In

counted, MARTIN VAN BUREN then has 167 votes. either event, MARTIN VAN BUREN, of New York, is elected President of the United States; and I therefore declare that MARTIN VAN BUREN, having received a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing the 4th day of March, 1837.

The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE then announced the votes for Vice President of the United States, as reported by the tellers, as follows:

For RICHARD M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky-
If the votes of Michigan be counted
If the votes of Michigan be not counted
For FRANCIS GRANGER, of New York
For JOHN TYLER, of Virginia
For WILLIAM SMITH, of Alabama

147

144

77

47

23

It therefore appears (continued the President) that, were the votes of Michigan counted, the highest number of votes for Vice President of the United States would be 147; and if those votes be not counted, the highest number of votes for that office will be 144. But, in either event, no person has received a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President of the United States; and I do therefore declare that, no person having received such majority, no person has been elected to that office; that RICHARD M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, and FRANCIS GRANGER, of New York, are the two highest on the list; and it now devolves on the Senate of the United States, as provided in the constitution, from those two persons to elect a Vice President of the United States.

Vice President.

Martin Van Buren.

Daniel Webster."

Wm. H. Harrison.

Willie P. Mangum.

William Smith.

8

42

30

10

11

11

15

15

21

Whole number of 170 14 73

electors, were the

Votes of Michigan counted

14 73 11

15

225

21

15

The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE then announced that the object for which the two Houses were assembled, under the constitution, had been accomplished, and that the Senators would retire to their chamber in order.

The Senators then rose and retired in the order they came, the members of the House rising in their places and remaining uncovered.

Mr. THOMAS, from the committee on the part of the House of Representatives, to join such committee as might be appointed on the part of the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice President of the United States, and of notifying the persons elected of their election, reported: That the joint committee, in further execution of the duties with which they were charged by the two Houses of Congress, have agreed to the following resolution, in which their committee recommend to the House of Rep. resentatives to concur:

Resolved, That a committee of one member of the Senate be appointed by that body, to join a committee of two members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by that flouse, to wait on MARTIN VAN BU REN, of New York, and notify him that he has been duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March, 1837. The above resolution having been concurred in, On motion of Mr. GLASCOCK, The House adjourned.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9.

CENSURE OF MR. ADAMS.

The CHAIR announced the unfinished business, being the question of privilege involved in the consideration of the following resolutions in relation to Mr. ADAMS.

The original resolution moved by Mr. W. THOMPSON was modified by him, at the suggestion of Mr. DROMGOOLE, as follows:

"1. Resolved, That the Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 8 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 have 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. BYNUM had offered the following, as a substitute: Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert, "That an attempt to present any petition or memorial from any slave or slaves, or free negro, from any part of the Union, is a contempt of the House, and calculated to embroil it in a strife and confusion incompatible with the dignity of the body; and that any member guilty of the same justly subjects himself to the censure of the House.

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the fact whether any such attempt has been made by any member of this House, and report the same to the House as soon as practicable."

The question immediately pending was the following amendment to the amendment, moved by Mr. PATTON: "Resolved, That the right of petition does not belong to slaves of this Union; that no petition from them can be presented to this House without derogating from the 23 rights of the slaveholding States and endangering the integrity of the Union.

Resolved, That every member who shall hereafter present any such petition to this House ought to be

"We the people of the United States, in order to Mr. Speaker: Nothing but a sense of duty could in form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do. duce me to trouble the House upon this delicate and ex- mestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, citing question. As an evidence, here and elsewhere, of promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings my disposition not to consume the time of the House, I of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and need only refer to my uniform silence during the pres-establish this constitution for the United States of Amer ent session. I trust, then, sir, that the few considera-ica." tions which I feel it my duty to submit to the House and the country will be attributed to their proper motives.

constitution, and their posterity-for the benefit of citizens only.

Had slaves any voice in ordaining or establishing the constitution? Did any of them vote for delegates to any of the conventions? Were any of them elected, or legally qualified either to vote or be elected? Are any of them now so qualified or entitled? No, sir; for although they are human beings, or, as denominated in the constitution, persons, they were and are regarded in that instrument as property. They therefore have no political rights secured to them by the constitution of the United States.

