public to protest notes, and attorneys to sue on them; all these had salaries, and good salaries, paid by the people, though the people had no hand in fixing these salaries; next, the profits to the stockholders, which, at an average of ten per centum gross, would give thirty millions of dollars, all levied upon the people; then came the profits to the brokers, first cousins to the bankers, for changing notes for money, or for other notes at par; then the gain to the banks and their friends on speculations in property, merchandise, produce, and stocks, during the periodical visitations of the expansions and contractions of the currency; then the gain from the wear and tear of notes, which is so much Toss to the people; and, finally, the great chapter of counterfeiting, which, without being profitable to the bank, is a great burden to the people, on whose hands all the counterfeits sink. The amount of these burdens he could not compute; but there was one item about which there was no dispute-the salaries to the officers and the profits to the stockholders--and this presented an array of names more numerous, and an amount of money more excessive, than was to be found in the "Blue Book," with the Army and Navy Register inclusive. Mr. B. said this was a faint sketch of the burdens of the banking system as carried on in the United States, where every bank is a coiner of paper currency, and where every town, in some States, must have its banks of circulation, while such cities as Liverpool and Manchester have no such banks, and where the paper money of all these machines receive wings to fly over the whole continent, and to infest the whole land, from their universal receivability by the Federal Government in payment of all dues at their custom-houses, land offices, post offices, and by all the district attorneys, marshals, and clerks, employed under the federal Judiciary. The improvidence of the States, in chartering such institutions, is great and deplorable; but their error was trifling, compared to the improvidence of the Federal Government in taking the paper, coinage of all these banks for the currency of the Federal Government, maugre that clause in the constitution which recognises nothing but gold and silver for currency, and which was intended forever to defend and preserve this Union from the evils of paper money. Mr. B. averred, with a perfect knowledge of the fact, that the banking system of the United States was on a worse footing than it was in any country upon the face of the earth; and that, in addition to its deep and dangerous defects, it was also the most expensive and burdensome, and gave the most undue advantages to one part of the community over another. He had no doubt but that this banking system was more burdensome to the free citizens of the United States than ever the feudal system was to the villeins, and serfs, and peasants of Europe. And what did they get in return for this vast burden? A pestiferous currency of small paper! when they might have a gold currency without paying interest, or suffering losses, if their banks, like those in Liverpool and Manchester, issued no currency except as bills of exchange; or, like the Bank of France, issued no notes but those of 500 and 1,000 francs, (say $100 and $500;) or, even like the Bank of England, issued no note under £5 sterling, and payable in gold. And with how much real capital is this banking system, so burdensome to the people of the United States, carried on? About $30,000,000! Yes; on about 30,000,000 of specie rest the 300,000,000 paid in, and on which the community are paying interest, and giving profits to bankers, and blindly yielding their faith and confidence, as if the whole 300,000,000 was a solid bed of gold and silver, instead of being, as it is, one tenth part specie, and nine tenths paper credit! [JUNE 8, 1836. Mr. B. said the reform of the banking system was a task as difficult as indispensable. The number and pow. er of the banks was the first great impediment; the quantity of independent legislation was the next; but it had been shown that the whole was under the power of Congress, and that the Federal Government could, by the collection of its own revenues, regulate the State currencies, and bring them all to the touchstone of gold. The States themselves could effect the regulation by direct legislation. It is no answer to say, "we will if the rest will." Let one begin, and let it exclude from its borders all the descriptions of notes which its own banks are forbidden to issue; that State will immediately realize the full benefit of its legislation, and others will soon follow the example. If they do not, the benefits to the reformed States will be none the less, but the greater; they will be to the rest of the States what France was to England during the reign of the one and two pound notes; the absorbent of their gold! Above all, Mr. B. said, the Congress of the United States should begin first; that Congress to whose guardian care is committed the constitution, which recognises nothing but gold and silver for money; and here, in this District, where Congress sits, and has exclusive jurisdiction, is the place to begin, and now the time, when seven banks in company have knocked all at once at our doors, and demanded, twice and thrice, renewed charters, without having undergone the investigations which their past conduct requires. Here is the place, this the authority, and now the time, to begin; and as we now act, so will be the influence of our example, for good or for evil, throughout the entire extent of the Union. When Mr. BENTON had concluded Mr. KING, of Alabama, again vindicated the bill and the banks, and urged especially the distressing results to the District of the failure of the bill, or of any great and sudden change in the currency of the District. After some farther remarks from Mr. WALKER, The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crit. tenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Leigh, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Rives, South, ard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Walker, Webster-26 NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Ewing of Illinois, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Niles, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Wall, White, Wright-14. After transacting some other business, The Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8. INDIAN APPROPRIATIONS. Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported the amendments of the House to the bill making appropriations for the expenses of the Indian Department, for Indian annuities, &c. Several of the amendments of the House were concurred in. One of the amendments of the House was an increase of the appropriation for the removal of the Creeks, so as to embrace the whole of them, being about twenty-one thousand, at thirty dollars a head. The first estimate was for twelve thousand, at a lower rate. It was asked of the chairman of the committee if it was possible to effect this operation of removing the Creeks during the present year, and the reply was, that if they could be got into the humor, their removal might be effected before the next meeting of Congress. While this amendment was pending, on motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the further consideration of the subject was arrested, by a motion made by Mr. CALHOUN to lay the whole matter on the table; which was agreed to. JUNE 8, 1836.] INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS. Incendiary Publications. On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the Senate then proceeded to consider the bill to prohibit deputy postmasters from receiving and transmitting certain papers described therein, in the States in which they are, or may be, prohibited by law. [The following is a copy of the bill: Be it enacted, &c., That it shall not be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, Territory, or District of the United States, knowingly to deliver to any person whatever, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, Territory, or District, their circulation is prohibited; and any deputy postmaster who shall be guilty thereof shall be forthwith removed from office. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That nothing in the acts of Congress to establish and regulate the Post Office Department shall be construed to protect any deputy postmaster, mail carrier, or other officer or agent of said Department, who shall knowingly circulate, in any State, Territory, or District, as aforesaid, any such pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, forbidden by the laws of such State, Territory, or District. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the deputy postmasters of the offices where the pamphlets, newspapers, handbills, or other printed papers or pictorial representations aforesaid, may arrive for delivery, shall, under the instructions of the Postmaster General, from time to time give notice of the same, so that they may be withdrawn by the person who deposited them originally to be mailed; and if the same shall not be withdrawn in one month thereafter, shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.] The question being on the passage of the billMr. WEBSTER addressed the Senate at length in opposition to the bill, commencing his argument against what he contended was its vagueness and obscurity, in not sufficiently defining what were the publications the circulation of which it intended to prohibit. The bill provided that it should not be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, Territory, or District of the United States, knowingly to deliver to any person whatever, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, District, or Territory, their circulation was prohibited. Under this provision, Mr. W. contended that it was impossible to say what publications might not be prohibited from circulation. No matter what was the publication, whether for or against slavery, if it touched the subject in any shape or form, it would fall under the prohibition. Even the constitution of the United States might be prohibited; and the person who was clothed with the power to judge in this delicate matter was one of the deputy postmasters, who, notwithstanding the difficulties with which he was encompassed in coming to a correct decision, must decide correctly, under pain of being removed from office. It would be necessary, also, he said, for the deputy postmasters referred to in this bill to make themselves acquainted with all the various laws passed by the States, touching the subject of slavery, and to decide on them, no matter how variant they might be with each other. Mr. W. also contended that the bill conflicted with that provision in the constitution which prohibited Congress from passing any law to abridge the freedom of speech or of the press. What was the liberty of the press? he asked. It was the liberty of printing as well as the liberty of publishing, in all the ordinary modes of publication; and was not the circulation of papers through the mails an ordinary mode of publication? He was afraid [SENATE. that they were in some danger of taking a step in this matter that they might hereafter have cause to regret, by its being contended that whatever in this bill applies to publications touching slavery, applies to other publi cations that the States might think proper to prohibit; and Congress might, under this example, be called upon to pass laws to suppress the circulation of political, religious, or any other description of publications which produced excitement in the States. Was this bill in accordance with the general force and temper of the constitution and its amendments? It was not in accordance with that provision of the instrument under which the freedom of speech and of the press was secured. Whatever laws the State Legislatures might pass on the subject, Congress was restrained from legislating in any manner whatever, with regard to the press. It would be admitted, that if a newspaper came directed to him, he had a property in it; and how could any man, then, take that property and burn it without due form of law? and he did not know how this newspaper could be pronounced an