DEC. 18, 1835.]

[H. of R.

usual; that spirit was abroad in the land, and it was left for the representatives of the people to meet it. Mr. REED called the gentleman to order, as his remarks were not pertinent to the question before the House.

The SPEAKER replied that he had not so stated. When the gentleman from South Carolina first submitted his motion, the Chair stated that he was not aware of any such motion having been made in that House during the period the individual occupying the Chair had been a member; that it was new to him at the moment. The Chair, however, did not feel authorized to say the motion should not be entertained; but if it was, he then decided that the motion to lay on the table would have precedence; or that if the motion to reject was received by itself, it was not debatable, because, under the rule of the House, it must lie over one day, unless the House should direct otherwise.

Mr. GLASCOCK had misapprehended the Chair, and would conclude by calling upon the House, that, as they had given one decided vote on the question before, they should not repeat it in the same way, but change their course, and reject the petition altogether.

Mr. HAMMOND would read to the House the rule under which he thought it was entirely competent for him to make the motion-it was this: "When any motion or proposition is made, the question, Will the House now consider it? shall not be put, unless it is demanded by some member, or is deemed necessary by the Speaker." Now, the motion he made was a demand by him upon the Speaker to put the question, whether the petition should be considered or not; and it was a motion any member of the House had a right to put, according to the rules. His reason for making the motion was not that he wished to enter into a discussion of this subject, though he did not fear it, and would never shrink from it, but because he did not wish to disturb that House, nor harass the country, by allowing such petitions to come there. Still he could not sit there, and allow petition after petition to pour in, until they became callous to the subject. He could not sit there, and see the rights of the South assailed, day after day, by ignorant fanatics, without calling upon that House to put the stamp of reprobation upon such conduct.

The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman that the merits of the whole question were not open on a mere question of order.

Mr. HAMMOND would confine himself by saying that if the House should decide that the motion to lay on the table has preference, he would then move that the petition be laid on the table till to-morrow, in order to call it up and move to reject it.

Mr. PEYTON had hoped, and yet hoped, that gentlemen would not give up the motion. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. GLASCOCK] was mistaken. There had been no decisive vote yet given upon this question. There had been an evasive vote given upon it. Had not Mr. P. sat by and seen gentlemen who voted differently at the last session of Congress, now voting in favor of Jaying the petition on the table? But these firebrands were cast upon the House now at an earlier day than VOL. XII.-124

Mr. PEYTON said he was assigning reasons for sus taining the motion for the decision of the House at that time, pursuant to the demand made by the honorable member from South Carolina. He hoped they should be permitted to meet this question at its beginning in some shape or other. Now, it struck him with great force, that when a petition was presented containing matter improper for legislation, that the House ought to re

on the table for one day. Consequently the question of its reception or rejection must, as a matter of necessity, be first decided, and that brought prompt action upon the whole question. He would repeat that he wished a more decisive vote, and one that would ascertain the wishes, the views, and the feelings of gentlemen upon it; and if they met it, he would say, with the gentleman from Georgia, that it would be decisive. Another reason why it should be acted upon in the present stage, before the consideration of it, was, that it asked Congress to do what every man in the country knew it had no power to do. Suppose a petition were sent there, praying the House to break down our republican form of government, and erect a monarchy upon its ruins, would any one say the House had the power to act upon such a petition? And had the House more power in the present case? Was not the first question to be decided before the petition could be laid on the table? He thought, therefore, the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina the proper one, and that it must neces sarily have precedence of all others; and he desired to consider it, and to consider it at once. It would then be seen whether gentlemen would encourage their constituents every where to send there such floods of these petitions as would cover the tables of that hall like the locusts of Egypt, for such would be the result in twelve months. Those gentlemen who had not made up their minds to meet this question, in any and every shape in which it would be presented, must take the responsibility. He wanted no evasive votes. He wanted no propositions to lay on the table. He met the question fully at once, by saying that House had no power whatever to interfere with the question. For these reasons, he should vote for sustaining the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SLADE raised a question of order as to debating the question of order under consideration. The petition itself, said Mr. S., could not be debated upon the day of its presentation; and this principle, he understood, carried along with it a principle which would prohibit any discussion on the motion to reject, or the appeal from the decision of the Chair, then before the House; and the motion to lay on the table could not be debata. ble. Under these circumstances, he thought no motion connected with this petition could be debated that day, and he therefore submitted whether it did not follow that the appeal from the decision of the Chair, on this subject, could not be debated.