[H. of R.

enable them to realize, at the hands of their representatives, the benefits of representation-the benefits of le. gislation. It is, therefore, a sacred right, and should be so regarded. As the right, therefore, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances belongs to those who are entitled to be represented in the Congress of the United States, it is important to inquire who are so entitled. Sir, all the citizens living under the protec tion of the constitution of the United States are not only entitled to be represented here, but are represented; and all are citizens except our colored population, the Indian tribes, and aliens. Yes, sir, the citizens of the States, of the Territories, and of the District of Colum. bia, are represented here. Every member of this House is a representative of the District, and so constituted by the constitution of the United States. The members of this House, notwithstanding the Territories have delegates here, also represent the Territories.

But, sir, it may be said that the Indian tribes and foreigners have petitioned this Government in numerous instances; and that, therefore, the practice of the Government establishes the right of others, who are not citizens, to petition the Government. It is true, sir, that the Indian tribes and foreigners have petitioned this Government; but this was tolerated by the Government

Sir, what would the people to the North and East think, if we from the slave States were to petition Congress to deprive them of one half of their right, as now secured to them by the constitution, to representation in the Congress of the United States-by excluding from the computation of their federal numbers one half of their population? Would they not think and say we were enemies to the Union? Would they not say we were jeoparding all their rights-civil, political and religious? Would they not say we would, if successful in our objects, overturn the Government? Would they not call upon us to stop? Would they not point out to us their rights, as guarantied by the constitution? Would they not urge upon us the compromises of the constituas matter of favor, and not of right. This argument, tion? Would they not insist that we should live up to our bargain with them? And would they not have reason on their side? Yes, sir, all this they could and would do. May we whose rights are thus assailed, as we conceive, by the abolitionists, not make these appeals toly, have no right to petition the Government for a rethem? May we not call upon bonorable members from the North and East, when they return home, to explain to their people the fearful and ruinous consequences with which, if they persevere, they threaten the coun try? To tell them "we the people" of the United States are one great political family, possessing equal rights and privileges; of our desire to live in peace; and to this end, whilst we concede to them the right to enjoy, unmolested by us, all their rights, we claim from them the reciprocal right to the undisturbed enjoyment of

ours?

The view of the constitution, Mr. Speaker, which I have endeavored to present, is conclusive against the right of Congress to interfere in any manner whatever with slavery in the States; for that which the constitution guaranties to the States, of right belongs to the States, and is beyond the reach of the powers of Congress to take away; slavery, therefore, and the question of abolition, are questions which belong to the States alone within whose limits slavery exists.

Another of the purposes for which I have exhibited this view of the constitution is the better to enable us to decide the question, to whom does the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances belong? I maintain that "we the people," "the people," citizens only, possess the right of petition under this Goverament. Those, sir, who ordained and established the constitution, and their posterity-those who are entitled to be represented in the Congress of the United States; those, in short, whose moral property the Government is. The right of petition belongs to the people in their Sovereign capacity. It grows out of, and appertains to, the doctrine of self-government. It is a right that accompanies the right of representation. The right of petition and the right of representation may, therefore, be denominated kindred rights. The right of petition, as was well said by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts who last addres-ed the House on these resolutions, [Mr. CUSHING,] is a right reserved by the people, and is not granted by the constitution to them. This reserved right is only guarantied by the constitution. It is a right reserved by the people, the better to

drawn from the practice of the Government, therefore fails. Hence the conclusion to which my mind is conducted is, that, according to the theory of our Government, slaves, who are not citizens, but inhabitants mere

dress of their grievances; and hence the further conclusion is, that the honorable gentleman from Massachu. setts, in bringing before the House the question whether slaves have the right of petition, did that which he had no right to do.

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] who last addressed the House upon these resolutions contended that the right of petition was a nat ural right, derived from our Creator; and, being a natural right, so derived, belonged to all human beings. If that gentleman meant that all men have the natural right to supplicate the Deity, he is right. If he meant that all men, while in a state of nature, had the right to petition their fellow-beings for what they wanted, he is right. If he meant that all men, in their personal relations and intercourse, have the same right now, he is right. But if he meant that all men have the right to petition the Government, I think he is wrong...

