demanded upon the question. The details of the petition cannot vary the principle. If admitted in one case, it will be admitted in all.

Sir, I can no longer contemplate a doctrine so odious and indefensible with any composure. But, monstrous as it is, the gentleman from Massachusetts has attempted to poison our legislation and our peace with its baneful influence. He has done this not under a temporary illusion or excitement. He has concentrated in his bureau all the combustible elements of the republic, and week after week presented them to this House, under circumstances so marked and- aggravated, as to leave no room to mistake his intentions. Restricted by the rule of the House from a'l debate upon abolition memorials, he has been refractory to its order in every mode his ingenuity could devise. To give force and effect to the memorials, and to prepare the public sentiment for the consummation of the policy they ask, he has, in de fiance of the injunctions of the rule, fortified his memorials by a recital of the characters of those who signed them, and dignified the hell-born scrolls with the names of magistrates and rulers, of patriots, statesmen, heroes, and philosophers. A memorial from the town of Franklin has induced him to profane to this unholy purpose the motto of the godlike man, ubi libertas sibi patria. When A petition has been signed on the 4th day of July, he has called up the inspirations of the day which gave us birth as a nation and a people, to aid in a cause that can only tend to a premature and convulsive dissolution. Thus, sir, has the gentleman from Massachusetts, with a fixedness of purpose peculiar to fanaticism, and a breach of order and decorum which all have witnessed with mortification and regret, advanced with rapid and steady strides to a point at which the rights of others, and the peace and safety of your Union, requires he should be arrested. Thus, sir, have I attempted to demonstrate that the principle sought to be established by the gentleman from Massachusetts is in open defiance of the constitution and the indisputable rights of the slaveholding States-that he has moved on to this dreadful consummation with an "eye that never winks, and a wing that never tires"-that he has attempted to poison the fountains of fraternal peace and of our federal alliance; and all this, too, sir, not from casual error or momentary ebullition; but, sir, from a deliberate design of agitation, manifested by his perverseness under the rule which forbids the discussion of slavery; and his repeated ap peals to abstract rights and declarations of departed and illustrious heroes, unknown in questions of right between Confederate States. I have spoken boldly, sir, of the conduct of the gentleman from Massachusetts. It has devolved upon me, as a representative of a people whom he has deliberately and openly assailed in the recesses of their firesides, their altars, and their homes; and which, let me tell the gentleman and this House, they will de fend at all and every hazard.

Mr. LINCOLN addressed the Chair as follows:

[H. OF R.

so beloved and honored is he at home, and so known to fame abroad, that whatever may be the result of this dis. cussion, whatever the action of the House upon these most extraordinary resolutions, there are those, and they are not a few, here and elsewhere, who will deeply sympathize with him in the trial to which he is now informally subjected. I plant myself by his side on the principles for which he is contending. I come not, sir, to his protection against the particular occasion of offence which he may have given. To this he is, of himself, most abundantly able. He needs not, if he would accept, my feeble aid. His justification is in his own mouth, and he is far more capable than I could pretend to be to make it effectual.

It was, perhaps, fortunate for me, Mr. Speaker, that I was not present when the supposed offence was committed by my colleague. [Mr. LINCOLN was then engaged as a member of the select committee of which Mr. WISE is chairman.] I may, therefore, hope to be excused from participating in much of that excitement which is so strongly manifested by others. Besides, sir, I come from that cold region of country so reproachfully referred to by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. ALFORD,] where the passions, like the temperature of the climate, are supposed to be less ardent than in more southern latitudes.

Yet the people of the North, I can assure that honorable gentleman, are not wanting in all the sensibilities which do honor to human nature. They have, indeed, like passions, and partake of like infirmities, with other men. If they do not always speak "in words which burn," and act with an impulse which startles, it is because they are schooled and disciplined to habits of calm and sober reflection; because they have been taught, from infancy, that reason is a better guide than passion; that it is wiser and safer to regulate the conduct by the dictates of judgment, than blindly to follow those gener. ous and fearless promptings of our nature which sometimes lead to excesses, even in virtue. Sir, will not this House, on the present occasion, profit somewhat by imitating the characteristic coolness and discretion of Northern men, in yielding something of the excess of feeling to the more calm suggestions of reason, while deliberating upon the conduct of my venerable friend, and deciding the character of the offence which he is charged with having committed? Offence, did I say? There has been no offence. It is a false denomination of the act of my colleague. There are too many lawyers on this floor to permit a sanction to the misnomer by the deliberate judgment of the House.

