Congress, and held his seat in that assembly until 1820; when, returning to Philadelphia, he devoted himself to the avocations of his profession. In the various debates which arose during his Congressional career, on the Military Academy Bill, the United States Bank, the Bankrupt Law, and the exciting question of Internal Improvement, he took an active and prominent part. But the most powerful of his parliamentary efforts was made on the occasion of the discussion of the Missouri Question. That speech is spoken of as "one of the best reasoned, and most able speeches, that has ever been heard in the Hall of either House of Congress. It has almost exhausted the argument in favor of the prohibition of slavery in the new States and territories, and it was no small token of the respect and esteem which was then entertained for him (although comparatively but a young member and a young man), that he was selected and pitted as the champion of the North, against the best abilities of the able and experienced members who maintained the opposite doctrines." In 1825, Mr. Sergeant was the President of the Board of Canal Commissioners of Pennsylvania. The following year he was appointed by President Adams, Minister from the United States to the Congress of Panama, and passed the winter in Mexico, waiting the assembling of that body, which was to meet at Tacubaya, in that country. Owing to the political disturbances in South America at that time, the plenipotentiaries did not assemble, and in July, 1827, Mr. Sergeant returned to Philadelphia. Soon after he was again elected to Congress, and, in 1832, was the Whig candidate for the Vice Presidency, on the ticket with Mr. Clay. He was a member of the Pennsylvania convention that assembled for the purpose of amending the constitution of the State, and entered earnestly into the debates which arose on the several important measures that sprung up during its session. His speech on the Judicial tenure is referred to by his contemporaries, as embodying a clear and forcible exposition of the doctrines and principles which he held on that question.

In 1840, he was again elected to Congress, but remained there only one session. On the accession of General Harrison to the Presidency, he was invited to become one of his cabinet, but declined the honor. Soon after the mission to the Court of Great Britain was tendered him. This he also declined. In 1844, he was associated with Horace Binney in the celebrated Girard Will case. In 1847, he was selected by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, as Arbitrator on the part of the United States, to determine the protracted controversy existing between the State of Delaware and the United States, on the question of the title to the Pea Patch Island. That difference was finally settled by his decree. This was the last public office he occupied. His last appearance before the public was at the Union meeting (of which he was the president) that assembled in Philadelphia, on the adoption of the Compromise measures. The last time his voice, then enfeebled by disease, was heard, was in an appeal for the Constitution and the Union. He died at Philadelphia, on the twenty-third of November, 1852.

As a lawyer, Mr. Sergeant was not surpassed, if equalled, by any who have occupied positions at the bar, of which he was a member. During a long life he was a diligent student. He was learned, not only in the different branches of his profession, but in the various subjects of history, ethics and philosophy, and by this multiplicity of knowledge he was enabled to bring to his aid, in the consideration of the greatest constitutional questions, or of the more simple matters of common practice, resources which seldom failed to ensure success. "The range of his mind," says Mr. Binney, "was just as wide as the whole circle of his professional necessities. He knew the bearings of every part of the law, * * He could draw his resources from-every part of it with equal ease when it was necessary. He had acquired an early training in criminal law, sud in that he not only went before his contemporaries, but he stood on one side of them, walking a different line. His honor and integrity in all that regarded the profession or the management of his cause, were not only above impeachment or imputation, but beyond the thought of it. His heart, his mind, his principles, his conscience, his bond to man, and his bond to Heaven, which he had given early, and which to the last he never intentionally violated, would have made it, humanly speaking, impossible for him to swerve from his integrity. It is the best example possible for the rising generation to have before them. He was perfectly fair-there was no evasion, no stratagem, no surprisal, no invocation of prejudice, no appeal to unworthy passions-he was above, far above all this. He had too much strength to make use of such arts,

to say nothing of his virtue. He was charitable in doing work at the bar without pecuniary compensation, though not without reward; he had that which, in his judgment, was the best reward. But he did not do it ostentatiously. He never let his left hand know what his right hand did. Still less did he ever impose upon the left hands of others, by giving those little informed of it what his right hand had not done. He was in every respect, internally, in the heart, a kind man." No extended biography of Mr. Sergeant has yet been written. A small collection of his speeches and addresses was collected and published in 1832, among which are those delivered in the Congress of the United States, the Oration in Commemoration of Thomas Jeffer son and John Adams, a Discourse delivered at Rutgers College, in July, 1829, and the Argument in the case of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in the Supreme Court of the United States, on the fifth of March, 1831.*

THE MISSOURI QUESTION.