unlawful publication, and having no proper ty in it, without a legal trial. Mr. W. argued against the right to examine into the nature of publications sent to the post office, and said that the right of an individual in his papers was secured to him in every free country in the world. In England, it was expressly provided that the papers of the subject shall be free from all unreasonable searches and seizures language, he said, to be found in our constitution. This principle established in England, so essential to liberty, had been followed out in France, where the right of printing and publishing was secured in the fullest extent; the individual publishing being amenable to the laws for what he published; and every man printed and published what he pleased, at his peril. Mr. W. went on at some length to show that the bill was contrary to that provision of the constitution which prohibits Congress to pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Mr. BUCHANAN said that, as he had voted for the engrossment of this bill, and should vote for its final passage, he felt himself bound to defend and justify his vote against the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER.] In doing so, he would imitate that Senator, if in no other respect, at least in being brief. It is indispensable to the clear and distinct understanding of any argument, to know precisely what is the question under discussion. Without this knowledge, we cannot tell whether in my or in what degree the argument is applicable to the subject. What, then, is the naked question now under discussion, stripped of all the mist which has been cast around it? This bill embraced but a single principle, though this principle was carried out through three sections. It provides that deputy postmasters, within the limits of such slaveholding States as have found it necessary for their own safety to pass laws making it penal to circulate inflammatory publications and pictorial representations, calculated to excite the slaves to insurrection, shall not be protected by the laws of the United States, in violating these State laws. Postmasters within these States, who shall knowingly distribute such publications, are liable to be removed from office. The bill also provides that the post office laws of the United States shall not protect postmasters, mail carriers, or other officers or agents of the Department, who shall knowingly circulate such incendiary publications, from the penalties denounced against this offence under the laws of the States. This is the spirit and principle of the bill. It does no more than to withdraw the protection of the laws of the United States, establishing the Post Office Department, from postmasters and other agents of this Government who shall wilfully transgress State laws deemed absolutely necessary to secure the States, within which they exist, from servile insurrection. This bill did not affect, in the slightest degree, any of the non-slaveholding States. Neither did it apply to any of the slaveholding States, except those within which the danger of insurrection had become so imminent as to compel them to pass laws of the character referred to in the bill. [JUNE 8, 1836. him every thing he may choose to publish? This is the question. Any gentleman upon this floor may write what he thinks proper against my character; but because he can exercise this liberty, am I therefore bound to carry and to circulate what he has written? So any individual within the broad limits of this Union, without previous restraint and without danger of punishment from the Federal Government, may publish what is calculated to aid and assist the enemies of the country in Of the policy and justice of passing such a bill he open war; but does it follow, as a necessary conse could not doubt, provided we possess the power. No quence, that this very Government is bound to carry and person would contend that this Government ought to be- circulate such publications through its mails? A more come the instrument of exciting insurrection within any perfect non sequitur never had been presented to his of the States, unless we were constrained to pursue this mind. It was one thing not to restrain or punish pub. course by an overruling constitutional necessity. The lications; it was another and an entirely different thing question then is, Does any such necessity exist? Are we to carry and circulate them after they have been pubbound by the constitution of the United States, through lished. The one is merely passive, the other is active. our post offices, to circulate publications among the It was one thing to leave our citizens entirely free to slaves, the direct tendency of which is to excite their pas-print and publish and circulate what they pleased, and sions and rouse them to insurrection? Have we no power it was another thing to call upon us to aid in their cirto stay our hand in any case? Even if a portion of this culation. From the prohibition to make any law Union were in a state of open rebellion against the United "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," it States, must we aid and assist the rebels, by communica- could never be inferred that we must provide by law ting to them, through our Post Office Department, such for the circulation through the post office of every thing publications and information as may encourage and pro- which the press might publish. And yet this is the armote their designs against the very existence of the con- gument both of the Senator from Massachusetts and the federacy itself? If the constitution of the United States Senator from South Carolina. If this argument were has placed us in this deplorable condition, we must yield well founded, it was very clear to his mind, that no State to its mandates, no matter what may be the conse- law could confer upon Congress any power to pass this quences. bill. We derived our powers from the federal constitu tion, and from that alone. If under its provisions we had no authority to pass the bill, we could derive no such authority from the laws of the States. Mr. B. did not believe that the constitution placed us in any