The SPEAKER said an appeal from his decision, as a question of appeal, was certainly debatable, although the motions out of which that appeal rose were not.

Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, could assure the House that he was not disposed to avoid this question in any form or shape; and he hoped, while he had the honor of a seat there, he should be prepared to meet it whenever it might come, and wherever it might come from. He had submitted his motion because he thought the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina could not then be put; but if the House decided it could, Mr. G.

would withdraw his motion to lay the petition on the table. The motion to reject came up with the motion to refer the petition to a select committee; the former, as he understood, not being entertained, or not in order, it was then that Mr. G. moved to lay the petition on the table.

Mr. BEARDSLEY asked whether the appeal from the decision of the Chair went only to the rejection of the petition, or also to the question of laying it on the table.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WILLIAMS] had taken an appeal from both.

Mr. WILLIAMS understood the Chair to decide that the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, whether the petition should be considered, or whether it should be received, was not in order. Now, Mr. W. contended, with all due respect, that when a petition is presented, if any member choose to demand it, he could require the preliminary question to be put, Shall the petition be received? I understood the Chair to decide that the question could not be put.

The SPEAKER replied that the Chair had distinctly stated that, upon a moment's reflection, he admitted

[DEC. 18, 1835.

Mr. HAMMOND asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. WISE rose to a point of order. It seemed to him, according to the usual action of the House, that the motion of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] must be out of order. A motion was made originally to reject the petition; whereupon a motion was then made to lay the petition on the table; but being with drawn, the question then came upon the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, instanter. The motion, therefore, to lay that motion on the table was out of order, because the House had decided it would immedi ately consider the motion to reject.

The SPEAKER said that the House had decided they would consider the petition now; but, pending the consideration, the House may decide to lay on the table; and therefore the motion was in order.

Mr. WISE would ask the Chair if there was any pendency of consideration in a motion to consider.

The SPEAKER said, pending the consideration of a question, it was competent for any member to move to lay the matter on the table.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then there is no question of appeal.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said, as there was no question of appeal pending, but two motions, one to reject and the other to lay the petition on the table, both of which would lie over till to-morrow, he would move that the House proceed at once to decide the last motion, which took precedence.

The question was then put, whether the House would consider the petition now; and it was agreed to.

Mr. GARLAND said, as the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina to reject was then in order, he would withdraw his motion to lay the petition on the table.

Mr. BEARDSLEY renewed it.

Mr. HAMMOND rose to request the gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] to withdraw his motion. He expressed his surprise that, but a moment ago, when the motion to lay on the table, made by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GARLAND,] was before the House, he [Mr. BEARDSLEY] had expressed his desire to have a direct, "unentangled" vote on the proposition to reject. Yet now, when the gentleman from Virginia withdraws his motion, he instantly renews it.

Mr. PATTON asked if the Chair considered the petition to have been received.

The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative.

Mr. PATTON understood that if the motion to consider prevailed, it was distinctly declared that the motion to receive or not receive the petition would be in order. That was a competent motion, which any member of the House had a right to make. Now, it was understood as having been received; the proposition not to receive is thereby cut off. That seemed to be the effect. If that be the effect-and if it be the effect the House did not intend to produce—he trusted the House would put itself in statu quo; and that they should have an opportunity of putting a direct vote upon it. If that was the state of the question, Mr. P. would feel himself compelled to move a reconsideration of the vote thus taken.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said the right to petition was a sacred right, guarantied to the citizens of the United States by the constitution, and was one, therefore, the House was bound to respect. To obviate the objections urged by the gentleman, he would withdraw his motion to lay the petition on the table, and move to lay the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina, to reject the petition, on the table.

made.

Mr. VINTON begged to inquire of the Chair, as it would govern his vote, if the motion to lay on the table the motion to reject prevailed, whether the petition would also go on the table; or what would be the pending question.

The CHAIR understood that, by an affirmative vote on the motion to lay the motion to reject on the table, the petition also would go on the table with it.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said, as gentlemen seemed to feel some embarrassment in voting upon this proposition, though he himself did not, he would withdraw his last motion, and renew the other to lay the petition on the table.

Mr. WISE asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. JANES asked for the reading of the petition; and it was read from the Clerk's table.

