The History of Missouri

Government of Missouri as a Part of Louisiana.

When Captain Stoddard took possession of St. Louis in March, 1804, he was acting under the act of Oct. 31, 1803, by which the President was empowered to take possession of the Louisiana Purchase and to continue at his discretion the existing military, civil and judicial organization. Stoddard accordingly succeeded to the authority of the Spanish lieutenant-governor with the title of Civil Commandant of Upper Louisiana.

Congress, by the act of March 26, 1804, provided for a permanent government of the Purchase. All south of 33° of latitude was created the Territory of Orleans; all north of this parallel, the District of Louisiana, to be attached, for administrative purposes, to the Territory of Indiana. The act further provided for the subdivision of the district by the governor, and declared that all grants made since the treaty of San Ildefonso, unless actually settled in 1803, should be void. The latter clause marks the beginning of the long drawn out difficulty over land titles in Missouri.

As the act of 1804 required, on Oct. 1, 1804, Gov. William Henry Harrison, of Indiana territory, with the three judges, met at Vincennes and made the laws for the District of Louisiana. These laws, fifteen in number, were identical with or adapted from those already in force in the old Northwest, or Indiana territory. The more important were those organizing the administrative subdivisions, the judicial system, and a slave code. Governor Harrison defined the boundaries of the five sub-districts of New Madrid, Cape Girardeau, St. Genevieve, St. Louis, and St. Charles, adopting the Spanish boundaries with a somewhat more exact description. The governor and judges then ordained that in each sub-district the governor should appoint a competent number of justices of the peace, who were to exercise general control over local affairs. The other local officers were the sheriff, coroner, assessor, recorder and constable. The justices as a court of quarter-sessions had jurisdiction over criminal cases not capital; as a court of common-pleas, over civil cases not exceeding $100. There was also a probate judge for each district and the individual justice had jurisdiction over petty civil cases. At the head of the judicial system was the supreme court of the territory with original and appellate jurisdiction. The slave code, like that of Indiana territory, was based on the Virginia laws, with the omission of the more harsh and cruel features and was directed primarily against slave insurrections and conspiracies. [For the text of the Laws see, Territorial Laws of Missouri; for a discussion. Loeb, Beginnings of Missouri Legislation {Missouri Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. ]).]

Missouri Made into a Territory.

The sentiments of the inhabitants as to the Purchase are hard to determine, but at first the feeling seems to have been one of satisfaction. The restrictions on the domestic slave trade, the refusal to recognize the extensive land grants subsequent to 1800, and the inferior political organization with the seat of government far away at Vincennes aroused profound dissatisfaction, particularly among the richer class. The introduction of trial by jury with a more complicated and expensive procedure, and the more searching system of taxation were also unpopular. The prevailing unrest found expression through an informal convention at St. Louis in September, 1804, composed of the delegates from the various districts. This convention addressed a spirited and comprehensive memorial to Congress. In addition to the grievances already mentioned, the convention objected to the proposed transfer of eastern Indians to Missouri, but the chief emphasis was laid on land titles and form of government. The memorial concludes with a petition for a separate territorial government with an elective legislature and a delegate in Congress, confirmation of titles to land and to slaves, and the recognition of the French law and language.

Congress granted these requests in part in the legislation of March, 1805. The confirmation of incomplete land titles to actual settlers was made more liberal and a board of commissioners was created to report on all disputed claims. The District of Louisiana was transformed into a territory of the same name, with the ordinary government of the first grade: a governor, three judges and a secretary. President Jefferson appointed as the first governor of Louisiana territory the notorious General Wilkinson; as secretary, Joseph Browne, of New York, a brother-in-law of Aaron Burr, and as judges James B. C. Lucas, John Coburn and Rufus Easton. Lucas was a Frenchman of birth and education, resident for some time in Pennsylvania; Easton was a leading resident of the territory. Both were prominent throughout the territorial period. Coburn was appointed from Kentucky.