such position. Our power over the mails was as broad and general as any words in the English language could confer. The constitution declares that "Congress shall have power to establish post offices and post roads." This is the only provision which it contains touching the subject. After the establishment of these post offices and post roads, who shall decide upon the purposes for which they shall be used? He answered, Congress, and Congress alone. There was no limitation, no restriction whatever, upon our discretion contained in the bond. We have the power to decide what shall and what shall not be carried in the mail, and what shall be the rates of postage. He freely admitted that, unless in extreme cases, where the safety of the republic was involved, we should never exercise this power of discrimination between what papers should and should not be circulated through the mail. The constitution, however, has conferred upon us this general power, probably for the very purpose of meeting these extreme cases; and it is one which, from its delicate nature, we shall not be likely to abuse. Why, then, did Mr. B. vote for a bill to prevent the circulation of publications prohibited by State laws? Not because we derived any power from these laws; but, under the circumstances, they contained the best rule to guide us in deciding what publications were dangerous. The States were the best judges of what was necessary for their own safety and protection; and they would not call for the passage of this bill, unless they were firmly convinced that the situation in which they were placed imperiously demanded it. They were willing to submit to a great evil in depriving themselves of infor mation which might be valuable to them, in order to avoid the still greater evil that would result from the circulation of these publications and pictorial representations among their slaves. Such a law would not be permitted to exist after the necessity for it had ended. He was therefore willing, upon this occasion, to refer to the laws of the States, not for the purpose of conferring any power on Congress, but merely for a descripHe differed entirely from the report of the Senator tion of the publications which it should be unlawful for from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] as to the source our deputy postmasters within these States to circulate. whence the power was derived to pass this bill. No This bill was in strict conformity with the recommen action of the State Legislatures could either confer it or dations contained in the President's message on this subtake it away. It was perfect and complete in itself un-ject, which had, he believed, found favor every where. der the federal constitution, or it had no existence. With The principles of this message, which had been prothat Senator he entirely concurred in opinion, that the nounced unconstitutional by the Senator from South sedition law was clearly unconstitutional. Congress have Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] had, be believed, been highly no power to abridge the freedom of the press, or to pass commended in a resolution passed by the Legislature of any law to prevent or to punish any publication whatthat State. He would read an extract from the President's message: ever, He understood the freedom of the press to mean precisely what the Senator from Massachusetts had stated. But does it follow, as the gentleman contends, that because we have no power over the press, that therefore we are bound to carry and distribute any thing and every thing which may proceed from it, even if it should be calculated to stir up insurrection or to destroy the Government? So far as this Government is concerned, every person may print, and publish, and circulate, whatever he pleases; but are we therefore compelled to become his agents, and to circulate for "In connexion with these provisions in relation to the Post Office Department, I must also invite your attention to the painful excitement produced in the South by attempts to circulate through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints and in various sorts of publications, calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of servile war. "There is, doubtless, no respectable portion of our countrymen who can be so far misled as to feel any other sentiment than that of indignant regret at conduct so destructive of the harmony and peace of the country, and so repugnant to the principles of our national compact, and to the dictates of humanity and religion. Our happiness and prosperity essentially depend upon peace within our borders-and peace depends upon the maintenance, in good faith, of those compromises of the constitution upon which the Union is founded. It is fortunate for the country that the good sense, the generous feeling, and the deep-rooted attachment of the people of the non-slaveholding States to the Union, and to their fellow-citizens of the same blood in the South, have given so strong and impressive a tone to the sentiments entertained against the proceedings of the misguided persons who have engaged in these unconstitutional and wicked attempts, and especially against the emissaries from foreign parts who have dared to interfere in this matter, as to authorize the hope that those attempts will no longer be persisted in. But if these expressions of the public will shall not be sufficient to effect so desirable a result, not a doubt can be entertained that the non-slaveholding States, so far from countenancing the slightest interference with the constitutional rights of the South, will be prompt to exercise their authority in suppressing, so far as in them lies, whatever is calculated to produce this evil. "In leaving the care of other branches of this interesting subject to the State authorities, to whom they properly belong, it is nevertheless proper for Congress to take such measures as will prevent the Post Office Department, which was designed to foster an amicable intercourse and correspondence between all the mem. bers of the confederacy, from being used as an instrument of an opposite character. The General Government, to