Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

Abolition of Slavery.

were the fruits of the true issue, as gentlemen were pleased to term it. Mr. P. said he thanked Heaven he had no participation in the production of those fruits. He thanked Heaven that the incendiary fanatics, against whom he had contended faithfully, had never boasted of advantages that he had given them, nor proclaimed a triumph which they had been enabled to achieve through his instrumentality. It was his peculiar fortune to be abused and vilified by a certain portion of the South on the one side, and by all the abolitionists upon the other. It troubled not his peace. He had an approving conscience of which nothing could deprive him, and was determined to move on calmly in the even tenor of his way. He knew that justice would yet be done him, even by those who now denounced him, and he would continue to protect their interests, in spite of their curses, and regardless of their enmity.

It was the lot of others, on the contrary, to be lauded by that portion of the South who were displeased with him, and also by the very incendiary enemy with whom they were contending for the rights and welfare of the injured South. He did not pretend to account for this remarkable coincidence. Conscious of the purity of his own motives, he never cast imputations upon the motives of others. It was true there were many things in the political operations of the present day that passed his comprehension; but still he was willing to believe that it was more the result of his own obtuseness of intellect than of any thing wrong in the operations themselves. He was a Southerner, but he could not understand why papers, professedly devoted to the South, should hail the election of individuals friendly to abolition as political triumphs, nor why Southerners and abolitionists should choose the same mode of action, leading invariably to the advantage of the latter. He was a free-trade man, but he could not understand why papers, professing free-trade principles, should be opposed to a reduction of high protective duties, and be constantly filled with speeches and essays in favor of the manufacturers, and the obligation of the Government to sustain their monopoly. He was a strict constructionist, but he could not understand upon what principle of strict construction those professing the doctrine acted, who advocated the continuance of an enormous surplus in the Treasury, with a view to its distribution among the States, rather than a reduction of unnecessary and oppressive taxes to the legitimate necessities of Government. He was a State-rights man, but he could not understand why the admission of Michigan was opposed because she was a State, nor why the voice of her people was to be rejected, because they had chosen to assemble in convention, in their sovereign capacity, without the permission of their Legislature. He held that the power of the people was supreme, and that constitutions and legislatures were but organized expres. sions of their will, and authorized agents to execute their pleasure. He certainly would not venture to say to the people of South Carolina that they had no right to assemble in convention, in their sovereign capacity, if the Legislature of their State should presumptuously forbid it.

And what he would assert and maintain for his own State, he did not feel warranted to deny to the people of Michigan. He saw no anarchy in their conduct. He saw nothing but a peaceful and rightful assemblage of the people, for the lawful purpose of giving their assent to the act of Congress, and with the laudable design of effecting their admission into the confederacy of the States. In his humble judgment, to have reject ed her application for admission would have been conduct infinitely more liable to the charge of anarchy and revolution. She would then have been a State, but out of the Union; and Congress in that event would not only have dismembered the Union of a large portion of its

[FEB. 6, 1837.

territory, but would have erected a separate and independent State, in the bosom of the confederacy, not subject to the laws of the Federal Government, but at full liberty to pursue whatever career she pleased, no matter what confusion or disorder might have resulted from her movements.

But to return to the resolution relating to abolition. One assailant, he would have supposed, might have been sufficient to destroy so poor a breast work, especially when that assailant was the distinguished member from New York. But it still stood firm; ay, as firm as the pillars of honesty and truth; and, therefore, one of his colleagues from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] had come to the aid of that honorable member. He, too, had denounced the resolution. He had called it "miserable," "pitiful," and, following the example of the honorable member from New York, had endeavored to demonstrate that it was owing to that resolution that Mr. ADAMS had acted as he had done, and that all the unpleasant and exciting scenes of the day had happened.