Sir, there was a time when civil government did not exist; and how can a man be said to have a natural right to petition a political being who had no voice in its creation-who is neither party nor privy to the body politic.

That gentleman was pleased also to favor us with what he termed the abstract opinions of the abolitionistsopinions which, as he said, they honestly and conscientiously entertained. And what are those opinions? That slavery is, in the abstract, a social, moral, and political evil. I will not, Mr. Speaker, debate the question whether slavery be or be not, in the abstract, a social, moral, or political evil, but I refer to what the honorable gentleman said to prove what are the grievances of the abolitionists, and what their objects. Slavery, ac. cording to this exposé of their views, is their grievanceuniversal emancipation, then, must be their object.

If they prevail in that object, through the action of Congress, what becomes of the rights of the slave States, as guarantied to them by the constitution? What be comes of the Government? Sir, it is plain that the end of these things, if successful, terminates in the overthrow of the Government. This view of the subject, therefore, bas also an unfortunate bearing upon the conduct of the honorable gentleman whom it is proposed to censure.

Sir, the history of abolition petitions in this House during the last and present sessions of Congress, and of the efforts of a large majority of this House to avoid the agitation and consequent excitement, here and elsewhere, of this dangerous question, are known to this House and to the country. I will not attempt to repeat them, but will call the attention of the House to the resolution of the 18th of January, by which this House ordered all petitions, memorials, propositions, and papers, relating to slavery or the abolition of slavery, presented to the House, to be received and laid upon the table, without being printed or referred. It reads as follows, to wit:

Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever shall be bad thereon."

What, sir, was the object of this House in passing this resolution? It was to give peace to this House and the Country on this exciting question. That object was known to us all. It was known to the honorable gentleman in question. His conduct, therefore, in bringing before the House the question of the right of slaves to pe tition, by inquiring of the Chair if a petition from slaves came within that resolution, defeats the object of the House, and is disrespectful to the House.

[FEB. 9, 1837.

to a close. With the same design, he had made several attempts to obtain the floor, when this subject was last under debate, but was not so fortunate as to attract the attention of the Speaker.

Whatever, sir, (said Mr. M.,) may have been the origin of this matter, and however we may regret the course which it has taken, I think it must now be ap parent to every one that it is not likely to lead to any practical good. The resolutions pending before the House grow out of a subject that never fails to awaken the liveliest sensibility, on the part of some gentlemen, whenever it is named-a sensibility not altogether warranted, I think, by the circumstances of the case, but which, whether warranted or not, is certainly very in. imical to any thing like calm and temperate investigation. As an evidence of it, witness the condition of this hall, since this apple of discord was first introduced. How opposite to that which should ever characterize the proceedings of a deliberative assembly!

In relation to this exciting question-I mean, sir, said Mr. M., the question of slavery-give me leave to say that I occupy, comparatively speaking, a neutral po sition here. I come from a quarter of this Union which is just so far north of "Mason and Dixon's line" as not to believe in the doctrine that slavery is a blessing; and yet not sufficiently far north of it to be a convert to that other heresy, which considers it the bounden duty of The terms of the resolution are broad and comprehen- every good citizen to embark in a crusade for the pursive; and, considered without reference to those to whom pose of puting it down. The people of the State which the right of petition belongs, the circumstances under I have the honor to represent, whatever views they may which it was adopted, and the object the House had in entertain as to the abstract question of slavery, neverview by its passage, would be construed to let in peti-theless regard it as an established institution, recognised tions and papers on the subjects embraced in it from all persons. But when considered in reference to these considerations, the resolution neither enlarges nor abridges the right of petition. It leaves the right of petition as it stood before its passage. Does that resolution, then, en-. large the right of petition? The House did not dream of enlarging the right of petition. Will any one contend the slaves inhabiting the island of Cuba have a right, under the resolution, to petition this House? Or that it gives to the blacks planted at Liberia the right of petition? In short, does it confer the right of petition to all people? Surely not. The broadness of the resolution, then, forms no justification or excuse for the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts.

