate, in- vested witli supreme sovereign authority, and to be admitted into the Confederacy of American Republics. The admission of a new State into the Confed- eracy, is the exercise of a hi^^h attribute of Gov- ernment, but our authority is uiidrtubted, since it rests on an exjiress provision of the Constitution. The creation of a Commonwealth, its initiation j amonu; the Republics of America, is an event to , strike on the imagination, but the frequrticy of the occurrence has deprived it of interest. It has ceased even to produce a sensation. It seumti to have been adopted as the settled policy of Govi>rnmeiit to encourage new political organizations, to stimulate their growth, and ad- mit them into the Union, as soon as circumstances \V'1I excuse it. It may be Questioned wiietherthe wisdom of this policy has been examined by the statesnii'ii of the present day and generation. The expansion of our populated area, and consequent difi'u.sion of our population, is calculated to impair the aggregate energy of society for the purposes of war and all the great objects of Gi>vernment. The superior efficiency of concentrated effort, as compared with individualized e.xertion, seems to be admitted by sages, statesmen, and pliilo.sophers. It is the principle which rusts at the foundation of tlie socialists' system, and has failed in their liands from tiie want of that unity of will and persist- ency of purpose which are essential to energy and success. It is self-evidt-nt, that the diffusion of population is unfriendly to concentration of force. The great defect in American agriculture is the scarcity of labor. This evil is increased by the expansion of Territory, and bringing new west- ern lands into cultivation. Till' establishment of territorial communities, and the ajiplication of the complicated machinery of Government to distant and numerous localities, occasions an indefinite and alarming increase of expenditures. The price of lands in the old States is inju- riously affected by the hot-bed policy of creating new-States. The emigrants from the East, seek- ing new lands in the West, would create a demand for lands in the East, and thus add to their market value. But this demand is lost by emigration; and, in addition to this evil, many emigrants force their own eastern land.s into inarki.'t, thus adding t* and incomprehensible, that Representatives from theoldStateson the Atlantic, should manifest such eagerness to establish new States in the West. It 1 is undoubtedly true thai political machinations I exert an influence on the subject. It is by no j means certain that presidential aspirations are , wholly inert and inefficient; whilst it is impossi- ble wholly to exclude the idea that the spirit of speculation occasionally obtrudes into the mind of Congress, inclining members to favor a policy affording a wide field for speculative operations. These and other causes have conspired to give a powerful impulse to the policy of stimulating new political organizations to be hurried into the fam- ily of American Republics — a policy which in- vests a comparatively few pioneer settlers in the West with a political power, exerting a control- ling influence on the policy of Governnient, dis- a.Hfrous in its effect on the material condition, the agricultural and commercial prosperity of the old Slates. *^*^^^'"**'— *-^-— ■ / As an illustration of the effect of this policy, let is contemplate the probable results of the le- / .'gis ation of the present Congress. Minnesota is ( admitted with a population of about one hundred V -.And fifty thousand souls, wielding a power in the ^-Senate equal to the imperial greatness of New York withapopulation approachingfour millions ! Oregon, with a population of fifty thousand, will be admitted, to wield a power in the Senate equal to the great State of Pennsylvania, the keystone of the beautiful arch of the Confederacy, with a jiopulation, perhaps, of two millions and a half. Blitdinff Kansas, to weigh down the " uTiterrified Old Dominion !" Let it be remembered that the Senate shares the whole legislative power with the House of Representatives, and a large portion of executive authority with the President of the United States; thus commanding the action of Government ! Sir, nothing less than a powerful motive could reconcile the northern Atlantic Slates to the pol- icy of stimulating the admission of new States; and that motive is to be found in their hatred of the institutions of the South. The new States are expected to be free States, sympathizing with the Abolitionists in their rancorous detestation of the South; and the fanatical impatience to establish in the Senate a decided preponderance of Free-Soil influence, reconciles the North to the great sacri- fice to which they are subjected by the operation of this destructive policy. That preponderance is already established — fearfully, fatally established. At the opening of the present session of Congress the Senators from the free States were thirty-two; those from the South only thirty, giving to the North a majority of tioo. The members of the House of Representatives from the North, num- bered one hundred and forty-four; those from the South only ninety, giving to the North a majority