Alexandria Gazette & Daily Advertiser

MAINE AND MISSOURI.

The question which has so long been agitated in Congress, and throughout the country, approaches the crisis of its decision; as the reader will find by a reference to the proceedings of the 28th ult. in the subsequent columns. Notwithstanding the feeling which too sensibly prevails, we have yet some hope it will be amicably settled. It is seldom that the Senate of the United States is as much agitated as it was yesterday. The subject is now committed to a conference between the two Houses of Congress. If that conference should not lead to an amicable result, it is much to be feared that the present Session will pass over without a decision of "the distracting question" now depending in Congress.

[National Intelligencer.]

There seems to be an error generally prevailing, in respect to the amendment adopted by the Senate, to the Maine bill, on the motion of Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. To recall public attention to its real import, it is thought proper to republish it, as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That in all the territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory in the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

This amendment was agreed to in the Senate, by the decided vote of 34 to 10.

It has been supposed by some that, by this vote, the Senate have, in respect to the territory described in this section, yielded the principle which has been contested in regard to Missouri. Not so. The one is a question of expediency, decided under the power of Congress to make all "needful rules and regulations" in regard to the "territories" of the United States, and applies to a territory in which there is now comparatively no population. The other is a question of restriction on a population, already from its numbers entitled to become a state, in regard to what pertains to the municipal authority of that state.

It has been again supposed, that, in another view, the principle contested in the case of Missouri is yielded, by the restriction in regard to the territory, applying equally to the territorial governments and to the States hereafter to be formed in that territory. In this respect our impression is, that Congress may rightfully prescribe rules for the disposition of the territory of the United States, and for its government. If slavery be there inhibited, during the progress from wilderness to settlement, there is no probability that the states hereafter to be established in it, composed of a free population, will desire to recognize slavery within their limits. If they do, the question now depending in respect to Missouri will then recur; and it will be time enough then to settle it. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." The example of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, however, goes to show that if slavery be not permitted to take root in a territory, the people thereof, when forming state governments, will not desire it.

[Ibid.]