My course, sir, and that of my friends generally, at home as well as on this floor, has been consistent in opposing any interference upon this subject. It is true, sir, that resolution passed that Assembly; passed, too, sir, for purposes and by means which I am not permit ted to discuss here; but, having been sent to the other branch of the Legislature for their concurrence, it slept, I believe, in the same family vault with those mentioned yesterday by the honorable gentleman [Mr. ADAMS] of Massachusetts, "the tomb of the Capulets." After this explanation, sir, the gentleman is welcome to all the "gulls he may catch by that fly"-to all the benefits which he can appropriate to himself in this, the next, or any other campaign. Having said thus much in reply to my colleague, and being on the floor, said Mr. M., I beg leave to add that my own opinions on this subject are in accordance with those of my constituents with whose views I am acquainted, or ought to be presumed to be so; and, sir, I may claim some acquaintance with the people of the State of New York. Sir, said Mr. M., I am fully warranted in saying that, from my acquaint ance with that people, there is not one person in five hundred, among a population of more than two millions of people in that State, who is in favor of abolition, or any other interference with the rights of master and slave in the South. Among the political friends with whom I have uniformly acted, (the republicans,) I have never known one-no, sir, not a single one. Sir, said Mr. M., there is no constitutional ambiguity, to my mind, on this subject; for, while it is admitted that Congress have exclusive power of legislation in all cases whatever," in the District of Columbia, the constitution has prohibited any of our interference with the local institutions of the States. The Union and constitution, sir, were the result of concession and compromise. The subject under debate formed one of the points. We agreed; we entered into the compact with our southern brethren; and the question now presented by them to us-the real question (when the argument is pushed to the full extent) propounded to us of the North--is, whether we will live up to the bargain we have made, to the compact and union we have entered into? For myself, for my constituents and friends, I answer, without hesitation or mental reservation, that, under all circumstances and in every vicissitude, good or evil, we will--we will, though the heavens fall. What more need I say? (said Mr. M.) I will ask gentlemen to believe us sincere. Why suspect our sincerity? What motive have we to interfere in concerns that do not concern us? Sir, the people of New York can have no motive for such interference.

The few misguided men in the North, who are desirous of intruding their misdirected philanthropy upon the South, have political and party purposes to subserve. Sensible of their own want of consideration in their own community, of their own destitution of political integrity and patriotism, they seek even infamous notoriety in attempts to destroy the institutions of their country. I have placed my vote on our State legislative journals against them, and I shall repeat that vote on your journal as often as I may have opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I have deprecated this debate, and deplored the spirit in which it is conducted. Shall it come to this, that an American Congress shall be bandying epithets springing from youthful or excited feelings? Is it necessary, sir, to accuse any individual of crimes, and stigmatize him with epithets, that shall with me be nameless? For myself, sir, I cannot consent to such an employment; and I trust that we may conduct our further proceedings in such manner as will avoid it.

Mr. ROBERTSON, of Virginia, said no part of the Union was more deeply interested in the subject under I

[DEC. 22, 1835.

discussion than that he had the honor to represent. Yet he had remained silent till the course of the debate left him no alternative but to overcome his reluctance, almost invincible, to trouble the House, or incur the imputation of shrinking from the discharge of his duty.

He was sincerely grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. INGERSOLL] for the generous impulse which had prompted his effort to tranquillize the South. For one, he thanked him for the warm sympathy he had expressed for the southern people, and the disposition he had evinced to do them justice. He had hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania would, indeed, have gone to the root of the mischief. But he was sorry to say that the measure he had proposed was not calculated to attain his object, and had wholly disappointed the expectations he had raised. What did the gentleman propose? In effect, to declare that Congress had no power to liberate slaves within the limits of those States which authorize them to be held as property! And had it come to that? Were we to accept, as a mighty boon, a recognition of the right of our citizens to hold their own property, guarantied by their own State laws, and by the federal constitution itself? Nothing could more strikingly prove how rapid had been the strides of fanaticism and usurpation than the fact that a member of that House should deem it necessary gravely to offer such a resolution. The right of the States to mould their domestic institutions, in this respect, to suit themselves, was not to be drawn in question. The petitioners themselves had not ventured to ask for any direct interference with the States. They had only prayed for the abolition of slavery in this District; and our right to do that was the question we were called upon to decide.