ofjifty-four. At the last presidential election the members of the electoral college of the North, numbered one hundred and seventy-six; those from the South, one hundred and twenty, giving to the North a majority offijhj-six. The whole strength of the Democratic principle, with the vast energy of the Democratic organization, were barely able to save the South from the effects of an election purely and completely sectional. At the opening of the next Congress, Sena- tors from the North will jnobably numlier thirty- eight, those from the South but thirty, giving to j the North a majority of eight; whilst in the House of Representatives the members from the North will probably range one hundred and forty-eight, those from the South only ninety, giving to the North a majority of Jifty- eight. At the next pres- idential election, the electoral college from the North will probably number one hundred and eighty-six; those from the South, one hundred and twenty, giving to the North a majority of sixty-six. After the taking of the next census this condition of things will be incalculably aggra- vated. Thus is it shown that the ascendency of the North is completely established in all the elective departments of the Government; and the constitutional rights and equality of the South are held at the mercy of the North. The rights of the South are absolutely dependent on tin; justice and clemency of those who hold our institutions in detestation, who have already indulged in threats, and who have been unable to repress the mutterings of rage and of revenge. It has been beautifully and poetically said by Byron that " none are all evil." It may be that objectionable principles, when pushed to their ex- tent, produce favoraljle results. We of the South may derive some advantage from the policy of stimulating and admitting new States. True, they will jnobably side with the North on the vital question of slavery; but they will find their in- terest in the principle of free trade, and may be induced to lend assistance to the South, in redu- cing the duties on imports, in repealingdrawbacks and bounties, and modifying the navigation laws so as to deprive the North of the unjust, oppres- sive, and ruinous monopoly of the carrying trade. Southern energy will be directed to the accom- plishment of this important object. These suggestions are merely offered — not elab- orated. They are designed only to give direction to the current of thought, and especially to the Representatives from the South. In a speech elab- orately prepared, and delivered some years since, it was said by Mr. CbiNGMAhf, that, under the operation of the navigation laws, freight from New Orleans to New York was equal to freight from New York to Canton ! I do not discuss iliis topic now. I hope hereafter to he able to bestow on it greater attention. For the present, I pass on the great highway of thought to the examina- tion of topics which have already engaged atten- tion. Sir, I have a duty to iierform, a solemn duty; a duty to the South, to Virginia — to John Ran- dolph of Roanoke. Some days since, my hon- orable colleague [Mr. Garnett] made allusion to the deed of cession ijy which Virginia conveyed the Northwestern Territory to the United States, and especially to the clause which stipulates that not more than five States shall be formed of the Territory, and he charged, as a breach of the pact, that a large extent of territory was left without the boundaries of the five northwestern States. A member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] re- pelled the charge, and represented that part of the Virginia grant as a mere strip of country attached to Minnesota, a magnificent State with ninety thousand square miles of territory, one third greater than the State of Virginia! and with this statement the member seemed to feel his vindica- tion complete. Now, sir, this strip of country, of 'which he speaks with so much levity, is a tract of twenty-two thousand square miles, beingnearly equal to one half the superficial extent of the great State of Pennsylvania or New York, and about equal to all that part of Virginia which lies between the Blue Ridge and the Atlantic, full three times as large as the lohole State of Massachusetts ! larger than the combined area of New Hampshire, Mas- sachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut! It may be proper to remark that, in superficial ' extent, this strip of country is more than equal to ; one third part of the State of Georgia. Thegen- l tleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] treated the suggestion of my colleague as a reason urged for the rejection of the bill. But that view was waived, and it was adduced as a violation of the terms of the deed of cession. Considered as an objection to the bill, the gentleman from Georgia insists that it was taken too late; that it should have been stated on the passage of the enabling act. But if Congress, in the enabling act, by its I own act, set forth a boundary involving a breach of trust, is it competent to Congress to excuse ' the consummation of that breach of trust in the § act for admission, by pleading that the breach was initiated in the enabling act r That is a ques- : tion which I refer to the ca"suisis. In any event, my colleague was not concluded to make llie ob- jection, be<:ause he votid against the enalding ! act, as I did. Hut \vaivin>z this objrction to the I iidniission of Mimiesoia, 1 voted ("or the bill, while I hold thai as an unjust and oppn-ssive violation of the terms of the cession, tin' sugges- tion of my colleagui" remains without answer. As such it was brouiilu forward, and us such it was Cdiisidercd by ihi' gentleman from Pennsyl- vania, [Mr. Grow.] Warming' with hissubjecl, and assuming a lofty biarin^^ this gentleman an- nounced that the charge of breach of faith came with an ill-grace from my cidhague, because, he says: " Yiiur I'iiihtT.