which the great trust is confided of preserving inviolate the relations created among the States by the constitution, is especially bound to avoid, in its own action, any thing that may disturb them. I would, therefore, call the special attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." In reply to Mr. WEBSTER, Mr. B. said that he did not think there was any vagueness in that part of the bill on which the gentleman had commented, except what arose from the nature of the subject. It is vague, says the gentleman, because it contains no description of the publications the circulation of which it intends to prohibit, except the words "touching the subject of slavery." On this foundation he had erected a considerable portion of his argument. Mr. B. acknowledged that if the bill contained no other description than this, it would be impossible to carry it into execution. this was not the fact. The subsequent language restricted this vague description; because it confined the operation of the bill to such publications only, "touching the subject of slavery," as were prohibited from circulation by the laws of the respective States. But [SENATE. postmasters were resident citizens of those States. They were bound to know the State laws under which they lived; and all that this bill requires is, that they shall not violate them. The Senator from Massachusetts has contended that any newspaper which had been sent to an individual by mail, and was deposited in a post office, was his property; and we had, therefore, no right to say it should not be delivered. But this was begging the question. It was taking that for granted which remained to be proved. If Congress, as he (Mr. B.) had contended, possessed the incontestable power of declaring what should and what should not be circulated through the mails, no man could have the right to demand from any post office that which the law had declared should not thus be circulated. If we can, without violating the constitution, say that these inflammatory publications, tending to excite servile war, shall not be distributed by our postmasters among the individuals to whom they are directed, no question of property could then arise. No man can have a property in that which is a violation of law. It then becomes a question, not of property, but of public safety. Admit the gentleman's premises, that we have no right to pass any law upon this subject, and he can establish his position that a property exists in those publications whilst in the post offices. Without this admission his argument entirely fails. He felt as reluctant as any man could feel, to vote for any law interfering with the circulation through the mails of any publication whatever, no matter what might be its character. But if the slaves within any southern State were in rebellion, or if a palpable and well-founded danger of such a rebellion existed, with his present convictions, should he refuse to prevent the circulation of publications tending to encourage or excite insurrection, he would consider himself an accomplice in their guilt. He entertained no doubt whatever of the power of Congress to pass this bill, or of the propriety of exercising that power. He would not have voted for the bill which had been reported by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] because he thought it a measure far beyond what was required by the neces sity of the case. This bill, whilst it was sufficiently strong to correct the evil, would be confined in its operations to those States within which the danger existed. Mr. DAVIS stated at length his objections to the passage of the bill. Senators assumed that there were no difficulties in the way, because the post office power gave to Congress the right to decide what should be carried in the mails. On a former occasion, he had said all that was proper in regard to this matter. He then drew the attention of the Senate to the constitutional question involved, and demonstrated, as he thought, that there was no authority in the constitution to pass this bill, or any thing like it. The language of the constitution was very simple: it only said that Congress should have the power to establish post offices and post roads. Now, what was a post office, in the meaning of the constitution? To understand this, it would be necessary to ascertain what was the meaning held at the time We have (said Mr. B.) wisely and properly referred, the constitution was adopted. You had a post office at for the description of the offence, to the laws of the dif- the time the constitution was made, and a press also; ferent States which will be embraced by the bill. It and the provision in the constitution was made in referwas just, it was politic, it was treating those States ence to both these known things. The object in estabwith a proper degree of respect, to make our law con- lishing the post office, then, was to send abroad intelliform with their laws, and thus to take care that no con- gence throughout the country; and it was intended for flict should arise between our deputy postmasters and the transmission of newspapers, pamphlets, judicial and their State authorities. Could the gentleman from Mas-legislative proceedings, and all matters emanating from sachusetts himself make the bill more explicit? He the press, relating to politics, literature, and science, could not do it, consistently with the principles upon and for the transmission of private letters. It would be, which it was founded, without incorporating into its therefore, in his opinion, in conflict with the provision provisions all the laws of all the States who had thought of the constitution giving Congress the power to estabproper to pass laws upon this subject. Our deputylish the post office, as well as an abridgment of the freedom of the press, to carry into effect the provisions of the bill. The Senator from Pennsylvania reiterated the argument used the other day by his friend from Georgia, that you have no right to diffuse publications through the ageney of the post office, for the purpose of exciting a servile war. Now, let me tell the gentleman (said Mr. D.) that this is an