For some rather obscure reasons Wilkinson became thoroughly unpopular. He was charged with improper speculation in land grants, with interference with the land commissioners, and corrupt and arbitrary behavior. His earlier connection with the Federalists and his friendship with Burr who visited St. Louis in 1805 were brought up against him. Wilkinson became involved in bitter personal quarrels with the leading citizens, and after about a year was ordered to New Orleans, and in 1807 was removed from office. Meriwether Lewis, recently returned from his joint expedition with Clark, was appointed his successor. Lewis succeeded in winning the support of the local leaders and had a successful administration until his mysterious death, by suicide or murder, in Tennessee in 1809. Frederic Bates succeeded Browne as secretary in 1807, and served with unusual ability to the end of the territorial period. Benjamin Howard succeeded Lewis in 1810, and served with general satisfaction until he was ordered into active service on the northern frontier in 1812.

The admission of Louisiana as a state necessitated a change in the name of the territory, and the census of 1810, showing a population of over 20,000, justified a higher grade of government, so Congress by the act of June 4, 1812, created the Territory of Missouri, with a legislature composed of an elective lower house and a legislative council of nine, appointed by the President from a list of eighteen submitted by the lower house. The representatives were to be elected biennially; the apportionment to the counties was one representative to each 500 free white males; the franchise was extended to resident taxpayers of voting age. The members of the council held office for five years. The voters of the territory were empowered to elect a delegate to Congress. Governor Howard set the new machinery in motion by transforming the districts into counties and calling for the election of a lower house, which nominated eighteen candidates for the council. The nine appointees and the lower house, together making up the legislature, met at St. Louis on the first Monday in July, 1813. In 1816 the council was made elective and Missouri reached the highest grade in territorial government.

The Political Life of the Territory of Missouri.

The establishment of a legislature in 1812 was the beginning of vigorous political life in the territory. Edward Hempstead, attorney-general of the territory since 1809, was elected first delegate to Congress, but in spite of a successful effort to secure a more liberal land law and great personal popularity, he declined to be a candidate for reelection. Hempstead was a native of Connecticut and practised law there before his removal to Vincennes and to Louisiana in 1805. The second delegate, Rufus Easton, was likewise from Connecticut and a lawyer. He was one of the original judges of Louisiana territory, first postmaster of St. Louis and for a time United States attorney for the territory. He became involved in a factional quarrel with Governor Clark and the influential group about him and was defeated in 1816 by John Scott, but the election was declared illegal by the national house of representatives. In the special election of the following year Scott was again victorious and served as delegate and representative until his political prospects were blasted by his vote for Adams in the contested election of 1824-25. Scott was a native of Virginia, practised law at St. Genevieve and for years was the most influential man in the southern settlements. Local politics seemed to have turned almost exclusively on personal issues. Governor Clark had the support of the majority of the leading men, and the bitter opposition led by Judge Lucas, Joseph Char-less, the St. Louis editor, and others, was usually unavailing.

In local government Missouri tried a number of experiments and did not show a consistent development. Thus the original plan of justices of the peace with administrative and judicial powers was superceded in 1806 by the creation of county commissioners, appointed by the governor, with administrative functions. In 1813 all the local courts of the district, except that of a single justice, were consolidated into a single court of common-pleas; in 1815 the territory was divided into two circuits, over each of which a judge was appointed with general jurisdiction in the counties. The next year the circuit judge was given general control over the administration of the counties. The whole tendency was toward consolidation, the elective principle in local government was not recognized; the ultimate result was a remarkable degree of centralization.

Growth of the Territory.

If Stoddard's estimates were correct, the total population at the time of the transfer of control in 1804 was slightly over ten thousand. The United States census of 1810 showed a total of 20,845. In 1814, the first territorial census for the apportionment of representatives enumerated 11,393 free white males, indicating a total of at least 25,000; in 1818 the males numbered 19,218, a total of at least 40,000; in 1820 the national census showed a total of 66,586. Without question the population doubled from 1815 to 1820; that is, Missouri had her share in the wave of migration westward after the War of 1812. With the exception of the Boones-lick country, however, this increase of population was still to a great degree of the earlier frontier type, and the line of settlement was gradually pushed back rather than any new centres established. The towns were still few and unimportant and the great mass of the settlers lived on detached farms. By 1820 there were scattered settlements along the Mississippi north of the Missouri, and some of the more adventurous had pushed inland along the Cuivre and Salt rivers. To the southeast the belt of settlement had steadily widened, particularly in the St. Francois region. In the extreme southwest there was a small group at Springfield which had followed up the White River from Arkansas.