The following speech, on a bill to enable the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, was delivered by Mr. Sergeant in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the eighth and ninth of February, 1820.

ty," aiming to re-establish itself in the possession of power, and has spoken of a "juggler behind the scene." He surely has not reflected upon the magnitude of the principle contended for, or he would have perceived at once the utter insignificance of all objects of factious and party contest, when compared with the mighty interests it involves. It concerns ages to come, and millions to be born. We, who are here, our dissensions and conflicts, are nothing, absolutely nothing, in the comparison: and I cannot well conceive, that any man, who is capable of raising his view to the elevation of this great question, could suddenly bring it down to the low and paltry consideration of party interests and party motives.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The important question now before the committee, has already engaged the best talents and commanded the deepest attention of the nation. What the people strongly feel, it is natural that they should freely express; and whether this is done by pamphlets and essays, by the resolutions of meetings or citizens, Another member (Mr. M'Lane), taking indeed or by the votes of State legislatures, it is equally a more liberal ground, has warned us against legitimate and entitled to respect, as the voice ambitious and designing men, who, he thinks, of the public, upon a great and interesting pub- will always be ready to avail themselves of oclic measure. The free expression of opinion is casions of popular excitement, to mount into one of the rights guaranteed by the constitu- power upon the ruin of our government, and the tion, and, in a government like ours, it is an in-destruction of our liberties. Sir, I am not afraid valuable right. It has not, therefore, been without some surprise and concern, that I have heard it complained of, and even censured in this debate. One member suggests to us that, in the excitement which prevails, he discerns the efforts of what he has termed an "expiring par

* See the Philadelphia newspapers, published after Mr. Sergeant's death, also the Hon. W. M. Meredith's Eulogium. + The debate commenced on the 26th of January, 1820, on the following amendments, proposed by Mr. Taylor of New York, to the bill: And shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or

service is lawfully claimed in any other State, such fugitive

may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the

person claim

ing his or her labor or service as aforesaid. And provided also, that the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or labor in the said territory.

See the speeches of Rufus King and William Pinkney,

on the same subject, at pages 44 and 114 ante.

of what is called popular excitement—all history teaches us, that revolutions are not the work of men, but of time and circumstances, and a long train of preparation. Men do not produce them: they are brought on by corruption-they are generated in the quiet and stillness of apathy, and to my mind nothing could present a more frightful indication, than public indifference to such a question as this. It is not by vigorously maintaining great moral and political principles, in their purity, that we incur the danger. If gentlemen are sincerely desirous to perpetuate the blessings of that free constitution under their exertions to the preservation of public and which we live, I would advise them to apply almost said, entirely depends. As long as this private virtue, upon which its existence, I had is preserved, we have nothing to fear. When this shall be lost, when luxury and vice and corruption, shall have usurped its place, then, indeed, a government resting upon the people for its support, must totter and decay, or yield to the designs of ambitious and aspiring men.

which otherwise they might; and also, in grateful commemoration of our own happy deliverance from that state of unconditional submission to which we were doomed by the tyranny of Britain-Be it enacted, that no child born hereafter shall be a slave, &c." In this manner did Pennsylvania express her thankfulness for the deliverance that had been wrought for her, and I am confident she will never incur the sin and the danger of ingratitude.