-! mill our fniln-M inatle n compact in IRIO, liy w liifli ihe Loui.-ijinn purclmse, west otitic then limit!) ol Missouri. !iii(t ol'norlli 30° 'M\ wiis ileu have justirii;d tin- art." I I do "justify the act;" I have justified much ] more than that; and stand ready to vindicate the deed. Hut, sir, my object is to deny, to surcharge, and falsify the allegation that " yuur fathers and our fathers made a compact in Ib'iO by which | the Louisiana purcliasu west of Missouri, and north of 360 3U', v.as dedicated forever" to what you call freedom. I deny that such a compact was ever made between the Neculiar degree of [ sanctity. The charge has been often made. Mem- I bers of Congress from the North have felt them- • selves called upon to indulge iii strains of hitter denunciation of the perfidious breach of faith in- volved in the action of southern members in re- pealing the Missouri compromise. The charge IS gratuitous, and unsupported by the truth of history. Sir, 1 am at a lo.ss to conceive on what evidence the declaration has been hazarded that the Mis- souri c(»iTipromi.se, as it is termed in common parlance, was invested with the dignity of a com- pact, or varied in any manner from an ordinary act of Congress. This cannot be inferred from the fact that several southern memtiers voted for the measure; because such a rule would invest every law with the dignity and sanctity of an un- alterable compact. Hut, even upon such a rule, it is shown by the record that the Missouri com- promise was rejected Ijy Virginia, and repudiated by her Representatives in Congress. It has been conceded, because it could not lie denied, that the measure was proposed by a northern Senator. In the session of IM'J-^O, "A bill for the admis- sion of the State of Maine" had passed the House of Representatives; and, in the Senate, a commit- tee had reported, as an amendment to that bill, a clause for the admission of Missouri on the same terms; that is, without restriction on the subject of slavery. Various propositions were made to amend that amendment, by adding a section to exclude the institution of slavery from the Slate of Missouri; but all these were successfully re- sisted by the united South. Defeated in the ob- ject of excluding slavery from the State of Mis- souri, the North, in the person of Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, brought forward the clause to ex-'lude it from the Territories north of ."JfjOSC north lat- itude, and not comprehended within the limits of the State. The vote was taken on that proposi- tion on the 17ih February, 1820. It was supported bv every northern Senator, except the two from Indiana', and carried in the atJirmative. The vole was taken by yeas and nays. Hoih the Senators iVom Virginia recorded their vntes in the nega- tive and against the Missouri compromise, as did also Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and Juil^'e Smith, of South Carolina, both of whom have been claimed as supporters of the compro- mise. (See Senate Journal, I8r.l-2II, page UiG.) 1 am aware it has been staled on authority — high ir.deed with many minds— that ihe yeas and nays were not taken on the motion " to insert the section constituting the compromise. " (See " Hellion's Thirty Years View," page 8.) But I exhibit the record. The vote iheii ncurred on the question, "Shall the amendments to the bill be engrossed, and read a third time .'" and on this Virginia, and ihe South generally, did vote in the artii mative. Hut that was not a clear vole on the single principle of the Missouri compromise. The amendments ordered to be engrossed were the sec- , lions i)roviding for the admission of Missouri na an amendment to the Maine bill, and Virginia voted with the South, that if Maine wi're admit- ted, Missouri should be admitted also, without the clause excluding slavery, even though Con- gress usurped the power to exclude it from all ter- ritory norili of 3(5° 31'' not comprehended within ihe limits of the State; and the bill passed th.