The conclusion, then, Mr. Speaker, to which my own sense of duty conducts me, is, that that honorable gentle man, by raising the question of the right of slaves to petition this House, did wrong-in fact, by so doing threw a firebrand into the House, in contempt of all its efforts to allay all excitement upon this subject, and especially of the settled judgment of the House, as expressed by the passage of the resolution of the 18th January. That he has, by his conduct in question, trifled with the House, its feelings and its character, and therefore ought to be censured. In voting for the resolution to censure that bonorable gentleman, I shall not be influenced by any unkind or unfriendly feeling towards him personally. But, sir, whilst I feel it my duty, in my representative character, to disapprove of his conduct, I shall give my vote under a lively sense of his high character for talents and learning, and of the distinguished ability with which he has discharged the important duties of the high and honorable stations which he has filled at home and abroad.

by the laws and constitution of the country. They consider that, by that glorious charter which made us one people-a free, a happy, and, I trust in God, a united people-this whole question was left to the separate, Sovereign, and independent States, who originally came into the confederacy. How far they then went, or how far they would have gone, to get rid of this feature in our system of civil polity, is not now to be considered. But, viewing it as a part and parcel of that system; springing, as it did, out of the necessities of the times; and owing its origin to the mutual concessions of our fathers, they now regard it, sir, so far as it exists within the States, as the exclusive subject of municipal State legislation. And, be it a blessing or be it a curse, they are content to leave it with the States themselves, to be regulated according as their wisdom and justice and sound policy may direct.

As the friend, then, of those on both sides of this con. troversy, standing, as it were, upon the dividing line between liberty and slavery, I would entreat gentlemen to withdraw this exciting topic of discussion. A continuance of it is worse than useless. Alienation, distrust, unkindness, are its only fruits. I would appeal to the North, that while they stand up here for the right of petition secured by the constitution, and which, I trust, they will never abandon, they would yet so exercise it as not to infringe upon the rights of others; and, as far as may be consistent with the conscientious discharge of their duty, not to wound the feelings, or, if you please, the prejudices, of their fellow-countrymen in other por tions of the Union. And I would appeal to the Southto what is often denominated on this floor.the generous South--to throw no impediment in the way of the exercise of this unquestionable privilege, unless indeed they see a clear, a settled, a determined, fixed resolution to

If the majority of this House are satisfied with the explanations of that bonorable gentleman, and think prop-interfere with their own peculiar local habits and institu

er to excuse him, they can do so. Those explanations have not satisfied me, and I shall do my duty.

Mr. MILLIGAN said that he did not rise to enter into the discussion. Far from it. His object was rather to make an effort, perhaps an unsuccessful one, to draw it

tions. That no such intention exists, on the part of the people of the North, I sincerely believe. Some few fanatics, perhaps, or misguided philanthropists, may desire it, but the great body of the population of the free States are opposed to any improper interference.

FEB. 9, 1837.]

Censure of Mr. Adams.

With regard to the original resolution, and the various amendments and substitutes which have since been offered, and which are now the immediate subject of consideration before the House, I would only remark, that they assume facts which have been distinctly denied by the honorable gentleman against whom they are alleged, and that they all propose, in relation to that distinguished and venerable man, a course of action which I am very certain but few members in this hall will be willing to adopt. For myself, sir, if I even believed that he had either said or done aught which could justly subject him to the animadversion of the House, I should ponder long, and ponder well, before I could consent to visit him with the rigor that is proposed. I should have to discard from my memory the recollection of his long and eminent public services; and forget, what I never can forget, that at one time he occupied what was once the proudest station upon earth, and discharged its duties with a moderation and a wisdom which reflected the highest honor upon himself, and glory upon his country. But, sir, I rose, as I said, not to prolong but to endeavor to arrest this painful discussion. Only a few short weeks of the present session of Congress remain. A vast amount both of public and private business is yet unacted upon. Nearly all your appropriation bills for carrying on the operations of the Government for the the current year; a proposition to readjust, or rather to break down, the tariff; a new-born project to give away the public domain; and, though last not least, a measure of contingent war with Mexico, are all in reserve. With a view, therefore, of improving the brief interval which remains anterior to our adjournment, and enabling the House to dispose of this great accumulation of business, I now move you, sir, that this whole subject be laid upon the table.

Mr. GHOLSON called for the yeas and nays on this motion.