The extension of settlement up the Missouri was at first of this same general character. Until 1810 the most westward settlement of importance was at Loutre Island near the present town of Hermann. In that year Col. Benjamin Cooper led a considerable party of Kentuckians to the present Howard county, in the central part of the state. Booneville, just across the river, was settled a little later. Indian raids during the War of 1812 checked the growth of the settlements and forced the pioneers to draw together into a number of fortified posts, but after 1815 there was an influx of settlers exceeding any previous growth in the history of the territory. The immigrants came from Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee, but for the most part from the valley of the Kentucky River. They were men of some means, bringing their stock and slaves with them, and found in the wooded blue grass pastures of the Booneslick country conditions quite similar to those left behind in Kentucky. By 1820 this region contained the largest group of settlements of a purely American character in Missouri. Franklin, opposite the present town of Booneville, but long since washed away by the Missouri, was a thriving town, the outfitting point for the Missouri River fur trade and already reaching out for the Santa Fe trade. At the close of the territorial period there was the beginning of a similar settlement of Kentuckians in the present Clay county in the extreme west.

The development of county organization is one of the best evidences of the extension of settlement, for the new counties were created to meet the needs of the newer settlements. The first new county, Washington, was organized in 1813 from St. Genevieve, to include the mineral region. In 1815 all of New Madrid west of the St. Francois was created the county of Lawrence. In 1816 all of Missouri west of the Osage River, both north and south of the Missouri was included in Howard county. Then came the very rapid increase in population. In 1818 nine counties were organized; four, Lincoln, Montgomery, Pike and Clark, from St. Charles; two, Madison and Wayne, from the back settlements of St. Genevieve and Cape Girardeau; the western part of St. Louis county became Franklin, and the southern part of Howard became Cooper; Jefferson was organized from parts of St. Louis and St. Genevieve. The first legislature under the state constitution created ten more in 1820; eight along the Missouri River, one on the Mississippi north of the Missouri, and one on the Mississippi in the southeast. Thus by the date of admission to the Union there was a single tier of counties either side of the Missouri to the Osage Purchase line, and along the Mississippi north of the Missouri; and a double tier south of the Missouri.

Indians in Missouri.

The Indians are of little importance in the history of Missouri. The original Missouris were nearly extinct when the white men came in contact with them. The Osages claimed the Osage River valley and the southwest to the Arkansas; the Sacs and Foxes the northeast. Except during the War of 1812 the Indians caused little trouble apart from petty thieving and horse-stealing, for which the Osages were notorious. The more civilized Delawares and Shawnees in Cape Girardeau and on the St. Francois presented no problems until the pressure of the white population brought about their removal westward; they made a final cession of all claims in Missouri in 1832. The first Indian treaty after the purchase was made with the Sacs and Fox tribe in 1804, by which they ceded all claims to the triangle between the mouth of the Gasconade, the Jeffreon and the Mississippi. This treaty was confirmed in 1815, and all claims in the state relinquished in 1826. By the treaty of 1808 the Osages agreed on a boundary line running from Fort Clark on the Missouri (about twenty-four miles east of Kansas City) to the Arkansas; they gave up also their rather dubious claims north of the Missouri. This Osage treaty line was the western limit of the civil jurisdiction throughout the territorial period. Apart from the towns, the Americans completely swamped the earlier French population and developed the ordinary western type of society. In the towns the French maintained their customs and language; as late as 1820 French was more commonly heard on the streets of St. Louis than English. The great increase in the value of improved lands, especially of town lots, after 1804 was to the advantage of the wealthier French families, who for many years took a leading part in mercantile affairs. The Americans who settled in the towns were mechanics, merchants and lawyers; many of the latter intermarried with the French.

Economic Conditions.

The location of the seat of government at St. Louis and its geographical situation cooperated to make it the centre of affairs. A postoffice was established in 1804, the village was incorporated in 1809, and by 1820 St. Louis was a bustling western town of over 2,000 inhabitants. The chief trade was in lead from the Missouri and Illinois lead fields, and in peltries from the Missouri and the Mississippi, although the earlier exportation of foodstuffs down the river continued. The Missouri River fur trade was developed on an extensive scale by three successive companies and trading and trapping posts established as far west as the Yellowstone. The rate of profit, however, seems to have decreased.