The House will bear with me, I humbly trust, while I advert to the conduct of my colleague, which is charged as a premeditated and henious crime. At a proper time, in order, within the strictest rules of the House, my colleague, being entitled to the floor, propounded a ques tion to the Speaker, in reference to the disposition to be made of a petition, the answer to which he intended Mr. Speaker: It may seem the extreme of rashness to receive as directory to his conduct in the matter. that I should attempt to oppose, by my humble efforts, Distrusting his own judgment, he addressed, respectfulthe torrent of invective which is pouring forth, from ly, a request for information to the Chair, in the faithful every quarter of this House, upon the devoted head of determination, as he now explicitly declares, to regulate my venerable colleague. It was alike my intention to his subsequent action by the direction which should be take no part in this debate, and my wish to keep free given him. And is such the offence for which the venfrom the excitement to which it might lead. But what-erable member from Massachusetts is to suffer the seever my original purpose, I can no longer consent to re- vere reprehension of this House? main silent, when the subject before the House assumes [Mr. PICKENS here rose, and desired to say that it was the form of a direct censure upon my colleague for an for announcing that he had a petition from slaves, thus act which he deliberately and solemnly d clares he con- destroying all the relations of master and slave, and descientiously believed to be in discharge of his represent-nying the doctrine that the slave can only be heard ative duty. Such is the reverence due to his age, such the respect paid to his character and the remembrance of his public services, so high the confidence in his integrity and in the purity and patriotism of his motives,

through his master: this is the offence.]

Mr. LINCOLN resumed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is the understanding of the gentleman from South Carolina, But did my colleague assert or deny any doc

H. OF R.]

Censure of Mr. Adams.

trine, or in any wise allude to the relation of master and slave? I will not stop to inquire whether he might, or might not, very properly have done so.-It is enough to say that his language was confined to a naked inquiry, in which no doctrine was denied, and the rights of masters in no respect involved. The question put to the Speaker was simply this: Does a petition purporting to be from slaves fall within a rule of the House? The purport of the petition was not even intimated. Again, then, I demand, is it for making this inquiry that my colleague is to answer? It is to the act itself we must look, to determine its character; and that act consisted, wholly and exclusively, in putting the question to the Chair.

But it has been urged, in the course of this debate, that, however equivocal or innocent might seem to be the language of the inquiry, yet that it was made with a sinister and culpable intent. Is it intention, then, the secret purpose of mind, which constitutes the crime of which this House is to take cognizance? In what code of criminal jurisprudence, from what law of parliamentary practice, do gentlemen gather jurisdiction of the thoughts of the heart? If the external action be not criminal, the inward motive cannot change its character. Who ever heard, in a court of justice, that intention could be imputed as crime, when the act with which that intention was connected constituted no offence? The wrong, which is cognizable by law, is in the overt act. The plotting of treason is not treason. The design to lie in wait is not murder. The intent may change the apparent character of the act, but, without the act, the intent is nothing. Need I illustrate? A homicide is committed; it may be murder or manslaughter; an excusable or a justifiable act, according to the intention of the agent; but if there be no slaying, the mere purpose to do it, however malicious or premeditated, violates no law. Apply the principle, however incongruous may seem the illustration, to the case before the House. My honorable colleague is charged with a contempt. It has been satisfactorily shown, as I trust, that, in the language of the inquiry proposed by him to the Chair, there was nothing contemptuous to the Chair or to the House. In and by itself, the inquiry was altogether harmless. Wherein, then, is the contempt? It still rests, if intendcd, in the breast of my colleague, without the form of expression to give it the character of an offence.

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HOLSEY] has objected to my colleague that, by his conduct, subsequent to the inquiry propounded by him to the Chair, he bas trifled with the feelings of members and the dignity of the House. This is distinct and different ground for accusation; but, Mr. Speaker, I put it to the liberality of the gentleman himself to say whether, after the explicit disclaimer by my colleague, this cause of complaint should further be insisted on. What, sir, have we heard this very morning? After time has been given for the excitement of yesterday's debate to subside; after a night, doubtless, of thoughtful considera'ion and recollection, my venerable colleague has, here, in the presence of the House, made the deliberate and solemn declaration, that to trifle with the House or its members would be the last possible purpose of his heart. And is not this enough? Can it be permitted for the gentleman from Georgia now to argue, by inference, against the sincerity of that declaration? It is asked, if no disrespect to the House was intended, wherefore the manner of my colleague, so different from that of other members, in presenting memorials? This inquiry I will not undertake to answer. It may be matter of taste or matter of judgment with my colleague. His manner is not my manner; nor do I see in his better success, on this subject, in this House, any encouragement to me for its adoption. But, Mr. Speaker, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the exception is taken rather to the

