this day to enter into an elaborate disquisition to sustain the correctness of this opinion. They will content themselves by referring to the history of the times in which the law originated, when both its constitutionality and expediency underwent the strictest scrutiny. The opponents of the law challenged its advocates to point out the clause of the Constitution which had armed the Government with so formidable a power as the control of, or interference with, the press. A Government, said they, of limited powers, and authorized to execute such only as are expressly given by the Constitution, or such as are properly incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution, has exercised an authority over a most important subject, which, so far from having been delegated, has been expressly withheld. That the patriots contemporary with the adoption of the Constitution, not content with the universally received opinion, that all power not granted had been withheld, to obviate all doubt on a point of such moment, insisted that an amendment to that effect should be inserted in the Constitution; and still jealous of that propensity, incident to all Governments, no matter what may be the form of its organization, or by whom administered, to enlarge the sphere of its authority, they, by express provisions, guarded from violation some of the cardinal principles of liberty; among these, as most important, they placed the liberty of conscience and of the press. Profoundly versed in the history of human affairs, whose every page made known that all Governments had seized on the altar and the press, and prostituted them into the most formidable engines against the liberty of mankind, they resolved, and most wisely so, as the sequel has evinced, to surround these great, natural, and inalienable rights by impassable barriers; and, to that end, have expressly declared, that Congress should have no power to legislate on them; and, notwithstanding these great obstacles, you have passed this act. The advocates of the law vainly endeavored to defend themselves by a technical discrimination between the liberty and licentiousness of the press. The American people, by overwhelming majorities, approaching, indeed, unanimity, denounced the law as a palpable and an alarming infraction of the Constitution; and, although no official record of that decision can be produced, it is as notorious as a change of their public servants, which took place at that time, and to which this obnoxious measure so essentially contributed.

The committee cannot withhold an expression of regret, that, upon the restoration of sound principles, the Congress of the times should have omitted to leave some memorial on their records, of their disapprobation of this unjustifiable assumption of power; and none would have been more satisfactory than an ample indemnity to those who had suffered by its operation. In the fluctuating conflicts between power and liberty, which exist everywhere, in a greater or lesser degree, where any portion of liberty is to be found, it is believed, by the committee, to be a most solemn duty imposed on the defenders of the latter, in every triumph it may acquire over the encroachments of the former, to make certain every doubtful point, to which resort had been had as a pretext for such encroachment; to repair every breach made in the Constitution; and, if practicable, to surround liberty with new ramparts. That having been omitted by our predecessors, in the instance of the sedition act, the task devolves on us. And although it has been long delayed, the regret arising therefrom is, in some

SENATE.

degree, lessened by the reflection that the decision now to be pronounced, when the angry passions of party have subsided, will be dictated by an exclusive regard to the intrinsic merits of the question, and the interesting consideration it involves.

The committee are aware, that, in opposition to this view of the subject, the decision of some of the judges of the Supreme Court, sustaining the constitutionality of the law, has been frequently referred to, as sovereign and conclusive of the question.

The committee entertain a high respect for the purity and intelligence of the judiciary. But it is a rational respect, limited by a knowledge of the frailty of human nature, and the theory of the Constitution, which declares, not only that judges may err in opinion, but also may commit crimes, and hence has provided a tribunal for the trial of offenders.

In times of violent party excitement, agitating a whole nation, to expect that judges will be entirely exempt from its influence, argues a profound ignorance of mankind. Although clothed with the ermine, they are still men, and carry into the judgment seat the passions and motives common to their kind. Their decisions, on party questions, reflect their individual opinions, which frequently betray them unconsciously into error. To balance the judgment of a whole people, by that of two or three men, no matter what may be their official elevation, is to exalt the creature of the Constitution above its creator, and to assail the foundation of our political fabric, which is, that the decision of the people is infallible, from which there is no appeal, but to Heaven.

Taking it, therefore, as granted, that the law was unconstitutional, we are led to the next question, growing out of the inquiry, is the petitioner entitled to relief? This question, as a general one, is not susceptible of that precise answer, which might establish a uniform rule, applying equally to all times, and to all occasions. On the contrary, it must be decided by the peculiar circumstances of every case to which its application is attempted.