- Sen- ale in that form, without division. A very diftcr- ent fate awaited it in the House of Representa- tives, where the amendments were rejected by a '; very general vote— the North being against them because they admitted slavery in the Stale of Mis- souri, whilst the South opposed them because they excluded slavery from the Territory. I The House having thus rejected the ameiul- I menis, the bill was sent back to the Senate, where j a member from Rhode Island (Mr. Hurrill) moved 10 recede from the Senate amendments, and Mr. I Macon called for a division of the question, soas to lake one vole on admitting Missouri \yithout restriction, and another vole on the section ex- 1 eluding slavery from the Territories. Mr. Smith and Mr. Macon, with both the Virginia Senators, I and a majority of the Senate, including all the Senators from the South, voted agai^ist receding; namely, they voted to insiston heradniission;aiid i so iheclause was retained. The question was then I taken on receding from the amendment which I prohibited slavery north of 3GO 3U' in the Terri- I tones, when Mr. Smith and Mr. Macon, with i)oih the Virginia Senators, voted to recede, which was equivalent to a vote to strike out the section; that is, to reject the Missouri compromise. (See Senate Journal, page 189.) Vet it has been as- I seried that Nathaniel Macon and Judge Smilh and James Harbour and James Pleasants had re- corded their plighted faith in favor of ihis com- promise, to be oTiservcd as a sacred compact be- tween the North and South ! The Senate then insisted on its several amendments; and no other vole was taken in that body at all involving the principle of the compromise, until after the report of the committee of conference. Heaven save the country from all future committees of conference ! 'It recommended that the Senate recede from all their amendments to the bill for the admission of Maine, and that the bill of the House of Repre- sentatives to enable the people of Missouri luform i a Sta!e government, &c., should be so amended j as to strike out the clause prohibiting slavery within the State to be formed, and to insert a new '[ section prohibiting slavery in all that territory ; !:eded by France to the United States, under the ! name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' j north latitude, not included within the limits of 'he State of Missouri. The country is familiar with the report of that \ committee. On the question to strike out the clause prohibiting slavery in Missouri, Virginia, and the whole South, with a large majority of the Senate, voted in the affirmative, thus admitting slavery into Missouri. The question to insert the •;ompromise clause was carried without a division. But that does not justify the inference that the Virginia Senators assented to the principle of the Missouri compromise. They had already voted ' against its insertion in the first instance. They had voted to strike it out, when an opportunity was presented. They liad sufficiently evinced their opposition to the principle, and as a small and helpless minority, it was unnecessary to con- sume tile time of the Senate with an unavailing vote by yeas and nays. It has been alleged in the " Thirty Year's View," (page 8,) that — •• The unanimity of the slave States in the f^eiiate, wliere 1 lilt; measure originated, is shown by its Journal, not on the motion to insert the section constituting the compromise (lor on that motion the yeas and nays were not taken) but ' on tlic motion to strike it out, when they were taken, and j showed lliirty votes for the compromise and fifteen against ] il — every one of the latter from non-slaveliolding States — tlif- former comprehending every slave State vote present, and a few from the North." The author then furnishes a list of the Sena- tors who are claimed to have voted for the com- promise, and among them are Governor Barbour .and Governor Pleasants of Virginia, Judge Wil- | !iam Smith of South Carolina, and Nathaniel -Macon of North Carolina, and, indeed, all the Senators from the South, with several distin- guished names from the northern States, and de- ■clares that" this array of names shows the Mis- souri compromise to liave been a southern meas- sure." I have to say that after diligent search, I have not been able to discover the record of such a vote. I do find that after the adoption of the clause excluding slavery from the Territories, north of 360 30', Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, did move to strike out that clause and insert another, exlend- ing the operation of the principle of the compro- mise so as to apply it to all territory north of 3GO30'and i\\\ soxith of that line not embraced within the ijoundaries of the State of Louisiana and the Territory of Arkansas east 94° of longitude — agreeably to Melish's map. On this question, James Barbour, James Pleasants, Nathaniel Ma- con, William Smith, and every southern Senator, did vote in the negative; but that was a vote re- fusing to extend the principle of the compromise; a V(tte refusing to give it application to territory south of 36° 30'; and cannot be tortured into an approval of the compromise. Yet that was the only vote on the subject, in the Senate, of which I can find a record, taken after the carrying into effect the recommendation of the committee of conference. (Senate Journal 1819-20, page 202.) Sir, I deny that there is evidence on record— I deny that there is evidence in being to establish the pro [losi lion that the Senatoi sfVom Virgin in, or Nathaniel Macon, or William Smith, of South Carolina, ever gave the sanction of their names to the principles of the Missouri compromise, to iie observed as a compact between the J'J^orth and South — binding in plighted faith — sacred and im- mutable. Passing