Mr. THOMAS said he was surprised to discover that there are gentlemen who are not content with the evidence which has already been given that a very large majority of this House are opposed to any interference whatever, not only with the rights of slaveholders in the southern States, but with the existence of slavery within the District of Columbia. We have already laid on the table, by a vote of nearly three to one, two memorials similar to the one now under consideration. But gentlemen say those votes are equivocal; they wish to have direct proof that the rights of slaveholders are not in danger from any interference on the part of Congress. Mr. T. said that he did not concur in this opinion. The vote to lay on the table had been given to signify a decided opposition to the prayer of the petitioners; nevertheless, he would make a motion which would, he thought, place this subject before the House in a position to afford an opportunity to remove all misapprehension which really existed, and deprive every man every where of all pretext for maintaining that southern property and southern rights are in danger.

Mr. T. then moved to reconsider the vote just given by the House in favor of considering this pétition, and said, if this motion is adopted, we shall then have this petition before us in the position in which it was placed when first presented to the House. In the vote given in favor of considering this memorial, many members had been undoubtedly taken by surprise. Some members who are in favor of rejecting this and other similar memorials, and others who are in favor of receiving and then laying on the table this and all petitions of like im

port, united in the vote which he had moved to reconsider. This strange combination could not have been created without a mistake somewhere. Gentlemen must have supposed that by the adoption of the motion to consider this memorial, the difficulty which has arisen by reason of the decision of the Chair would alone be removed and that, instead of postponing until to-morrow all action on this subject, we would now proceed to dispose of it, either by a vote to reject or to lay it on the table.

I am not disposed, Mr. Speaker, to afford unnecessarily an opportunity to discuss here the relative rights of master and slave. As one of the representatives of a slaveholding State, I would never provoke an examination here calculated to create false hopes in the minds of an ignorant and stupid population. We have been told, I know not how truly, that great and general excitement has already been produced in some of the southern States, by the circulation of a few fanatical pamphlets. If this be true, is it not madness, worse than madness, to struggle to elicit evidence that there is in that House any one man willing to re-echo the sentiment which these incendiary publications contain? I have been opposed, sir, to all discussion on this subject, and accordingly have voted repeatedly in the two preceding Congresses to lay on the table every proposition calculated to elicit useless and angry debate. And I have been, and am, grateful to the representatives from the North and West, where slavery does not exist, for their cordial and earnest effort to extinguish every firebrand which has been thrown in here, either in the form of speeches or petitions, tending to destroy the broad foundation on which our Union rests. But is it not obvious that our exertions have not been crowned with complete success? In the last two Congresses, the petitions of the abolitionists were laid on the table, as an evidence of our reprobation of their objects; notwithstanding, at the present session we have already received those petitions, and shall probably have to dispose of several more. These fanatical crusaders against evils abroad, who have, no doubt, vices enough at their own doors to exhaust, in their correction, that overflowing Christian charity of which they boast so much and manifest so little, nothing daunted, continue to pour their poisons into that national chalice, from which the whole people of the United States have so long quaffed the sweet waters of concord and Union. Now, what is to be done? For one, I am prepared to meet directly every question connected with these memorials. I am willing to follow the precedent set by Congress on another question. The opponents of a Sunday mail petitioned Congress; their memorials were rejected, because their object was unreasonable; they persisted, and their numbers increased; the House of Representatives finally referred all those petitions to a select committee; from which emanated one of the most masterly state papers which has ever been published in the country. It was addressed to the understanding, not to the passions, of the American people; and there was a response from all quarters to its cogent, persuasive, and conclusive reasoning. Its arguments were unanswered and are unanswerable; and the petitioners were silenced. The oil was spread over the troubled waters, and the turbulent waves became still.

Gentlemen say we must prevent any discussion on the subject of these memorials, because they must inevitably disturb the harmony of our Union. There was a time when the force of this reason could be fully felt by all. But has not that time gone by? Without our agency, indeed in defiance of all precautions on the part of Congress, the power and purpose of the General Government to interfere with the question of slavery has been, and will be, discussed in every newspaper, in every periodical publication, from Maine to Missouri. It is a gross error to suppose that this House can, by a mere

sea.

[H. or R.

sic volo, give law to the people of the United States. The members of this House are not in positions stable enough for that. To attempt it would be as vain as the effort of Xerxes to chain with links of iron the surging Our march is not to be always on the mountain wave of popular opinion. We are here to-day--we are gone to-morrow; and must return to our respective places in that great deep, that vast hall of legislation, the confines of which are coextensive with the boundaries of the Union, and there assist those who are now our constituents, to fashion and form that public opinion, which must ever direct and control the whole operations of this Government.

"Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne, We rise, we break, and to the sea return.' Assuming these positions to be true, how ought the members of this House to act on the present occasion? To decide that question satisfactorily for myself, has been, until to-day, a difficult task. Twice, during the present session, I have voted to lay on the table petitions from the abolitionists. This was done under the impression that such a proceeding would be entirely satisfactory to the whole southern delegation. The large majority of northern and western votes by which it was done, too, was hailed by me as evidence conclusive that there is no disposition in these sections of the Union to do any act calculated to disturb the harmony of our Union. To-day we are told that the vote to lay on the table is an equivocal act. That it has been resorted to to afford an opportunity to pretending enemies of abolition to conceal their future purposes. Sir, is it right and proper, under these circumstances, to persevere in the course which has been heretofore pursued? If gentlemen on this floor can be so far misled as to suppose there is a lurking intention in the mind of any member to turn loose an ignorant and helpless population to pillage and plunder, in what condition will you leave many of the constituents of gentlemen who are remote from the scene of action? Will they not be in a proper condition to become the instruments of the designing? May not rash and misguided men, in one extreme of the Union, engender those suspicions and distrusts which will be necessarily destructive of all the ends for which this Government was established? And may not the headstrong fanatics of the North be furnished with the means of increasing their paltry numbers by inculcating the belief that their nefarious purposes are but postponed? In my humble opinion, if we refuse to act decidedly, to meet all questions connected with this unpleasant subject directly, we shall furnish the enemies of our peace and Union with a most dangerous weapon. We shall supply the means to faction and fanaticism to agitate the whole country. And the day may come when these few and furious destroyers of this country's happiness and glory will have produced real, not as it is now, imaginary, in the North-not as it is now, a very limited, but an extensive excitement--which will sweep in waves to the very walls of that constitutional temple in which our fathers fondly hoped they had garnered up so many bright hopes and so many blessings for this magnificent confederacy.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared now to meet the responsibilities which circumstances have imposed upon us. I am prepared to vote for the reception of the petition, and of all other memorials of similar character; and am ready to vote against laying them on the table; to declare distinctly that the prayers of these petitioners are unreasonable, and ought not to be granted.

Mr. ROBERTSON asked for the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered.

Mr. HOPKINS said that they were very much embarrassed, and it occurred to him that there was but one conceivable mode by which they could be relieved from

that embarrassment. He understood that, by the rule of the House, upon the presentation of petitions, unless the question is required to be put by a member of the House, or by the Speaker, that the same is received as a matter of course; in other words, received by a vote of the House, sub silentio. If this be the fact, then, this petition had been received. It seemed to him that the best mode would be to throw the petition back again to the point where it was left by the gentleman who presented it; and, in order to do that, he would propose to move a reconsideration of the vote of the House by which the petition was received. He would go farther back than the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] and move a reconsideration of the vote of the House whereby the petition had been received. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, said his colleague would be satisfied, upon a moment's reflection, that no benefit could result from such a motion. It was the constitutional right of the people of this country to petition to that House, and no vote was ever taken on receiving a petition. When an honorable representative rose and presented a petition, it was received; and the first question which any member had a right to demand, was, that it be considered. If the House determine not to consider it, they are to determine at once; and that he understood to be the point in their proceedings at which it was the object of the gentleman from Maryland to arrive; and Mr. M. hoped the gentleman's motion would be adopted. He had hoped that, after the proceedings which had already taken place in that House, there would have been a general acquiescence in the only, if not the express sense of the House, by an overwhelm ing majority, not to entertain such petitions as that under consideration. The only mode in which there could be a more direct sense of the House on the subject was by adopting the motion of the gentleman from Maryland; and then, if it be the pleasure of the majority of the House not to consider the petition, and so to determine at once, there the matter would end; and he hoped the motion would be adopted, and then that the House would determine not to consider the petition.

Mr. BEARDSLEY was satisfied that most of the difficulty arose from misconception. The honorable member from South Carolina desired to have a direct vote of the House upon the motion to reject, or not to receive, the petition under consideration. Other gentlemen, who agreed with the gentleman from Virginia, who last addressed the Chair, said they would not vote in the affirmative on such a question, because it was in violation of the rights of the people of this country to petition upon all subjects; and the House of Representatives was bound to receive their petitions. When received, it was true the House might decline acting on them, or might dispose of them in a variety of ways. For himself, (Mr. B. said,) the House having received this petition, he was ready to give a direct vote upon it, a vote that should mark the opinion of the House upon the character of such petitions, by saying affirmatively that they would not consider it. If that would meet the views of honorable gentlemen, he was willing to modify his motion to lay on the table, and to move that the House would not consider the petition, or would reject its prayer; although laying it on the table he thought equivalent to either of the modifications indicated.