[FEB. 7, 1837.

character of the memorials than to the manner of presenting them. If the charge of trifling with the House is made upon the ground that the venerable gentleman presents to the House abolition memorials, then is he not the only offender. If to present the petition of abolitionists be to trifle with the House, there are many here who should not cast the first stone. Sir, I am, in the popular sense of the term, no abolitionist. Although I would to God that every human being was enlightened and free, yet I have never advocated, either on this floor or elsewhere, the peculiar views or schemes of the abolitionists. Pure and philanthropic as I believe the motives of most of them to be, I have seen many and most serious obstacles to their progress, and anticipated fearful consequences from their success. But for this cause, in an honest difference of sentiment between us, I have not felt at liberty to withstand their right of petition. Like my colleague, I have presented their memorialswillingly and cheerfully presented them-as the will of that portion of my constituents who have committed them to my charge. I have presented them from meu and women of as pure, elevated, and intellectual character as any in the world; men and women, kind and generous, and of tenderest sympathies, who would no sconer do an injury or an act of injustice to any human being than the most chivalrous or true-hearted of the sons or daughters of the South. Sir, I shall continue to present these petitions, within the rules of the House, whenever and as often as they are transmitted to me.

But, say gentlemen, my colleague, in presenting these abolition memorials, has eulogized the character of those who have subscribed to them. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] in an especial manner excepts to this as an aggravation of the offence, and insists that it evinces, in the technical language of the law, "a heart void of social obligation, and fatally bent upon mischief." Will the honorable gentle man be pleased to consider whether this supposed cause of exception be so peculiarly applicable to the members from Massachusetts, er to this class of petitions? Sir, do not other members do the same on other occasions, and in regard to every other subject? Is it not usual, common, within the rule of the House, or, at least, the practice of the House, so to do? Has not a member, in presenting a petition of any description, a right to declare whence and from whom it comes? May he not say that this one, who subscribes it, is a minister of the gospel of peace; that another is a citizen of the highest intelligence and the purest virtue; that others are intellectual and accomplished women, in whose breasts the feelings of kindness and human sympathy ever find a home? To do this, is it an offence? How often, sir, have the character, and influence, and standing in society, of petitioners been stated on this fluor, to enforce the prayer of their petition? In the memorable panic session, as it has been termed, of the last Congress, on a question, regarded by some who now exhibit peculiar sensitiveness as one of mere pecuniary concern, involving the simple consideration whether the revenue of the country should be deposited in one strong box or another, gentlemen in every quarter of the House stated and dwelt upon the character and standing of the petitioners; and who then held this to be a breach of privilege? Sir, it is every day's practice. And may that be done in respect to matters of property which is forbidden in things of infinitely higher momen', affecting the rights of person and the prerogatives of freemen, the liberty of speech and the right of petition? Mr. Speaker, it has fallen to the lot of my venerable colleague to have been charged with more of these petitions than all of his associates in the delegation together. His age, his character, the stations he has held, and his standing before the world, have

brought upon him responsibilities which others might not bave borne. The people have thrown upon the shoulders of Ajax the weight which no common man could have sustained. They trusted to his talents, his learning, and his great experience, to secure to him the deference of respect due to these qualifications in the duties be was called upon to discharge. If this shall not now be accorded to him, and these resolutions are to pass, I shall, in common with my colleagues, not cease to lament that we were not permitted more largely to share in that painful pre-eminence to which the preference of our respective more immediate constituents may have contributed to subject him.

[H. OF R.