from the Senate to the House of Rep- resentatives, we shall find the South resolutely and persistently resisting the principle of exclu- ding slavery, as well from the State as from the Territory, from the day of its introduction in the bill of February, 1819, down to the final voting on the Maine bill on the 28th of February, 1820, when the amendment of the Senate having for its object the admission of Missouri with slavery, and the amendment having for its object the ex- clusion of slavery from the Territories, were ex- pressly disagreed to and rejected by the House. In the House of Representatives, February 28, 1820, the amendment for the admission of Mis- souri with slavery, was supported by every mem- ber from the South except one. It was opposed by every member from the North except Jive. Seventy-six members voted to admit the State with slavery, seventy-one coming from the South. Ninety -seven members voted against admitting the State with slavery, ninety-six coming from , the North. j The amendment to exclude slavery from the territory north of 36° 30' was resisted by every member from the South, excejjt five. Sixty-seven memljers from the South recorded their votes against that principle, and but five in its favor. (See House Journal 1820, pages 255,256,257.) "Thus is it shown, that the South was united against the principles of the compromise down to the close of the voting on the 28th February, 1820; and I feel that I should do injustice to my native State — my own beloved Virginia — if I should fail to direct attention to the fact that on that day she cast twenty-two votes to admit Mis- souri with slavery, and twenty-two votes against excluding slavery from the Territories — one mem- ber from Virginia only voting against the body of his colleagues ! It was, then, on the 28th February, 1820, that a northern Senator moved, in the Senate, for a conference. Ominous and boding proposition! Sir, 1 always ex;ierience a sensation of uneasi- ness at the slightest allusion to that cunning de- vice — that powerful, that dangerous and mis- chievous agency, known as a committee of con- ference. The resolution for a conference was adopted; and Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, (author of the compromise,) Mr. Pinckney, of Maryland, who had supported the compromise, and Mr. Barbour, of Viri;inia, were appointed managers on the part of the Senate. The House of Repre- sentatives concurred, and Mr. Holmes, of Mas- .sachusetts, Mr. Taylor, of New York, Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, were appointed managerson the partofthe House of Representatives. Four members from the North and one from the South. I have already stated the character of the re- port of the committee. It recommended that the ' clause excluding slavery from Missouri should jj be stricken from the Missouri bill, and a new I section inserted excluding slavery from the Ter- rities north of 36° 30'. And as the votes of mem- bers on these twci propositions are relied upon to decide the character of the transaction, I ask for the subject the particuhir aittritioii of this l)ody. It was on the :2d of March, 1«:20, wlien tlic Iltiu.se was called to act. It was a moment of intense interest. It was known that the fate of the meas- ure depended on the vote to strike out the clause excluding slavery from Missouri, because it liad been ascertained by repeated tests that no bill could pass the Senate which excluded slavery from the State. It was known to be extremely doubtful whether the motion to strike out could prevail. By voting with those from the North who were opposed to the motion, the South could retain the clause in the bill, and secure tlie ulti- mate defeat of the measure. Hut such a vote was inconsistent with their principles; and the result was doubtful to the last. But they did act upon their principles, cast their votes for the motion, and the clause was stricken from the bill — yeas 90, nays 87. I shall have occasion, in a few mo- ments, to recur to this vote. The clause excluding slavery from Missouri having been stricken from the bill, the question recurred on inserting the section which excluded slavery from the Territories; which prevailed by a larg(.> majority — yeas 134, nays 42. (House Journal Itii'J-^ti, page 277.) Of the one hundred and thirty-four yeas, ninety-five came from the North, thirty-nine from the South. Of the forty- two nays, five came from the North, and thirty- seven from the South. It will be observed that the North cast one hundred votes, of which ninely-J'ive supported the compromise, and ^/ir^- opposed it. The South cast seventy-si.