There

Mr. P. said he cared nothing for the epithets his colleague had thought proper to apply to that resolution. Epithets were not argument, and argument was necessary to prove that the epithets were warranted. But he would tell his colleague one thing. The gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HAWES,] who introduced the resolution, was not present to defend it. He would tell him another thing. It had been adopted by an overwhelming majority of the whole House; and, therefore, if it was really pitiful, there were so many to divide the censure, that scarcely any one would feel its weight. He would tell him yet another thing. It was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the Representatives from the slaveholding States; and, therefore, if all who voted for it were disloyal to the South, she might indeed be considered as having been surrendered to the enemy. were on that floor upwards of a hundred slaveholding delegates, and of all that number not more than sixteen had voted against the resolution; upwards of eighty on the one side, and sixteen on the other. Mr. P. said he did not profess to understand the interests of the slaveholding States better than other members from those States, and he was, therefore, sincerely rejoiced at the almost undivided support that his miserable resolution had received from the slaveholding interest within those walls. Miserable as it might be, the support that had been given it showed the absolute necessity for its adop tion. It showed its importance and its policy. More than that, it showed its great and growing popularity. At the last session, the slaveholding vote in favor of this resolution was, perhaps, not more than two thirds; now, it is more than four fifths. This great increase of slaveholding votes would not have taken place but for the favor the resolution has acquired in the slaveholding States. It is its strength with the people that has caused their delegates to rally around it with such unanimity and ardor. And that strength will increase still more. The occurrences of this very day will increase it. If any thing on earth can show the necessity of laying abolition papers on the table without printing, reference, or ac. tion of any kind whatever, it is the extraordinary legislative play that has this day been enacted on this theatre; the tragedy, the farce, the painful excitement, the ludicrous burlesque, the contempt and ridicule brought upon this House, and the deep disgrace inflicted on our country. Mr. P. said he would tell his colleague yet another thing. That same miserable resolution had been sustained by a decided majority of Charleston district. The late congressional canvass turned exclusively upon the abolition question. True, he had lost his election by a very small majority. But the approval of his conduct, by a majority of the voters, was equally true, notwithstanding. A large number of those who voted for his

[blocks in formation]

competitor are known to have approved it, and would have voted for him (Mr. P.) against any other individual in the district.

Mr. P. said his respected competitor himself had openly expressed his concurrence in his course, and he rejoiced that that course would be sustained hereafter by intellect and eloquence so admirably calculated to sustain it. Yes, (said Mr. P.,) I glory in that course. I glory in that resolution. I glory that for once, at least, in my life, I looked to the true welfare of the South, in connexion with the happiness and harmony of our whole common country. I am proud that, in having pursued that course, I have been cheered by the cordial "well done" of heads as sound and hearts as pure as any that undertook to proscribe me, here or elsewhere; of venerable revolutionary patriots; of as intelligent and highminded merchants and mechanics as ever did honor by their spirit and enterprise to any city upon the earth; of those gallant volunteers who flew, at the first cry for help, to rescue their brethren of Florida from the mur. derous tomahawk and scalping-knife; and of those generous and patriotic adopted citizens, who always prove themselves the very best natives when their adopted country demands their services. Mr. P. said he would trouble the House with only one word more. There were two acts of his life he should always remember with peculiar pleasure: the one was the miserable resolution, which, miserable as it was, had so far kept down abolition that not all the efforts of fanatics and agitators could remove the pressure; and the other, that it was on his motion that the first colonization memorial, praying for the aid and interference of this Government, had been laid upon the table; the vote upon that question being recorded on the journal. And he would take this occasion to enter his protest against any further efforts to obtain such aid. Congress has no more constitutional authority to apply the public revenue in aid of colonization than of abolition societies, and the first appropriation of this kind in behalf of the one may well be regarded as an entering wedge to similar expenditures in relation to the other. He hoped that the friends of the cause would discountenance such applications. It was the most impolitic course that could be adopted as regards the stability and utility of the cause itself. The people of the South will never tolerate any interference by the Federal Government with any operation in which negroes are involved. By connecting this cause with the Federal Government, it will assuredly become odious to the great body of the people, and multitudes who now cheerfully support it will become its foes. Colonization is exclusively a State concern. It belongs entirely to the individual States and to the people. The State Legislatures, if they choose, may sustain it from their treasuries. They have the right to do so; hut Congress has no such right; nor will the people of the South ever submit to be taxed that the proceeds of the taxes may be applied to the purchase of their slaves, with a view to their emancipation or removal into Africa. As to abolition, he would only remark, that while others struggle to create excitement, he would endeavor to prevent it; while others are calling for a Southern convention, he would endeavor to avert its necessity; while others are sapping the foundations of the Union, he would endeavor to confirm it; and, with these views, he sincerely hoped that as the resolution, of which he was the original mover, had been adopted at the last session, and readopted at the present, so it would continue to be adopted and enforced during every succeeding Congress, while there was a single fanatic to infest this hall, or an American patriot to defeat his object.