The rapid commercial development caused a demand for capital and made the system of barter and the use of lead, peltries and whiskey, as currency, more and more inconvenient, but the supply of specie, apart from the disbursements of the national government, was very inadequate. To meet these needs the Bank of St. Louis was chartered in 1813 and the Bank of Missouri in 1816. Both institutions were drawn into the speculation and inflation of the boom times and succumbed to the panic of 1819. The state legislature further aggravated the situation by the issue of loan office certificates, later declared unconstitutional. The economic depression no doubt intensified the excitement over the struggle for admission. But transportation was the greatest problem in material development. During the territorial period a beginning was made of a road system, especially on the through routes, as from St. Louis to New Madrid, and St. Charles to the Booneslick country. The rivers continued to be the only available outlets for the bulky agricultural products and the lead and peltries, and the flat boats and keel boats still carried the larger part of the traffic. The coming of the steamboat to the western waters made the rivers for the first time a satisfactory means of transportation. 1817 the first steamboat reached St. Louis and in 1819 the Missouri was ascended as far as Franklin.

The Mississippi traffic developed the familiar bullying type of boatman who was largely responsible for the reputation for lawlessness found in the pages of the travelers of the time. The trappers, on their infrequent visits to civilization were not always models of propriety. But there seems no good reason to believe that the so-called "lawlessness" of the people in general was more than the ordinary frontier impatience of the law's delay and the more indirect methods of an older social order. Dueling was prevalent to a degree unheard of in any other western state unless it be Tennessee, and the chief offenders were the leading lawyers. The most famous encounter was the Benton-Lucas duel, the last duel Benton ever fought. There is only too much reason to believe that Benton's political and personal rivalry with his victim was partially responsible for this unfortunate affair.

The first newspaper in the territory was the Missouri Gazette, established at St. Louis in 1808 by Joseph Charless, an Irishman trained with Duane at Philadelphia. In 1819 the Missouri Intelligencer was published at Franklin. Both papers have had a continuous existence; the Gazette is at present the St. Louis Republic and the Intelligencer the Columbia Statesman. By 1821 papers were established at St. Genevieve, Jackson, and St. Charles, and an opposition paper at St. Louis. Private schools of varying merit were scattered throughout the older settlements. The first Baptist church was organized in Cape Girardeau in 1806, in 1816 two missionaries were sent to Missouri, and by 1821 several "associations '' had been formed. The first Methodist church was also at Cape Girardeau in 1806, and in 1816 the Missouri Conference was set off. The first Presbyterian congregation was formed in 1816, and the following year a presbytery was organized. The pioneer Episcopal church was at St. Louis in 1819.

Steps to Statehood.

The people of Missouri in numbers and in material and intellectual advancement were ready for statehood when their first petition was presented to Congress in January, 1818. This petition from the citizens of Missouri applied for the following boundaries: on the south the parallel of 36° 30', on the north that of 40°, on the west the Osage Purchase line, on the east the Mississippi. So much dissatisfaction was felt in the back settlements in the southeast, south of this line, that a second petition was presented asking for the Missouri as the dividing line and a further extension westward. In the memorial of the legislature adopted in November, 1818, these demands were recognized in the suggested southern boundary, which was to run from 36° 30' on the Mississippi to the junction of the White and Black rivers and back up the White River to the same parallel. The western boundary was to be the line of the mouth of the Wolf River some thirty miles west of the present boundary, and the northern line the parallel of Rock River well up into Iowa. This memorial was adopted by a vote of 37 to 3 in the House of Representatives and was generally approved by the people.

The struggle in Congress leading up to the Missouri Compromise is considered in another connection in a different division of this work. For the local history of the period the material is disappointing. The slavery issue was obscured by the angry resentment of the westerners at the attempt of Congress to dictate restrictions or conditions of admission. The friends and opponents of slavery agreed in denouncing the Talmage amendment as an unwarranted interference with local self-government. When the slavery issue was brought forward at the election of the convention, the bitter factional quarrel before referred to added to the confusion.