old argument against the liberty of the press, and that it has been used whenever it was thought necessary to establish a censorship over it. The public morals were said to be in danger; it was necessary to prevent licentiousness, tumult, and sedition; and the public good required that the licentiousness of the press should be restrained. All these were the plausible pretences under which the freedom of the press had been violated in all ages. Now, they knew that the press was at all times corrupt; but when they came to decide the question whether the tares should be rooted up, and the wheat along with it, those who had decided in favor of liberty had always decided that it was better to put up with a lesser evil than to draw down upon themselves one of such fearful magnitude as must result from the destruction of the press. Mr. D. contended that the power to be given to the deputy postmasters to decide what should and what should not be distributed from the post office, gave them a dangerous discretion over a very delicate matter, and that the power was one highly susceptible of abuse, and always liable to misconstruction. [JUNE 8, 1836. asked, be made more specific? When the publication Mr. CLAY said that he considered this bill totally unnecessary and uncalled-for by public sentiment; and in this he differed with the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN;] for he believed that the President's message on the subject had met with general disapprobation; that it was unconstitutional; and, if not so, that it contained a principle of a most dangerous and alarming character. When he saw that the exercise of the most extraordinary and dangerous power had been assumed by the head of the Post Office, and that it had been sustained by this message, he turned his attention to the subject, and inquired whether it was necessary that the General Government should, under any circumstances, exercise such a power, and whether he possessed it; and, after much reflection, he had come to the conclusion that they could not pass any law interfering with the subject in any shape or form what Mr. GRUNDY observed that this bill was intended simply to prevent any officer of the Government, who should violate the laws of the States in which he resided, from sheltering himself under the post office law. As the bill now stood, the objections with regard to abridging the freedom of the press had no application whatever. There was no provision in the bill interfering with the printing or publishing any matter whatever, nor was it even pretended that Congress possessed the power of doing so. It was not even said that certain publications, no matter how incendiary in their character, should not be deposited in the post office and transmitted through the mails. Therefore, all the objections The evil complained of was the circulation of papers that he had heard to the bill fell to the ground. In this having a certain tendency. The papers, unless circulated, bill the Government simply said to the individual in its did no harm, and while in the post office or in the mail employ, "We will not help you to do an act in violation they were not circulated-it was a circulation solely which of the laws of the State in which you live." That was constituted the evil. It was the taking them out of the the ground on which the bill was framed, and it could mail, and the use that was to be made of them, that constinot be pretended that this was an abridgment of the tuted the mischief. Then it was perfectly competent to the liberty of the press. It was only the Government de-State authorities to apply the remedy. The instant that clining to assist an individual in the violation of the law, and that was the whole bill. The Government under the constitution had an entire control of the Post Office Department. It had the power to regulate what matters should be carried through the mails, and what should not. We say to every body that to these slaveholding States you may transmit through the mails what you please; but if you transmit to one of our officers what is prohibited by the laws of the State in which he resides, we shall say to that officer, you shall not put on the mantle of the Government to assist you in the violation of that law; you shall be subject to the penalties of the State laws, besides removal from office. In fact, there was not the slightest pretext for saying that this bill violated in the remost degree the freedom of the press. Nothing should be carried in the mails but what was proper for transmission through them; but if there was any thing sent through them tending to excite insurrection and bloodshed, how could there be an objection to the passage of a law, saying that it should not be delivered out from the post office. The gentleman from Massachusetts objected to the vagueness of the bill in saying what shall not be distributed from the post offices. How could the matter, he ever. a prohibited paper was handed out, whether to a citizen or sojourner, he was subject to the laws which might compel him either to surrender them or burn them. He considered the bill not only unnecessary, but as a law of a dangerous, if not a doubtful, authority. It was objected that it was vague and indefinite in its character; and how is that objection got over? The bill provided that it shall not be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, Territory, or District of the United States, knowingly to deliver to any person whatever, ay pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, Territory, or District, their circulation is prohibited. Now, what could be more vague and indefinite than this description? Now, could it be decided, by this description, what publications should be withheld from distribution? The gentleman from Pennsylvania said that the laws of the States would supply the omission. He thought the Senator was premature in saying that there would be precision in State laws, before he showed it by produ cing the law. He had seen no such law, and he did not know whether the description in the bill was applicable or not. There was another objection to this part of the |