After a few incidental observations by Mr. CAMBRELENG, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. WISE, and Mr. JENIFER, the House adjourned, without coming to any decision.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7.

CENSURE OF MR. ADAMS.

[H. OF R.

As soon as the reading of the journal was concluded, Mr. ADAMS rose and said the minutes on the journal of the proceedings of yesterday were not, in one particular, sufficiently explicit. The journal stated that Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, moved a modification of his own resolution "at the suggestion of Mr. LEWIS, of Alabama;" whereas, Mr. A. contended that the journal should set forth that Mr. LEWIS had moved, or offered to move, that resolution as an amendment, and that then Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, accepted it.

After some conversation between Messrs. ADAMS, THOMPSON of South Carolina, LAWLER, EVERETT, WILLIAMS of Kentucky, ALFORD, ELMORE, and MERCER, the journal was amended according to the suggestion of Mr. ADAMS.

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being the "privileged question" of censure embraced in the following resolutions, submitted by Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina:

"1. Resolved, That the Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, by an effort to present a petition from slaves, has committed a gross contempt of this House.

"2. Resolved, That the member from Massachusetts, above named, by creating the impression, and leaving the House under such impression, that said petition was for the abolition of slavery, when he knew it was not, has trifled with the House.

"3. Resolved, That the Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS receive the censure of the House for his conduct referred to in the preceding resolutions."

The question pending was the following, submitted as a substitute by Mr. HAYNES:

"Resolved, That JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, a Representative from the State of Massachusetts, has rendered himself justly liable to the severest censure of this House, and is censured accordingly, for having attempted to present to this House the petition of slaves."

Mr. JENIFER, who was entitled to the floor, begged leave to propound an inquiry to the venerable member from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS.] He read the following proceedings from the Globe of this morning, and he would respectfully ask that gentleman if that report

[blocks in formation]

"Mr. ADAMS next stated he had in his possession & paper, upon which he wished to have a decision of the Speaker. The paper, he said, came from twenty persons declaring themselves to be slaves. He wished to know whether the Speaker would consider this paper as coming under the rule of the House."

Mr. ADAMS said it must be perfectly within the recollection of the Speaker, that what was there stated in the Globe was correct. He did not present the petition, but kept it in his possession. He had stated to the Speaker that he had in his possession a paper purporting to be from twenty-two slaves, and he had asked the Speaker whether a petition of this kind would come under the rule of the 18th of January last; and the Speaker said, as it was a novel question, he would take the sense of the House upon it. He had also stated, before he commenced presenting his petitions, that he had some in his possession which it had occurred to him were impositions; as, by the order of the 18th of Janu ary, members who had an attachment to the right of petition were liable to imposition. He had stated that, among the petitions which were in his possession, he had the suspicion that some of them were not genuine;

H. OF R.]

Censure of Mr. Adams.

and he would appeal to members to say whether he had not given this statement when he presented several of his petitions. He had given this statement when he stated he had in his possession the petition purporting to be from slaves; but he did not say, and no member of the House had the right to infer, that this paper was for the abolition of slavery. It was impossible for him to have said any such thing; for if the House had received the petition, and it had been read, they would instantly have seen that he made a false statement. He would, furthermore, say that if it had been a petition of slaves for the abolition of slavery, he should at least have paused before he brought the subject before the House in any form. However sacred he might hold the right of petition, he would still exercise a discretionary power in bringing before the House petitions which it was his opinion ought not to be presented; that discretionary power, however, he would use with prudence, and he would say that the inere circumstance of a petition being from slaves would not prevent him from presenting it; and if he should have incurred the censure of the House for so doing, he was ready to receive it. A gentleman had said, on yesterday, that he would as soon receive a petition from a horse or a dog as from slaves. Sir, said Mr. A., if a horse or a dog had the power of speech and of writing, and he should send him a petition, he would present it to the House; ay, if it were from a famished horse or dog, he would present it. What was a petition? It was a prayer, a supplication to a superior being-that which we offer up to our God; and if the Creator of the universe did not deny to the lowest, the humblest, and the meanest, the right of petition and supplication, were they to say they would not hear the prayer of these petitioners because they were slaves? If slaves sent to him a petition for any thing unjust or improper, or any thing which the House ought not to hear, he would pause at least before he asked of the Speaker the same question which he asked on yesterday. If, however, on the contrary, he should receive a petition from slaves, praying that not only himself, but all others who presented abolition petitions, should desist, because it only tended to weld the chains of slavery; and if he should receive a petition from slaves, saying that they were perfectly satisfied with their situation, and that they would rather be slaves than freemen, that their masters were kind to them, and that when they were reduced to infirmity by old age, their masters would take care of them, and praying that they might be left in this situation, he would, if the House would permit him, present it.