The committee, for instance, would themselves decide that relief was impracticable, where, from a long course of tyranny, attended with a rapacity far and wide, society had become so impoverished that the attempt to relieve might blight every prospect of future prosperity. Nor could they advocate relief, where the authority exercised admitted of a rational doubt as to its constitutionality, upon powers not expressly inhibited, nor in cases, perhaps, where the amount of the injuries complained of could not be ascertained with a reasonable precision. None of these difficulties, however, present themselves in this case. The law under which the petitioner suffered, as has been previously asserted, and attempted to be shown, was palpably unconstitutional, as being directly in opposition to an express clause of the Constitution. The amount of the injury sustained, in so far as relates to the fine paid by the petitioner, is fixed and certain, and the sum equal to a reimbursement is insignificant to the nation. In this case, therefore, the committee think the Goverument is under a moral obligation to indemnify the petitioner. An indemnity as consistent with policy as with justice, inculcating an instructive lesson to the oppressor and the oppressed. Successful usurpation yields, indeed, to but few checks; among the few is the justice to posterity, who take cognizance equally of the crimes of the usurper, and of the sufferings and the virtue of his victim-condemning the former, and And what more administering relief to the latter.

erected purely for the promotion of those branches of education which were taught in other institutions of learning. The same bill, Mr. J. remarked, had been defeated at the last session, merely because the title, which had been inadvertently and without reflection given to it, had been construed by gentlemen into an indication that the bill was for the incorporation of an exclusive religious society for religious objects alone. Mr. J. concluded by moving to postpone the bill to Friday next, that it might not now interfere with business of more importance, and to give time for considering it.

Mr. HORSEY avowed himself willing to vote for the incorporation of this society, under certain limitations and restrictions, in which the bill was now defective. He would confine the society, by express provisions, to objects strictly collegiate and literary. The bill was defective in not defining the mode of electing its principal, its trustees, professors, &c., and he would provide especially that no person should be excluded from an office in the college, or from its benefits, on account of his religious opinions. These were objects he wished to provide for in the bill, and therefore would wish it to be recommitted to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, concurred entirely in the views of Mr. HORSEY, and acquiesced in its recommitment; and the bill was recommitted accordingly.

SENATE.

the Constitution of the United States, and some might not be willing to adopt the unconditional terms of the resolution which declared the new constitution to be republican, and in conformity to the Constitution of the United States. It was to obviate difficulty on this point, by avoiding a declaration one way or the other on the questionable clause, that he offered the amendment.

Mr. KING, of New York, confessed himself at some loss how to decide on this amendment. If he voted in the affirmative, it might seem as if the Senate could pass a resolution contrary to the Constitution; if in the negative, it would declare that a clause should have no effect which could have none, and must be nugatory. He thought a day, at least, should be given to consider the matter. For himself, he had asked no delay of the resolution; he was ready to vote on it; and he took this occasion to say he had not desired the subject to be reopened in the Senate; he believed it would do no good, but, on the contrary, that the public tranquillity would be promoted by deciding it quietly; the subject, he conceived, had been exhausted, and his opinion had undergone no change. He regretted that these sentiments had not been felt elsewhere, and where he thought they ought to have been felt. As to the amendment, he thought a moment's delay should be allowed to examine it, and he moved its postponement until to-morrow.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution declaring the admission into the Union

of the

STATE OF MISSOURI.

Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, rose merely to suggest, as there was no doubt the mind of every gentleman was fully made up on the subject, that the question should be decided without consuming the time of the Senate in further debate.

Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, said, before the question was taken, he would ask leave to offer the following proviso to the resolution:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to give the assent of Congress to any provision in the constitution of Missouri, if any such there be, which contravenes that clause in the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

question had been reopened, and added a few remarks on the propriety of giving some time to consider this amendment, which was certainly of an important character.

Mr. MORRIL moved a postponement of the question to Monday, and spoke a few words in favor of that course.

Messrs. SMITH and BARBOUR оpposed so long a postponement as to Monday, but were willing to allow until to-morrow.

The motion to postpone the subject to Monday was lost; and the resolution and amendment were postponed until to-morrow.

THURSDAY, December 7.

Mr. EATON observed, that there was a feature in the constitution of Missouri which presented a difficulty to the minds of some gentlemen, and to his among the number. Doubts were entertained whether that constitution was not repugnant to

gress, a statement of the money expended in each year, since the Declaration of Independence, in holding conferences and making treaties with the Indian tribes; specifying grants and presents, whether in money or goods; annuities paid, and now payable to the Indian tribes; the money annually appropriated and paid for the Indian trade, including the sums allowed for salaries, and allowances to superintendents, clerks, factors, commissioners, agents, interpreters, and all other persons employed under the authority of the United States, in nego

EATON's proviso, and was decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dana, Eaton, Edwards, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lloyd, Parrott, Pinkney, Taylor, Thomas, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, and Williams of Mississippi-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Dickerson, Elliot, Johnson of Kentucky, King of New York, Lanman, Lowrie, Mason, Mills, Morril, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Pleasants, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Talbot, Tichenor, Walker of Georgia, Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson-24.