Mr. ADAMS rose and said, that if he should say any thing now which was not strictly in accordance with the rules of the House, he hoped he would be excused, considering the position he occupied. He did not desire these resolutions to be laid on the table without being heard.

Mr. GHOLSON called Mr. ADAMS to order.

Mr. MILLIGAN said, if the gentleman from Massachusetts felt at all aggrieved by the motion to lay the resolutions on the table, he would withdraw it.

Mr. ADAMS did feel aggrieved by the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. MILLIGAN then withdrew the motion to lay the resolutions on table.

Mr. ADAMS did not wish to interrupt the deliberations of the House; but if the resolution of censure was to be passed, he wished to be heard in his own defence. If the resolution did not pass, he would then ask of the House to determine on the only question which would be then before it.

Mr. EVANS insisted that the charge of offence, on the part of the gentleman from Massachusetts, was too vague to justify a vote of censure upon him. There was nothing specific. The resolution did not set forth any thing like contempt towards the House, or even an infringement of its rules, but that he had "given color to the idea" that slaves had the right to petition. Mr. E. held that the House had the right to punish a member for a determined violation of its rules; because, otherwise, the whole business of the country might be ob. structed by a disorderly member; but no man could be punished for the expression of his honest opinions. limitation to this, such as personalities, reflections upon the past conduct of the House, &c., were expressly laid down in the lex parliamentaria. With reference to the right of slaves to petition, he said there were cases emVOL. XIII.-105

The

[H. OF R.

bracing it. It had been said, also, the slave had no constitutional rights but through his master. This was not so; and he put the cases of murder, or unprovoked assault, and that of alleged kidnapping, where his legal rights were recognised, and frequently put in force.

Mr. PICKENS explained that if the gentleman from Maine was alluding to his argument, he (Mr. P.) had not said the slave had no legal rights, but that he had no constitutional or political rights. That was a question he should like to hear the gentleman argue.

Mr. EVANS was referring to constitutional or legal rights, which he insisted had been secured to the slave. He then adverted to the general character of the petitions praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, in none of which was there found any harsh language in relation to the peculiar institutions of the South or Southern men, nor any expressed or implied wish to interfere with those institutions. There might be a few solitary exceptions, but it should be borne in mind that there was much warmth on both sides. The right of the abolitionists to petition, however, should have been respected, and their memorials continued to be received, as they formerly had been. While this was done, their numbers were few and their efforts feeble; but they had increased in numbers, and become more powerful, from the manner in which they had been treated by Congress. They contended that slavery was a great moral, social, and political evil, and was, besides, indefensible by argument; and the refusal of the House to listen to them, and argue with them, justified them, in their own opinion, in these allegations; but there was nothing insulting in this. Even that language was borrowed from Virginia; and he was about to cite some passages from the debates in that State on the adoption of the constitution, containing this declaration, when Mr. PATTON arose, and hoped the Chair would restrict the limits of the debate within the proper range of order. If the gentleman was suffered to go on in this way, it must be obvious that a debate was springing up which would be interminable.

The CHAIR reminded the House that he had several times interposed to confine the debate within the proper limits, and had repeatedly reminded gentlemen that they were taking too wide a range, but in the performance of that duty he had not been sustained by the House. As he had been called upon, however, he should enforce the rule, and take the sense of the House whether the gentleman from Maine should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. CAMBRELENG asked for the yeas and nays; giving, as a reason for so doing, that upon this vote would depend whether the business of the session should be entirely set aside or not.

The yeas and nays having been ordered, and the Chair being about to propound the question,

Mr. ELMORE wished to say one word. He was perfectly willing, if it should be the wish of the House, to hear the question fully discussed, but otherwise

Several members here rose and addressed the Chair. Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, caught the eye of the Chair, and inquired if this motion for leave was debateable.

The CHAIR believed it was not.

Mr. WISE would submit whether this was the proper mode of deciding whether a discussion was relevant or irrelevant. Was there any precedent for it? On the contrary, had not the practice heretofore been that the Chair decided whether the course of remarks of gentlemen was irrelevant; and if the gentleman objected to the decision of the Chair, that he then took an appeal? Mr. W. wished to know if the office of the Chair was not to interpose in that manner? And why had it been departed