As be had before said, however, he had not presented this petition to the House, and he was yet waiting the Speaker's decision before he could determine whether he would present it. If the House should decide that it was not a paper which came under the order of the 18th of January, and was not admissible, he should not present it at all. He would take this opportunity of saying to the House, that however much he might have been misunderstood by gentlemen, there was nothing further from bis intention than to trifle with the House on this occasion; and never in the course of his life had he intended to pay a greater respect to the rules of the House and the rights and privileges of members. Had he consulted his own feelings, he would have presented the paper to the House; but, from the respect he paid to the rules of the House, he had asked the decision of the Chair before he presented the paper.

Mr. JENIFER said, if the gentleman paid such veneration to the right of petition, why not present his petition to the House without asking the decision of the Speaker? That gentleman had never paid so much regard to the decisions of the Speaker heretofore, as it must be within the recollection of every gentleman that,

[FEB. 7, 1837.

on almost every petition day, the gentleman had come in collision with the Speaker, in his efforts to transgress the rules of the House; and Mr. J. could not conceive why he had paid so much regard to the decision of the Speaker on this occasion, unless it was that he wished to shield himself behind the decision of the Speaker. He boped the gentleman from Massachusetts would perform his duty, as he considered it, and present this petition; and then the House would know what couse to take. Mr. J. felt a deep interest in this matter, being from one of the frontier slaveholding States; and he wished to resist at the very threshold every effort to throw firebrands among the slave population. He bad heretofore refrainfrom taking part in these discussions, because he did not wish to add to the excitement which already existed; but if the gentleman from Massachusetts should present a petition of the kind which raised this discussion, he should not only not vote for either of the resolutions which had been brought before the House, but he would vote for the expulsion of the member presenting it.

Mr. DROMGOOLE said he preferred action on a question of this character rather than debate, and he had risen only for the purpose of requesting the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] to accept a modification he would send to the Clerk's table:

The modification was read, as follows:

1. Resolved, That the honorable JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, a member of this House, by stating in his place that he had in his possession a paper purporting to be a petition from slaves, and inquiring if it came within the meaning of a resolution heretofore adopted, (as preliminary to its presentation,) has given color to the idea that slaves bave the right of petition, and of his readiness to be their organ; and that for the same he deserves the censure of this House.

2. Resolved, That the aforesaid JOHN Q. ADAMS receive a censure from the Speaker, in the presence of the House of Representatives.

Mr. THOMPSON accepted the above as a substitute for his own resolutions.

Mr. HAYNES said he had intended to have availed himself of the opportunity of making a defence against the charges thrown out upon those who had voted for the resolution of the 18th of January. But preferring, with his friend from Virginia, action rather than discussion, he would refrain from doing so, and confine himself to withdrawing his amendment.

The question then recurred upon the original resolution, as modified at the suggestion of Mr. DROM

GOOLE.

Mr. ELMORE trusted there was no intention of ar. guing this subject, but that the South would present united action, and an undivided front, and suffer all minor differences of opinion to subside.