During the spring and summer of 1819 public opinion found expression through presentments of the grand juries and through mass meetings. In July and August the grand juries of the circuit court in St. Charles, Washington and Jefferson counties presented the proposed restriction of slavery by Congress as a grievance. The first two agreed in denouncing the restriction as unconstitutional, contrary to the treaty and a violation of the equality of the states; they agreed also in demanding a vigorous and determined stand by the people of Missouri. Jefferson county repeated the same arguments but added an expression of her hatred of slavery, the regulation of which was reserved to the states and the people. The grand jury of the superior court at St. Louis declared in April that the proposed restriction was of vital interest to the existing slave states, for if Congress could prohibit it in the new states it could prohibit it in the old. Restriction was a violation of the treaty and an awful hardship on the slaves throughout the Union. The jury recommended a mass meeting to express the sentiments of St. Louis.

Such a meeting was held on May 15, with Alexander McNair as president and David Barton, secretary. The resolution adopted denied that Congress could exercise any control over the state constitution except to guarantee a republican form of government; the attempt at restriction was contrary to the rights of Missouri and the welfare of the slaves; Missouri by her large population and the guarantees of the treaty was entitled to immediate admission; the people may form a constitution when they wish and should do so if Congress refused a second time to pass an enabling act; such a constitution must be accepted by Congress if "republican." The other counties were urged to hold similar meetings. These resolutions are of especial significance because they represented the platform of the dominant faction in St. Louis and the territory. St. Ferdinand township in St. Louis county denounced slavery as the greatest evil of the age, contrary to freedom and the laws of nature; Montgomery county appealed to the spirit of '76 and demanded immediate and unconditional admission; Washington paraphrased the St. Louis resolutions.

Meanwhile the columns of the Gazette were filled with communications both expressing and forming public opinion. The ablest expression of the pro-slavery anti-restrictionist views was given in five articles signed "Hampden," appearing between April 7 and June 16. The arguments were in the main the familiar ones; the guarantee of the treaty, the limitation of congressional regulation to the guarantee of a republican form of government, the reservation of the control of slavery to the local authorities, and the limitation of congressional control over the territories to the administration of the public domain. Louisiana was purchased by the common treasure and must be open to settlement by all sections; if restriction was established, the North would secure complete control of the government. "Hampden" also put forward a theory of "popular sovereignty" far in advance of the doctrine of Cass and Douglas. Admission to the Union as a sovereign state presupposed absolute independence before admission, so the sole function of Congress was to afford a means of organization. The people in fact might organize a state government without any action of Congress whatsoever, and a rejection of such a constitution because it did not observe the restriction would not throw Missouri back to the territorial status. The act of Congress was necessary for admission to the Union, not for independence, which the people may establish of right if free from danger from foreign powers. Moreover it would be absurd to claim that any congressional limitation on admission would be a perpetual obligation on the state.

Thus the remedies to the situation proposed by "Hampden" were two-fold; a spontaneous convention in case Congress once more failed to pass an enabling act, or a disregard of the restriction if imposed. The proposal for a convention without congressional sanction appeared repeatedly in the Gazette and was evidently supported by the opposition paper, the Enquirer, of which Benton, formerly the editor, was still the leading spirit. There can be but little doubt that plan would have been attempted if the compromise of 1820 had failed.

"With one exception none of the anti-slavery writers approached "Hampden" in ability and vigor. "A Farmer of St. Charles County," in five articles, argued against slavery on economic and social grounds, but was at least as much interested in denouncing Benton and the ''Lawyer Junto'' of St. Louis. Numerous short letters repeat the same general arguments and in many cases reflect the bitter factional division in local politics. The sturdy pioneer dislike of the planter class and class distinctions was very evidently at the bottom of much of this opposition. "Pacificus," in four moderate articles during May and June, answered "Hampden's" more radical constitutional theories and upheld the power of Congress to refuse admission altogether or to impose conditions. The treaty merely guaranteed admission at the discretion of Congress. "Pacificus" declared that the choice was between gradual abolition and refusal of admission; abolition would favor the poor immigrant and prevent class distinctions; immigration from the free states was the more desirable.

Public sentiment against those who defended the power of Congress to restrict slavery was very bitter. A delegation visited Charless in May and threatened to destroy the Gazette if it continued to print pro-restrictionist articles, and Benton forbade the mention of his name in its columns. A Baptist Association in Howard county sent a remonstrance to Congress against restriction. A citizen at Franklin was mobbed for asking how a member of the Methodist Church could hold slaves and was afterward indicted for inciting a riot. The saner men soon came to see that this intolerance and violent language were weakening their cause, and the excitement subsided as the meeting of Congress approached.