would be the last to excite to violence, or willingly do their Southern brethren a wrong. They are acting under honest (however mistaken) convictions of duty. They conscientiously believe that a great moral evil exists in the form of slavery; and they believe, as I also believe, that Congress has the power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Beyond this, practically, I have never found, among my constituents, man, woman, or child, who wished to go. On the point of sound policy, of high political expediency, of the propriety and wisdom of the interposition of this power, of the tendency of the measures which these worthy people propose, to improve the condition of the slaves Mr. Speaker, there is another topic in this connexion themselves, of the consequences, here and elsewhere, upon which I wish to address a few words to the con- of sudden and entire abolition, even within the District sideration of this House. Coming from the State by of Columbia, I do, indeed, differ with them. But I rewhich I have been so highly honored, and knowing full spect their motives. Theirs may be, and I think is, an well, as I think I do, the character of the people whom error of judgment, in urging, under existing circumI represent, I cannot pass by this occasion without, for stances, and in the present excited state of the South, the first time since I have been on this floor, expressing these memorials upon Congress. In my opinion, this is something of that feeling with which I have often been not the time for their favorable reception, or for the compelled to listen to the tone of remark from one quar- proper action upon them. But the memorialists view ter of this House. Sir, I have sat day after day, week this matter in a different light. Freemen themselves, after week, year after year, and heard the North and they deem it neither consistent with the character of a the East assailed by every epithet of indignity and re- free people, nor creditable to the nation, that their repproach. I have seen honorable, high-minded, "chival-resentatives should be legislating here, in the midst of rous" men from the South stand up in their place, and slaves. They plant themselves upon the constitution, heard from their lips denunciations of a whole section and, honestly believing that they bring their petitions of country, as selfish, sordid, mean-spirited, unpatriotic. within its spirit, they earnestly implore you to remove In the fury of debate, the vocabulary of opprobrious this stigma from the land. And will you not, sir, look terms has been exhausted. Respectful petitions, pre- into the matter? Dare you not trust yourselves with a sented by my colleagues and myself, have been charac- question over which you have exclusive control? Beterized as the acts of the vilest incendiaries! I rejoice lieve me, there is nothing to fear. These thousands of in the opportunity now afforded me to repel these most women, these hundreds of clergymen, the kind-heartoffensive and calumnious aspersions. Those who in- ed, the sympathetic, and the devout, who sign these dulge in them are ignorant alike of our character and petitions, are not the incendiaries to apply the torch to our doings. What do we now witness? Under a rule Southern dwellings. May not piety utter its prayer for of the House, petitions laid on your table without being the relief of human misery? May not female tenderness read, and yet, with no knowledge of their contents, heave a sigh for the condition of the oppressed, without Hippantly denounced as vile, incendiary productions! giving occasion for alarm? This is no scheme of amFor myself, I say here, in my place, such is not the bition, ne plotting of selfish, designing, reckless politicharacter of a single paper which I have presented; nor cians. It is principally the unsophisticated, the artless, do I believe it applies to any offered by either of my the simple, and the unoffending, who thus approach colleagues. On the contrary, they are respectful me. you; who, regarding duty in its remote relations, and morials, clothed in language decorous to the.body to taking counsel of their kinder feelings, believe it safe which they are addressed, and appropriate to the ob- to ask you if you cannot interpose, within your own unject they are designed to accomplish, such as no man in limited jurisdiction, to alleviate a crying evil, without a fit state of mind for legislation, with cool and deliber- prejudice to the public weal. And will you not even ate judgment, could justly take offence at. If Southern hear such a request, from a humiliating distrust of the gentlemen had done with this class of memorials as, in exercise of your own judgment, to grant or refuse it' my humble judgment, it would have been for their peace and happiness to have done, sent them to the consideration of a committee, we should have had fewer of them here, and a better feeling on the part of those of us from the North who are disposed, by every reasonable means within our power, to prevent interference and allay agitation at home, on this most dangerous subj ct. Great injustice has been done, both to us and to our constituents, in this ball. Can gentlemen seriously believe what their impassioned feelings, in the ardor of debate, too often lead them to express? There are those among them who have visited at least one portion of the country from whence these petitions come, and have bad some opportunity of judging of the character of its population. What say these gentlemen of our New England? We call upon them to stand up here and testify. Did they find the mass of our citizens ignorant, priest-ridden fanatics; incendiaries, prepared for deeds of rapine and blood, and eager to wrap the dwellings of slaveholders in flames? Idle, worse than idle, is every such pretence of apprehension. Those who sign these petitions are among the most harmless, moral, conscientious, pious people of the land. They

One word more on this point, with the indulgence of the House, in reference to the State from which I come. The people of Massachusetts are a just, a faithful, and a liberal people. They are devotedly attached to the Union; and, for its preservation, will ever seek to cultivale the truest sentiments of affection and respect for their brethren of the South. There is none other than kind feeling in the North towards the South. I know this to be the fact. ! full well know that even those who sign these abolition petitions have nothing further from their hearts than barm or danger to the Southern States. They call slavery a sin; but they charge not upon the present generation the responsibility for its existence. They look into the constitution, which the North will be the last to violate, and they see and recognise there the guarantee of this peculiar institution of the South in the States of the Union. They dream not of mischief to their Southern brethren from the indulgence of their benevolent wishes for the freedom of the slave. Not a man among them but would stand appalled at the very thought that what he was here attempting would incite to servile insurrection or civil war. If the time and the occasion shall ever come