Mr. PICKENS made a brief explanation in relation to his remarks on the adoption of the resolution of the 18th ultimo, viz: that ordering all abolition papers to lie on the table. In denouncing that resolution itself, he had been misapprehended, if it had been inferred that he coupled with it any denunciation of those who voted for it. He had spoken of the resolution, both last session and the present, as pitiful and contemptible, and as trifling with the rights of the South, but not with any desire to cast disrespect upon any gentleman who had felt disposed to and who had supported it, on both occasions. opinion he still entertained. But seeing the feeling and unanimity that, it gave him pleasure to say, had been manifested on the present occasion, he hoped and trusted that, so far as he was concerned, and so far as he was identified with the South, they would present but one imbodied, single, unbroken phalanx.

That

He desired a word of explanation from the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] in relation to some

[blocks in formation]

remarks that were said to have fallen from him yesterday, though Mr. P. himself had not heard them. He had been informed this morning that the gentleman had said to the effect that he trusted there was virtue and spirit enough (and this was in reply to Mr. P.) in the North and in the South to put down fanaticism in the one, and rebellion in the other.

Mr. CAMBRELENG explained. What he had said was, that there was virtue and spirit enough among the vast population of this Union, East, West, North, and South, which would keep the two extremes from breaking down the barriers of the constitution; but he had not used the word "rebellion," but "insurrection," and had made no application to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. PICKENS was perfectly satisfied, and had not himself understood the gentleman as saying what he had referred to, but others had.

Mr. LAWLER then took the floor, and insisted, at some length, that the explanation of the member from Massachusetts was any thing but satisfactory, and he made an earnest appeal to him to retract what he had done.

Mr. ROBERTSON desired that the resolution before the House might be again read.

The resolution offered by Mr. DROMGOOLE, and accepted by Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, as a modification of one previously offered by him, was then read by the Clerk.

(H. OF R.

the consequences to myself personally what they may, to censure or expel any member for the utmost latitude of inquiry or remark in which he may indulge, whilst acting in what he may regard, however erroneously, as the discharge of his duty, and keeping within the limits of parliamentary order. Let me not be understood as approving the conduct of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Far from it; no one more strongly condemns it. I concur with those who think that he has trifled with the patience of the House, to the great delay of its business, and wantonly tortured the feelings of a large portion of its members, by the minuteness with which he has dwelt upon the contents of offensive petitions, and the names and characters of those who signed them. I cannot hold him guiltless in unnecessarily introducing and enlarging upon this irritating topic of abolition; especially he seems to me much to blame for leaving the House so long under an evident and painful mistake in relation to the petition in his possession, by suppressing information of its contents. Nor do I believe that he has succeeded, by the explanation he has offered, in convincing one human being, except himself, of the proprie ty of his course. Indeed, in one respect that explanation must rather be regarded in the light of an aggrava tion, reiterating, as it did, the offensive doctrine that slaves have a right to send their petitions into this hall. That gentleman is too intelligent to assert, in his calmer moments, the preposterous position, that those who under the constitution are recognised as property, who constitute no part of the body politic, can exercise political rights. He ought to have foreseen the consequences which have ensued from suggesting a doubt upon that subject: But whatever may be my opinion, or that of the House, of the absurdity or impropriety of raising such a question here, it by no means follows that we can make it the ground of a penal proceeding. The gentleman has cleared himself of any supposed

Mr. ROBERTSON resumed. Mr. Speaker, I wished the resolution proposed by my colleague [Mr. DROMGOOLE] read again, that I might be certain I correctly apprehend ed its import. I cannot vote for it. Called upon as the Southern members are to unite in one phalanx to sustain it, I cannot obey the summons without, as I conscientiously believe, overleaping the barriers of the constitution, and violating, in the person of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that liberty of speech guar-contempt, by disclaiming, in the most solemn manner, antied to every member in this hall. I am sorry, sir, to stand in the way of gentlemen who seem so impatient for the floor; but I cannot forego the opportunity allowed me of explaining the reasons which govern my vote. I will detain them but a few moments.