\ votes, of which (/tirii/- nine were cast in the affirmative, and thirty-seven against the compromise. With the irresistible power of a conference coinmittee exerted in favor of the compromise, the South was divided as thir- ty-nine to thirty-seven, whilst ninety-five of one hundred from the North voted in a body for the bill. Yet havu northern members stood up here to treat the Missouri compromise as a measure of the South forced upon the iSforth, ranting and declaim- ing and denouncing the South for a perfidious breach of plighted faith pledged between " your fathers and our fathers!" Sir, in the presence of the American Congress, I denounce the Missouri compromise as a measure of the North forced upon the South. Like all other compromises, as a measure of the strong forced upon the weak. Again, sir, 1 say, I feel that I should fail in my duty to my own, my native land — my own be- loved Virginia, if 1 did not direct attention to the fact, that, even by the anaconda coil of a confer- ence committee, siie could not be constrained to assent to the hateful principle of the Missouri compromise; but on this final test she cast eigh- teen votes against the coinpromise, and only /our in its favor; and that, too, when her own son, James Monroe, as President of the United States, was known to feel the deepest interest in the suc- cess of the measure. I said I should revert to the vote to strike out the clause excluding slavery from Missouri. The defeat of that propo.'^ition would have secured the defeat of the Missouri compromise, because the Senate would have rejected it; but the body of southern members voted to strike it out, because they held it to be a paramount duty to admit .Missouri without the restriction. The motion prevailed by a majority of three votes — yeas 90, nays 87. It was observed that, during the voting, several northern members, who were opposed to the mo- tion on principle, because it would admit slavery into Missouri, retired from the House withhold- ing their votes, and thus securing the success of the motion, and, eventually, the success of the conifiromise. This fact is staled on the authority of Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer, then a member of Congress from Virginia, and one who voted for the Missouri compromise. I give extracts from a letter, dated Berlin, Prussia, September 12, 1854, directed to Hon. William S. Archer, of Virginia, also a member of Congress from Vir- ginia, in 1820. Mr. Mercer says: •' .Alter I arose, ;i Kiriiii r class iiiatf ol mine at Prince- Ion, llciiry Kdvvard-i, ol Coiiiiecliciit, lelt it, (llie House,) anil (lid not return III! the volt- hud l)efii taken." * ' •■ 'I'lie qiit^Ktion was thus delayed nil tli>> iiiglit was far advanced. As Htion a.-* C reeovered, and llu' members re- gained llicir seats, llie i]ueRlion wns taken, by aye.s and noes; and tlie lirst aineiidmeiil adopted by a majority of three voles only, in the aliseiiee of Edwards and several oth- er* of il\ Ojiponcnta. 1 1< friends were all present, and num- bered anioiij; thi'iii lianilolph and yourself '> * * " Tin; seeond resolulion was llieii put, and passed by a large majority, of which I was one, you and Uandolph vo- tiiip ai;aiiisl it. As soon as he perci'ived that many inem- liers Iron) the South had voicd for it, he sprang up Iroiii his seal, in great indignation ;aiid exclaiming as he addrcssiMl the Speaker, ' the cards are packed ; I will not play the game,' moved a reconsideration of tln' first amendment, whicll nioiioii you seconded. Deducting your vote and Uandolph 's from the majority, it was obvious that the first amendment would be lost, even llioiigh the opponents of it, who had uune out, and whom Itandnlpli styled doughfaei s, had not returned, as some ol lliem obviously had. It was now late at night. The Senate had adjourned : and a member friendly to the second resolution, as well as llie first, perceiving that if the vote were taken the amendment would be lost, re- i|iiesie(l Mr. Itandulpli to withdraw his motion till tin- ensu- ing day ; staling that, as the Senate had adjourned, the res- olution could not pass that night, and that the rules of the Mouse allowed a day alter the passage of any act I'or its re- consideration." • ««••«• " I was seated by Mr. Randolph." * * "Accord- ingly, he wnveil his mriiion for the present, announcing his intention to renew it the ensuing morning ; and the House immediatHly adjourned. " 'I'he morning came ; the House met, and Randolph was in his place ; he rosi; and renewed liis motion, which the Speaker pronounced out of order, as the reports of com- millees had precedence, after the readingoflhe Journal, to all other business. '■ In the mean lime, the Clerk, having read the Journal, was set.'ii walking towards the door leading tu the Senate, with the resolulion and the amendment in his hand, when Itaiidolph's attention being called to the fact, he audibly ordered him to stop. Instantly Lewis .McLane commanded him to ' proceed at his peril,' in a voice still loudi^r than Randolph's. The Clerk did so ; and so the Senators, as I personally knoir, being prepared by Thomas, of Illinois, took up the aiiiendments as soon as the resolution reached their table, and finally passed them, and consequently thereby closed all further proceedings in regard to it. '• The reports of committees having been ended in the Mouse, .Mr. Kandolph again rose to renew his motion for reconsideration, when Ik; was officially lold by the Speaker that the bill had gone to the Senate."' Such is the statement of the honorable Charles Fenton Mercer, sustained in its essential points by the Journal of the House of Representatives. (Sec Journal March 3, 1820, page 275, et seq.) It appears from the Journal (page 279) that Mr. Raniiolph submitted the motion to reconsider the vote, and that it was ruled by the Speaker t