The news of the passage of the "compromise" was received with general rejoicing and the canvass for the election of the convention began at once. On April 10, 1820, thirteen friends of the thirteen pro-slavery candidates in St. Louis met and selected eight as the party ticket. Benton was excluded and the attempt to induce one of the others to withdraw in his favor was a failure. On April 11 the opposing party held a meeting and resolved against any interference with slaves already in the territory, recommended to the convention the prohibition of further importations, and denounced the alleged proposals of the opposition to restrict the ballot to freeholders and to require viva voce voting. The Gazette sought to make these illiberal restrictions the issue in the local campaign. It is not clear that an opposition ticket was named, but the Gazette printed a list of eight, four from the earlier ticket and including Lucas. In the election in May the anti-restrictionists were completely successful in St. Louis and in the territory at large. [This discussion is based on the files of the Gazette for 1819. ]

The forty-one delegates who assembled in St. Louis represented a high order of intelligence and education for a frontier state. With the exceptions of Benton and Lucas the ablest men of the territory were included. The constitution which they drew up in a little over a month was largely the work of their president, David Barton, and served the state with some amendments until 1865. As one would expect, there were clear traces of Kentucky and Virginia influence. The sections regarding slavery are of special interest. Benton in later life claimed the credit for the denial to the legislature of the power to emancipate without the consent of the owner, that slavery might be eliminated from local politics. The right of immigrants to bring their slaves with them was guaranteed. On the other hand the legislature was required to prohibit the importation of slaves for purposes of speculation, and to oblige owners to treat their slaves with humanity and to abstain from punishments touching life or limb, and such malicious injuries were to be punished as if the victim were a white person. In criminal cases slaves were guaranteed an impartial trial by jury. The further immigration of free negroes or mulattoes was to be prohibited.

The constitution went into effect at once and the first state elections were held in August. The state government was organized, two United States senators elected and the machinery in full working order when Congress assembled. The attempt to reopen the whole question of the admission of Missouri as a slave state and the ingenious if somewhat undignified second compromise need not be discussed. The formal resolution of the state legislature in compliance with the Compromise is perhaps the best evidence of public opinion in Missouri. It declares that as Congress had no right to impose the condition and as the legislature could not abrogate a clause of the constitution and therefore the resolution had no legal effect at all, for the sake of good feeling the legislature would formally adopt the resolution that the enumerated clauses should not be carried out by the legislature. President Monroe wisely ignored the tone of the resolution and proclaimed the admission of Missouri on Aug. 10, 1821. But for years every loyal Missourian dated the admission of Missouri to the Union from 1820.

Bibliography.—The Acts of Congress may be found in the Statutes at Large; the local legislation in the Territorial Laws of Missouri. The Journals of the Legislature were not printed except in the Gazette, but selections from them are reprinted in F. L. Billon's Annals of St. Louis During the Territorial Days. The Journal of the Constitutional Convention gives the official action of that body; the constitution of 1820 may be found in the Territorial Laws and in the Revised Statutes of Missouri up to 1865. The records of the governor and secretary were probably destroyed in the burning of the state capitol in 1837. The territorial Papers at Washington, now being calendared by the Carnegie Institution, partially supply the loss. The Records of the various land commissions and the evidence presented to them, and considerable material on early taxation and expenditures, are at Jefferson City.

The files of the Missouri Gazette in the office of the Republic at St. Louis, and of the Missouri Intelligencer in the State Historical Society at Columbia, are invaluable. Many items from the Gazette are reprinted in Billon's Annals. The Missouri Historical Society at St. Louis has a wealth of letters and manuscript material on the period which will be accessible when the new building is completed. The collection of Documents which Mr. Houck has in preparation promises to be indispensable.

Of the general accounts, L. Houck's Missouri, though brief, is still the most valuable. W. F. Switzler's Missouri has the best brief account of the Booneslick Settlements. L. Carr's Missouri gives a brief survey of the Territorial Period, but must be used with caution on the Missouri Compromise. For St. Louis, E. H. Shephard's Early History of St. Louis, and J. F. Darby's Recollections, are of value, and J. T. Scharf's St. Louis has some excellent chapters. Special articles may be found in the Missouri Historical Review and in the Missouri Historical Society Collections.

Jonas Viles,
Professor of American History, University of Missouri.