Mr. R. said he was gratified to hear from all quarters of the House the strongest avowals of hostility to the schemes of those who were seeking to disturb the peace of the country. But it was obvious to remark that the action of the House did not correspond with these professions. No measures were proposed to put down the agitators, or secure our tranquillity. There seemed an evident desire to elude the real question. He little expected such a disposition would have been evinced by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] That gentleman was among the last to whom he could have ascribed a willingness-in his own emphatic language-to dodge any question, or withhold his candid judgment upon it. If gentlemen are really desirous of allying the apprehensions of the South, the question made by the petitioners must be met. It will not do to give it the go-by. If, as he hoped, a majority should decide against the right of Congress to interfere in this matter, here or elsewhere, quiet might be restored. But if they were prepared to assert the right, it was high time the southern people should know it. Not that they might sever the Union. He would take occasion to say they were as much attached to the Union--he could speak for his own State--as those who dwelt north of Mason and Dixon's line; but they ought to know the ground on which they stood, that they might at once appeal to their brethren of the other States for such an amendment of the constitution as might effectually guaranty their prop erty and their peace. He could not consent they should remain in doubt on this vital question--that the flame should be merely smothered for the present, to break out at some other time. It was for that reason he had uniformly voted against every attempt to evade a direct decision, and should give his cordial support to the mo tion of his colleague [Mr. PATTON] now under consider

ation.

The right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia had, so far as he had heard, scarcely been noticed, until adverted to this morning by the gentle

man from New York, [Mr. GRANGER,] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. INGERSOLL.] He did not understand them as affirming the right, nor could he learn precisely upon what ground others maintained it. What did the petitioners intend by praying for the abolition of slavery? They meant, he presumed, not that the citizens of the District might manumit their slaves, but that Congress should, with or without their consent, emancipate them. None would contend that this could be done without compensating the owners. Such a proceeding would be simply to confiscate their property. Nor could it be taken from them against their consent, although its full value should be paid. The United States had no power under the constitution to take private property, unless for public use. In proposing to wrest this kind of property from the owner, it was not intended to appropriate it to the use of the United States. They had no occasion for it. The object was, on the contrary, as property, to destroy its use-to annibilate it.

Should the owner even be willing to surrender it for a just compensation, he knew of no rightful authority to apply the public funds to the purchase or emancipation of slaves. He doubted whether the United States could lawfully become a slaveholder. It did not vary the case to say the purchase would be made with the benevolent purpose of emancipating them. If they could purchase, they might hold; if they could buy, they might sell; if they could emancipate, they might prescribe the conditions of emancipation. And what conditions, he desired to know, was it expected to impose? He knew of no clause in the constitution by which the restraints to be laid upon emancipated slaves were defined; nor which gave to it power to create another distinct and anomalous class, in addition to that already existing in this District, of persons nominally free, but politically slaves. Or was it designed to make them absolutely and really free to confer on them all the privileges of citizenship? Were they to be admitted to the council board? To take their seats in the jury box? To be elevated to the bench? To be eligible to all the offices of Government? Were they to be introduced into our social circles? The southern people, while they retain ed their present feelings, would never tolerate such a state of society. Those feelings were deeply interwoven in their nature, and would continue to have their influence, possibly, till the Ethiopian should change his skin, or the leopard his spots.