I have taken no part, Mr. Speaker, in the stormy debate which the extraordinary conduct of the gentleman from Massachusetts has elicited. I was, sir, I confess, unwilling to trust to the emotions which that conduct could not fail to excite in the bosom of every Southern man. There was danger the first impulse might hurry us too far; for it is ever in moments of high excitement, of exasperation, such as we have just witnessed, that the most fatal precedents are established, and that, too, often under the influence of high and honorable motives. It is due, therefore, to ourselves, to the member implicated, and to the country, now that some degree of calmness is restored, to weigh well the consequences of the measure proposed under such circumstances for our adoption. To drag a member to the bar of this House, and cause him to be publicly censured by the Speaker, must be regarded by him and by all as a heavy punishment, and we ought to be able to give satisfactory reasons for inflicting it. Let us look to the resolution which professes to assign them. It declares that the member in question, by stating that he had a petition purporting to be from slaves, and inquiring whether it came within the meaning of a certain resolution, as preliminary to its presentation, has given color to the idea that slaves have the right of petition, and of his readiness to be their organ. Yes, sir; we charge that by stating a fact, and making an inquiry, he has given color to an offensive idea; and it is for the crime of intimating that idea we demand his punishment. I cannot go this length. So long as I have the honor of a seat here I will never consent, be

any intentional disrespect. He has declared that his real object was to obtain the Speaker's construction of one of our standing orders, and to conform to that construction. We are not authorized to discredit this statement. But if we were, or if the disclaimer had never been made, with what propriety can we censure him for making an inquiry which the Speaker himself seems to have regarded so doubtful as to decline answering, and referred to the judgment of the House? How punish him for inquiring of the proper organ of the House, whether he had the right to present a petition under a subsisting order, which right one of my colleagues, [Mr. WISE,] and other members, explicitly assert that order clearly gave him. It is true, sir, I do not agree with those who entertain this opinion. Broad and comprehensive as is the resolution of the 18th of January, requiring, in terms, all papers relating to slavery to be laid upon the table without reading, it could not have contemplated the recep'ion of petitions from slaves; and it was matter of surprise to me that the Speaker should have hesitated for one moment so to decide. But if the Chair doubted, more especially if members in their places maintain the construction that such petitions must be admitted under the resolution, how is it that we can single out the member from Massachusetts, and censure him for suggesting a doubt, or making an inquiry, relative to its proper interpretation? But it may be said he is not to be censured for asking the question, but because that question gives color to the idea that slaves may petition, and that he is willing to be their organ. Absurd and offensive as such an idea certainly is, I am yet to learn that members of Congress may be proceeded against criminally for intimating or uttering opinions here which a majority may consider heretical or odious. On the contrary, I hold the prop

[blocks in formation]

osition, in its broadest extent, that no member can be challenged, here or elsewhere, for the assertion of any principle or sentiment, however preposterous, unconstitutional, or monstrous, so long as he keeps within the limits prescribed by our rules for the preservation of order. He may undertake, if he will, to prove that Congress ought to repeal the constitution, or to abolish the Union. Nothing, surely, could be more absurd, nor more insulting. It would be to invite the House to violate the instrument it has sworn to observe; in effect, to commit perjury and treason. Yet who will say that he could be subjected, on that account, to censure or expulsion? What member will be safe for a day, if such a doc'rine shall prevail? A minority, at least, should beware of a precedent which, once established, would not long tolerate any difference of opinion with the dominant majority. The power of the House to prescribe rules for the presentation and reception of petitions must be admitted; but I deny that the resolu tion of censure now under consideration can be justified under any subsisting rule of the House, or any law of the land; and I trust that gentlemen will pause before they set a precedent which may recoil upon themselves, and give a death-blow to the freedom of discussion se. cured to us by the constitution, and which is the best guarantee of the public liberty.

While up, Mr. Speaker, I will correct a misconception into which the gentleman from New York [Mr. GRANGER] seems to have fallen in regard to the views of myself and other Southern members who voted against the resolution of the 18th of January. That gentleman, if I correctly understood him, considered our vote as influenced by the motives which governed his-the be lief that it trenched upon the right of petition.

[Mr. GRANGER explained. He said the gentleman from Virginia had misapprehended him. He had understood the gentleman from Virginia, and other Southern gentlemen who voted with him, as doing so on the ground that they were opposed to the reception of memorials on the subject of abolition, and had given them credit for their manly and consistent course on that occasion.]