All Mr. B. desired was to preserve the right of their constituents to petition; a sacred and invaluable right, guarantied to them under the constitution, and the exercise of which the House was bound to treat with respect. If the petition were in insulting terms, they might send it back; but if their constituents sent them one that was respectful in its language, but of whose prayer they entirely disapproved, let them lay it on the table, or reject its prayer. If any gentleman supposed

[DEC. 18, 1835.

that a vote of the House not to consider this petition, and all other petitions of the same character, would more distinctly mark the reprobation of the House, then Mr. B. would with great pleasure modify his motion. Why, then, should they reconsider, as proposed by the motion of the gentleman from Maryland? For what purpose? Was it to entertain the question of rejecting the petition? He understood that to be the object of the mover; and, if so, he hoped the House would not reconsider, but that they would preserve to their constituents the right of petitioning, and, by a vote to lay on the table, preclude all further debate upon this exciting and mischievous topic.

Mr. BOULDIN said he was willing to meet this question in any way. He had been so the last session and the session before, and declared his willingness then, in deference and respect to his southern brethren, who he knew agreed with him in interest and feeling; and, at their suggestion, he agreed with them in voting to give the matter the go-by. He then thought, and still thought, that the people of the South ought to know and to see and to hear, all that we know and see and hear upon this subject. He was anxious, however, if they were to come to any expression of opinion and feeling on this matter, so momentous to the South, that they should not be brought to that vote entangled by the rules of that House. He wished, when the opinion of the South upon this subject should be expressed, and their feelings made known, it would be done in a way that would leave no doubt what that opinion and those feelings were. And he was persuaded that, wher their opinions and feelings came unshackled by forms or rules, or any thing but the mere question itself, the South would satisfy the North, East, and West-would satisfy the whole world-nay, would convince even fanatics themselves, that they must let us alone upon this point; and convince them, and all the agitators and movers of these petitions, that they had as well let us alone, and employ themselves in removing from their own eye the beam which is in it, rather than disturb themselves so much about the mote that is in their brother's eye. Let us not (said Mr. B.) come to a vote that will leave the world in doubt whether we voted on the rule or the thing let this petition pass, and no doubt they will be coming again to-morrow--ay, in a half hourwith one that will enable us to meet it face to face, and toe to toe, and leave neither them nor the world in doubt what we mean. Mr. B. concluded by saying that he rose to ask what would be the effect of his vote--ay or no-on the question itself. He would give the best vote he could, but did not know himself how that vote would be understood. He would content himself with the belief that the question would come up in a form which would leave no doubt either with himself or any

one.

Mr. PEYTON was in favor of the motion to reconsider. He would not have troubled the House with any remarks again, but for the position assumed by the gentleman from New York. That gentleman contended that the right of petition was a sacred right, guarantied to every American citizen under the constitution; and that the House had no right to deprive them of the exercise of that right. Mr. P. said they had the right to petition, and to think and to say what they pleased; and, further, they had the right to send any matter they choose throughout all the country, without regard to consequences, and that House had no power to resist it. But, then, he claimed that, when it came to that House, the representatives had the right to treat it and dispose of it in such manner as they thought best. Was the sacred right of petition any dearer than many other sacred rights-the right to property, to liberty, and to life? And had not the attention of the House

been called, by the message of the President of the United States, to this very question of this sacred right of thinking, and writing, and sending through the mail, such documents as were then before them? Should they connect the efforts of a few fanatics to disturb the harmony and peace of the country with those sacred and inalienable rights to which the gentleman alluded? Should they connect the attempt, whether it came by petition to Congress or by a document transmitted in any other mode, to throw a firebrand into the South, with the sacred rights of liberty and property?

The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman that the merits of the question could not be gone into under the motion before the House.

Mr. PEYTON only meant to reply to what he considered to be the constitutional right contended for by the gentleman from New York-the right of the citizen, every where, to send such papers and petitions there. He was endeavoring to meet this, by saying that the slave question was not one to which the right of petitioning applied; but that if it did, and petitions were sent to that House, and papers of the same character were distributed over the country, it would have the effect of touching a chord that would arouse all America.