The eighth section of the first article of the constitution was regarded by some as conferring on Congress supreme authority over the District. It was true it gave to it exclusive legislation over the ten miles square, but exclusive was not synonymous with unlimited. It must still legislate within constitutional limits. It could no more transcend those limits within the District, than beyond it. It had no more power to confiscate the property of its inhabitants, than to subject them to ex post facto laws, or deprive them of the liberty of speech or the press.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. INGERSOLL] had adverted to a clause in the Virginia act of cession. That clause was intended to prevent the United States from acquiring an interest in the soil, or interfering with landed titles. Its literal import might seem, at the first blush, to warrant the construction alluded to, because it was confined in terms to land only. But that construction was not warranted by the true spirit of the instrument, or of the constitution, though the right of the citizens to their lands was expressly guarantied. But it by no means followed that all other property was left at the mercy of Congress. The constitution protected all private property against seizure, unless required for public use. It is not to be believed that

[H. of R.

Virginia and Maryland would ever have consented to a transfer of their citizens, subjecting them to be dispos sessed of their property, or be exiled from their homes, at the will of a Legislature in whose election they had no voice. Let us suppose the District had been ceded by States whose institutions did not admit of slavery-by New York and Pennsylvania. What would have been thought of a petition from the South to establish slavery within the limits of the grant? It would have been regarded, as it ought, as asking a violation of law, and a breach of good faith. Yet the same authority which was supposed to warrant the abolition of slavery by Congress, would seem to warrant its establishment; and the one attempt would be no less a breach of good faith than the other.

Mr. R. said he had not thought it relevant or proper to discuss the general question of slavery; still less had he considered himself at liberty to vindicate the right of the slaveholding States to mould their domestic institutions, in accordance with their views. He could recognise no authority in Congress to call any State to answer at its bar for the exercise of this undoubted right. He excepted to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. He felt bound to oppose the attempt at the threshold. In doing, this, however, he was very far from desiring to abridge the sacred right of petition. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] need feel no alarm. That right would not be invaded, or an attempt made to destroy the liberty of speech or of the press. There was no danger of another sedition law. Yet some limits even to the freedom of speech and the press had at all times existed, and seemed essential to the protection of society. One who should counsel or command another to commit a murder, or who should print and circulate slanderous imputations upon character, would scarcely be permitted to plead the liberty of speech or the press in bar of a prosecution. Still less ought such a defence to avail those who would instigate the massacre of a whole community.

Gentlemen had complained of the warmth manifested in this debate by members from the South. Great allowances, he thought, ought to be made, if, situated as they were, they could not wholly repress their feelings, or view this subject as calmly as those who inhabit cooler regions, and are more distant from the scene of danger. But whatever heat might be exhibited on this occasion, party feeling at least should not be mingled with

it.

He

Considerations of infinitely greater magnitude than the petty interests of party influenced the people of the South. They were contending for the preservation of their property, for the security of their lives. would confidently appeal to his colleague [Mr. MASON] who came from that section of the State in which the new sect had celebrated its orgies in the blood of women and children, to say whether the movement on this subject in Virginia was regarded as one of a party character? No, sir. From one extremity of the State to the other the people had met together, without respect to party distinctions, to consult on their common interest and safety, and had concurred in one universal expression of execration and abhorrence for the enemies of our peace. It was true, as had been often repeated, a firebrand had been cast among us. But it came not from the South: it came from the North; or rather from a small band of ruffians which the North harbors in its bosom. The South desired to extinguish it: to leave no spark alive that, at some future day, might be blown into a flame to consume the temple of our peace, our union, and our liberty.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, not perceiving that any good could result from prolonging the debate, felt a reluctance in saying any thing upon the subject; but, coming from a State, from its peculiar situation, more