Mr. R. said he was pleased to learn that he had been mistaken; but the vote had been misinterpreted, here and elsewhere, by those who had thought it worthy their notice; and he desired then, so far as he was concerned, to correct the erroneous construction. I voted, sir, (continued Mr. R.,) against the resolution in question, because, by requiring all abolition memorials to be laid upon the table, it necessarily implied that such me. morials should be received. I have uniformly denied the propriety of their reception, and am daily more and more convinced that the greater part of the annoyance and agitation experienced here from the abolitionists has arisen from this favor shown to their memorials. The power of the House to refuse to receive them cannot be justly denied. The parliamentary rule itself which, upon the presentment of a petition, regularly requires the question to be put whether it shall be received, necessarily implies that power; for the moment it is admitted that this question may be put, it follows that it may be answered either affirmatively or negative ly; and, consequently, that the reception, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may be refused.

The right of petition, like all other human rights, must have some limits. It is generally admitted that the House may refuse to receive petitions indecorous or insulting in their language. But where is the rule or the reason of confining this power to objections on the score of language? Why not refuse to receive them where the subject-matter is beyond our jurisdiction, or the application so palpably immoral, unjust, or unconsti tutional, as to require no deliberation and deserve no

[FEB. 7, 1837.

favor? The rights of the petitioner may be coextensive with the constitutional power of Congress, but cannot transcend it. It is an absurd.ty in terms to talk of a right to petition, where there is not a correlative power to grant. Why ask what cannot be given? Where there exists a rational doubt, petitions, I agree, ought to be received and considered; and no one will go further to respect the right, within just and reasonable bounds. But where the petition is plainly unjust or unconstitutional, where it cannot be granted without robbing others of their property or their rights, without violating that instrument we have sworn to observe, or endangering the Union it is our duty to guard, it is insulting in its character, whatever may be its language, and ought not to be entertained. It is idle to receive a petition we are predetermined to reject; and no wrong is done by refusing to entertain an application which it is indecorous or unjust to make, or unlawful to grant. Suppose a petition praying to take away a man's life by act of Congress, to abolish the trial by jury, establish a national church, or do any thing else prohibited by the constitution: to what end receive it? And do not these abolition memorials propose to violate the constitution? Do they not seek to take away what that constitution recognises as property, and forbids to be taken except for public use? But gentlemen say it is more respectful to receive them, and lay them upon the table without reading them. Sir, I deny it. They who tell them at once, frankly, that they will not receive them, because they ask what ought not to be granted, treat them with full as much respect as those who, boasting to be the exclusive friends of the right of petition, receive them, and lay them aside, without deigning to look at them. It is a mere pretence, a mockery, to call this respect for the right of petition.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the view I took of the resolution of the 18th January. Believing that the abolitionists demanded what Congress had no moral or constitutional power to concede, I was not willing to give their memorials admission. I was not willing that this ball, devoted as it should be to harmonious deliberations for the common good of the Union, should be made a receptacle for foul and odious libels upon the character and institutions of the Southern people. But the House have ordered otherwise. These offensive memorials, in many cases signed by women and children ignorant of the institutions under which we live, and not knowing, it is to be hoped, the consequences of their folly, have been received-out of respect, it is said, to the right of petition-and are to be preserved forever among the archives of the nation. If there were any hope of success, I would ask a reconsideration of the resolution under which this outrage is inflicted upon us, and an order to the Clerk to deliver them back to those who presented them. Sir, I have told gentlemen from the North, and I tell them again, that they do not, and will not, I fear, until it shall be too late, appreciate the motives or the feelings of the Southern and Southwestern people. Perhaps they cannot: for it is a law of our nature that we do not, without difficulty, enter into the feelings of others differently situated from ourselves. A parent only can know the extent of parental affection; he only who has experienced it can realize the strength of that tie which binds the husband to his wife. So, sir, Northern men can have but a faint conception of the emotions we experience at the unceasing assaults aimed at our peace, our property, our rights, and our institutions. They sit secure and unmoved, while the missiles destined to assail and annoy us are prepared before their eyes, and coolly and most philosophically wonder at the warmth of the South. How, sir, would they bear similar aggressions upon themselves? Would they sit calmly, and listen to petitions for the re-establishment of slavery in the non

« AnteriorContinuar »