Mr. RIPLEY said that this was a grave and important question. There was no subject of deeper interest in the quarter of the country from whence he came. He had been sent here to oppose every effort of a certain class of citizens, in reference to slavery within this District, or elsewhere. In disposing of the question before the House, care should be taken rather to allay the public feeling than to add to the existing excitement. The right of petition was a solemn one, and had been guarantied from the time of magna charta to the present moment. Our citizens have a right to petition for a change of their constitution, and, indeed, for a change in the form of Government. Every decorous memorial should be received; but, when received, it is in the power of the House to dispose of it as it may deem proper. The motion to reject this petition was an incipient question, and, in his opinion, should take precedence. He again adverted to the great excitement in the South on this subject, and the importance of allay. ing that excitement by a decisive course here. gentlemen from the North were sincere in their friendship for their brethren in the South, and were desirous of breaking down the double wall of partition between those two sections of the country, they could give an earnest on the present occasion, by voting promptly to reject this petition; and when it shall go forth that we have rejected it by a vast majority, it will have an effect even upon the fanatics themselves, who do not understand the position and feeling of the South on this subject, while it will, at the same time, allay the existing excitement in that portion of the country.

If the

Mr. WISE was for sustaining the motion to reconsider; and, for one, could testify that he had voted under a misapprehension. In voting for the motion to consider the petition, he thought he was voting to have a direct decision of the House on the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina. He was intending to bring the House also to a direct decision of the question, and had no idea, after the House had decided it would consider the petition, that the consideration itself would be evaded.

Mr. W. had misapprehended in another particular. He had not understood the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina to be to consider the petition today, but to consider his motion to reject the petition, which was what Mr. W. wished to consider. So help Jim God, he never wished to consider the petition of an incendiary, but he would consider the motion to reject

[H. OF R.

the petition, and he warned the gentleman from South Carolina that these were the means of evading his motion. Mr. W. then referred to the preceedings of the Senate two years ago, on a motion to reject a petition to that body, containing matter disrespectful to the honorable William Wilkins, then a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, to show that such a course was within the rules of order; and asked whether the gentleman from New York considered the present a respectful petition, where gentlemen on that floor were characterized as land pirates? He had hoped that, after the proceedings at a celebrated meeting at Utica last summer, where the gentleman himself took a very prominent part, he should have had that gentleman's vote on the question of rejecting this petition-a petition that was both insulting in language and incendiary in its character. Mr. W. hoped the motion would prevail, although he did not consider it in itself decisive. They could never get a direct vote on that question. Many would vote not to reject it, on account of the sacred right of petition, but he hoped the House would not evade the question. He hoped gentlemen who professed to be friendly to the South would come out and avow their principles and their opinions. If the House desired to evade the question, let the South know it. If it was the opinion that Congress had the right to interfere in this question, let the South know it at once, and it would know what to do. Their predecessors had told them what to do. They had no longer any business there. Their business was at home, to report to their people. He would go home, never to return there again, if that House were to say, directly or indirectly, that Congress had that power. That was the question he wished to bring before the House, whether the House had the constitutional power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia at all. He denied the right.

It was important to have a direct decision on this question, and there was no way of getting it, but by sustaining the motion then under consideration. Gentlemen must show they are either for or against us, and if they would not show it upon the direct questions, and upon the main questions, they should show it upon the incidental questions; and he, for one, would be willing to consider this as the test question. Those who are for laying the motion on the table, he viewed as evading the question, and so would the South view them. Those who were for a direct vote on the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, would be viewed as the friends of the South, and not the South alone, but of the whole nation. He would repeat, the petition was not respectful to the House, and therefore it ought to be rejected. He could never consent to refer or consider a petition that called the members of the South land pirates.

Mr. HAMER inquired of the Chair, whether, if the present motion prevailed, it would be competent then for the gentleman from South Carolina, or any other gentleman, to move to reject the petition?

The SPEAKER said he was under the impression that that would be a competent motion.

Mr. HAMMOND said it had been far from his intention, when he made the motion he did, to throw a firebrand into that House. On the contrary, he had hoped by it to exclude one from the House. He thought the motion a very simple and direct one; and, ignorant as he was of the rules of the House, he had no idea that the House had it not in its power to protect its own dignity, and the feelings of its members, by rejecting instanter any thing calculated to affect either the one or the other. If the House had no such rule, the rule of common sense ought to govern it.

When the proposition was made to consider this petition, it was made by himself, with a view of then moving its rejection. Under the decision of the Speaker, that