Another member, the gentleman to whom | dices and partialities we had imbibed, we conthe committee lately listened with so much at- ceive ourselves, at this particular period, called tention, (Mr. Clay,) after depicting forcibly upon, by the blessings we have received, to and eloquently, what he deemed the probable manifest the sincerity of our profession. In consequences of the proposed amendment, ap- justice, therefore, to persons who, having no pealed emphatically to Pennsylvania; "the un- prospect before them, whereon they may rest ambitious Pennsylvania, the keystone of the fed- their sorrows and their hopes, have no reasonaeral arch," whether she would concur in a meas-ble inducement to render that service to society ure calculated to disturb the peace of the Union. Sir, this was a single arch; it is rapidly becoming a combination of arches, and where the centre now is, whether in Kentucky or Pennsylvania, or where at any given time it will be, might be very difficult to tell. Pennsylvania may in- | deed be styled “unambitious,” for she has not been anxious for what are commonly deemed honors and distinctions, nor eager to display her weight and importance in the affairs of the nation. She has, nevertheless, felt, and still does feel, her responsibility to the Union; and under a just sense of her duty, has always been faithful to its interests, under every vicissitude, and in every exigency. But Pennsylvania feels also a high responsibility to a great moral principle, which she has long ago adopted with the most impressive solemnity, for the rule of her own conduct, and which she stands bound to assert and maintain, wherever her influence and power can be applied, without injury to the just rights of her sister States. It is this principle, and this alone, that now governs her conduct. She holds it too sacred to suffer it to be debased by association with any party or factious views, and she will pursue it with the singleness of heart, and with the firm but unoffending temper which belong to a conscientious discharge of duty, and which, I hope I may say, have characterized her conduct in all her relations. If any one desire to know what this principle is, he shall hear it in the language of Pennsylvania herself, as contained in the preamble to her act of abolition, passed in the year 1780. I read it not without feelings of sincere satisfaction, as abridged by a foreign writer, with his introductory remark. (2 Belsham, 23, memoirs of Geo. 3.)

"It affords a grateful relief from the sensations which oppress the mind in listening to the tale of human folly and wretchedness, to revert to an act of the most exalted philanthropy, passed about this period, by the legislature of Pennsylvania, to the following purport: "When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition, to which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain were exerted to reduce us, when we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, and deliverances wrought, when even hope and fortitude have become unequal to the conflict, we conceive it to be our duty, and rejoice that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others which hath been extended to us, to add one more step to universal civilization, by removing, as much as possible, the sorrows of those who have lived in undeserved bondage. Weaned by a long course of experience from those narrow preju

Steadfastly as Pennsylvania holds the position here taken, she will not officiously obtrude her opinions upon her sister States. One of the grounds of her rejoicing, and one of the causes of her gratitude, was, that "she had it in her power to abolish slavery." She will not, in this respect, presume to judge for others, though she will rejoice if they too should have the power and feel the inclination. But, whenever the question presents itself, in a case where she has a right to judge, I trust she will be true to her. own principles, and do her duty. Such I take to be the case now before the committee.

The proposed amendment presents for consideration three questions: that of the constitutional power of Congress, that which arises out of the treaty of cession, and, finally, that which is termed the question of expediency. I beg the indulgence of the committee while I endeavor to examine them in the order stated.

First. We are about to lay the foundation of a new State, beyond the Mississippi, and to admit that State into the Union. The proposition, contained in the amendment, is, in substance, to enter into a compact with the new State, at her formation, which shall establish a fundamental principle of her government, not to be changed without the consent of both parties; and this principle is, that every human being, born or hereafter brought within the State, shall be free.

The only questions under the constitution, seem to me to be, whether the parties are competent to make a compact, and whether they can make such a compact? If they cannot, it must be either for want of power in the parties to contract, or from the nature of the subject.

It cannot, at this time of day, be denied, that the United States have power to contract with a State, nor that a State has power to contract with the United States. It has been the uniform and undisputed practice, both before and since the adoption of the constitution.

There are numerous instances of cessions of territory or claims to territory. By States, to the Union. By New York, in 1781; by Virginia, in 1784 and in 1788; by Massachusetts, in 1785; by Connecticut, in 1786; by South Carolina, in 1787; by North Carolina, in 1790; and

Thus it appears, that a new State may contract; and it is essential that it should be so, for her own sake as well as for the sake of the The States have a capacity to contract even Union. It remains, then, to inquire, whether with individuals, and in so doing, to part with the stipulation proposed in the amendment is, a portion of their legislative power. This is on account of the nature of the subject, such s the case wherever a charter of incorporation is one as it is beyond the power of a State to enter granted, by which rights of property become into? It has already been remarked, that a vested. During the period of the charter, the State, at the moment of its formation, is as ensubject is beyond the control of the legislative tirely sovereign, and as capable of making a authority, which is so far suspended or extin-binding contract, as at any future period. The guished by the grant. The United States have done the same thing, and with the like effect.