Page:History of Southeast Missouri 1912 Volume 1.djvu/298

 238 HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI Cape Girardeau couuty, Stephen Byrd, James Evans, Richard S. Thomas, Alexander Buck- ner and Joseph MeFerron; Jefferson county, Daniel Hammond ; jMadison county, Nathaniel Coolc ; New ]Iadrid county, Robert D. Dawson and Christopher G. Houts; Ste. Genevieve coimty, John D. Cook, Henry Dodge, Jolm Scott and R. T. BrowTi ; Washington covmty, Jolm Rice Jones, Samuel Perry and John Ilutchings; Wayne county, Elijah Bettis. David Barton, of St. Louis, was made presi- dent of the convention and William G. Pettis, secretary. The convention was in session for a little more than a month, adjourning July 19, 1S20. It was at once agreed that a constitu- tion should be framed and the month the con- vention was in session was devoted to this work. The constitution thus made was in force in this state until superseded by the Drake constitution in 1865. It was compar- atively short, concise in statement, and was evidently the work of a statesman and thinker. It sanctioned slavery, as was almost certain in any case, but doubly so after the attempted restriction by Congi-ess. This constitution, imder the terms of the election of the mem- bers of the convention, did not require to be submitted to the people of the state for their approval; it became effective at once, upon the close of the convention. The second session of the sixteenth Congress met November 13, 1820, and on the 16th of November Mr. Scott, the delegate from ]Mis- souri, presented to the house a copy of the constitution of the state. This constitution was referred to the committee which reported on the 23rd, reciting the fact that Congress had previously authorized the formation of the state government ; that the people of the state had held the convention and formed the con- stitution ; and that said constitution "is Re- publican and in conformity with the provi- sions of said act." Accompanying this pre- amble was a resolution to admit the state into the Union on equal terms with the other states. Doubtless it was supposed by the people of the state that there would be no further dif- ficulty over its admission. They had com- plied with the terms of the act authorizing the formation of a government. That act con- tained no prohibition on .slaverj' and it would seem that there was no possible ground on which the state might be refused admission. In spite of these facts, the resolution to admit the state was very bitterly fought. The os- tensible groimd of objection was the follow- ing clause in the constitution itself: "It shall be their duty, as soon as may be. to pass such laws as may be necessary to prevent free negroes and mulattos from coming to and settling in this state under any pretext what- soever. ' ' The opponents of the admission of IMissouri argued that this clause in the constitution of the state was in direct violation of that clause in the eon.stitution of the United States which guarantees equal privileges in all the states to the citizens of each state, of which priv- ileges the right of emigration is one. On the other hand, it was pointed out that similar clauses controlling emigration existed m the constitutions of a number of states and that no objection had ever been raised to them ; and it was further pointed out that if this clause was in reality in opposition to the con- stitution of the United States, it would be de- clared null and void by the supreme court of the United States. It is clear, of course, that the real ground of objection to the admission of Missouri was not this paragraph. The motive of the men who opposed Missouri was not to protect the rights