The question being then stated on the resolution going to a third reading

Mr. SMITH made a few remarks, to say that as it seemed to be the wish of the Senate to take the question without debate, he would not thwart that wish, although it might be expected of him, from his situation of chairman of the committee which reported the resolution, to enter into some defence of it against the objections which had been indicated. As a member of the Southern States he was ready to maintain the ground he had assumed, but would yield to the desire for a quiet decision unless called out by gentlemen on the opposite side.

Mr. BURRILL, of Rhode Island, addressed the Chair.

[Mr. B., in attempting to rise and address the President, found his surtout entangled by his chair, and was so long detained by the embarrassment, that the Secretary had begun to call the yeas and nays, and one gentleman had actually answered. Mr. B. apologized to the President for not rising sooner, by stating the embarrassment, when Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, jocularly observed across the House that the gentleman ought to regard it as an omen of defeat, and yield to it accordingly; to which Mr. B. replied, "I fear no omen in my country's cause."]

Mr. B. proceeded. No other gentleman, he said, seemed disposed to address the Senate in defence of the opinions which he entertained on this question, and as he was a member of the committee which reported the resolution, from which he dissented, it was in some measure incumbent on him to submit briefly the reasons which governed him, especially after the remarks of gentlemen on the other side. We conceive, said Mr. B., that it would be contrary to the Constitution of the United States to accept this constitution sent up by the people of Missouri. The people of Missouri did not assemble under their own authority to frame this constitution, but under the authority of Congress. After performing this duty in a way that they deemed proper, they had sent it here for acceptance, and it was the duty of Congress, Mr. B. conceived, to examine and pronounce upon the legality of the instrument presented. He stated that it had been the practice heretofore to admit the members from new States to their seats in both Houses, in various ways; but inquiry had generally been made into the constitutions adopted by new States, and Congress sa

SENATE.

tisfied that they were conformable to the acts authorizing them to be formed. The States had been admitted into the Union, some in one way, some in another; the latest mode, Mr. B. thought, ought to be the one which should have most weight on the present occasion. The three States last formed had been admitted much in the same mode; their constitutions had been formed nearly in the same way, and on the same models; Louisiana only was an exception to the usual form of admission-in her case more form was observed, and obvious reasons made it necessary.

New

It appeared to him, Mr. B. continued, to be right and proper for Congress to examine the constitution now presented, and ascertain whether it was in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and republican: in other words, whether it was conformable to the terms on which the people of that Territory were authorized by Congress to form a constitution and State government. Some gentlemen entertained a different opinion. States, said Mr. B., are admitted into the Union by the consent of Congress-that consent was given to Missouri at the last session; by it she had many things to do. She had first to decide whether she would accept the terms offered to her; by it she was prohibited from interfering with the rights of navigating the Mississippi; she was confined to certain boundaries, which she could not change or exceed; she was restrained from any interference with the public lands. These things were all in the act; and Mr. B. asked if it would not be idle to insert conditions, if Congress possessed no right to ascertain and decide if they had been complied with by the people to whom they were offered? It was in the nature of a contract between the United States and the people of Missouri, and it was competent for Congress, and was its duty, to see if that contract had been faithfully observed. It was held by some gentlemen that, as soon as the convention of Missouri was dissolved, it became a State, and had a right to all the immunities and attributes of a State. But suppose, Mr. B. said, the people of Missouri had taken no notice of those conditions of the act which he had referred to, but had disregarded or contravened them, would gentlemen then say the constitution ought to be received? Mr. B. offered some other arguments to show that the consent of Congress was necessary to the admission of the State; otherwise it admitted the strange doctrine, that the State might come into the Union in spite of Congress. This consent, he contended, ought not to be given, unless all the conditions of the act had been complied with.

In general, Mr. B. said, this constitution was sufficiently republican; and in one respect, he might say, it was almost too much so; for it took no notice whatever of the act under which the convention assembled which formed it. Its language is, "We the people of Missouri, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent Republic." In Alabama, where every thing in the formation of their State government was conducted with much propriety, their convention set out by saying they assembled under the authority