The gentleman says by adopting his resolutions we shall avoid all doubtful questions, and simply declare truths and principles which are admitted by all, and never were doubted by any. And that, sir, is exactly what the South can never consent to. We can never consent to declare merely those of our rights which no one can, and which no one shall ever doubt, and to abandon those which are continually attacked, and which thousands are continually endeavoring, even under the right of petition, the freedom of debate, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion, and the power of the constitution, to destroy. To adopt the resolutions of the gentleman, would be to imply that a doubt existed as to our powers of legislation over slavery in the States, where none ever did exist as to which the case was, and ever has been, a clear one; and would conclude us forever upon this debatable and doubtful ground of the ten miles square. We wish to exclude all such conclusions, and to settle only the questions upon which some doubt is pretended. Here, in this District, is the doubt, the only doubt, on this subject, which we can ever admit, even by implicacation; and it is this doubt, here, which the South wishes to be settled. It is not the way, sir, to tranquillize the public mind, to leave doubtful questions unsettled, much jess to start doubts where they were never dreamed of. We must grapple with this question, though it grapples with the vitals of the constitution.

Their

The North is mistaken: we are not understood. Sir, we are not afraid of this question, or of its discussion, because we wish to explain our feelings and opinions, and desire them to be more fully known, and to be better understood. Some are for laying these petitions on the table, and others are for putting them to sleep, by referrring them to a committee. Would either course settle the question? I know it will not. I know my own people, and I know it is their fixed determination to allow of no doubt in regard to this matter. wish is not that this subject shall be discussed for effect, to answer or subserve any sinister purpose, or to arouse any unnecessary excitement; but alone with a view to a settlement of this strife forever, by obtaining from Congress a declaration, not of war, but of peace and safety. We bring not the subject before you; but, on the contrary, we wish to protest, and call on you to protest with us, against these petitions which come here, against our peace, property, and lives, bringing with them civil discord and danger of disunion. We invite not the subject, but wish Congress to say with us to the North, "Hold off!" Yes, sir, that is our feeling. In the midst of servile insurrection, we would say to the North, "Hold off!" Above the cries of midnight murders, we would cry to the North, "Hold off!" When the torch of the incendiary shall make the darkness of midnight glitter with the blaze of our dwellings," to light assassins to their victims, we will, with an infant in one hand and the weapon of defence in the other, still cry to the North, "Hold off!" And, sir, if Congress will but take up the subject and adopt a resolution which I shall in due time offer, disclaiming all power to grant the prayers of these petitioners, you will, before it is too late, say to the North, "Hold off!"

There is one other way to settle this question, and to give permanent security for the peace and safety, not of the South alone, but of the whole country. To say to such petitioners it is inexpedient, it is dangerous, to grant your prayers, is to say a vain thing, as long as they live under the conviction that you have the power to do whay they ask. Tell me not, sir, that such advice and such wisdom will allay the fire of fanaticism. It is worse than vain to reason with infatuation. They will cease to inflame the country only when they are convinced that their own efforts are vain. Say to them, "You are not only asking us to disturb the peace of the country,

[H. or R.

but to violate its constitution; and they will then see it is vain to petition. Sir, it is not because these petitions are insulting to us that I object to their presentation-1, for one, could not be insulted by the ravings of madmen: it is not because they endanger our property and liveswe are fully able to protect ourselves; but it is because they ask us to violate the constitution-to break the cov enant of our Union, and to destroy that Union itself, that I would not entertain them for a moment as subjects of legislation.

So far has this matter gone that nothing will now satisfy the South but the settlement of this vexed question" Has Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia?" If these petitions prayed for the passage of a law undeniably unconstitutional-if they prayed for the establishment of a religion, the union of church and state, an ex post jacto law, or a bill of attainder-they would be harmless; for there could be no prospect of action upon them to shake the very foundation of the Government. They might be received in safety, and might be laid on the table without fear of their being ever called up. But, sir, they pray for that which they say, and some on this floor say, they may rightfully claim to have granted to them. They pray for the abolition of slavery in this District; they pray for what it is said they have the right to petition; they pray for the blood of the covenant! Upon their skirts, not upon ours, say we, be the blood of that covenant, if it must be shed-a sacrifice to raving fanaticism and folly! When must the controversy end? What security is there that the fearful controversy is not yet to commence? Can we be quiet whilst the question is mooted-"Has Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia?" That is the question. We say no. Who here says ay?

I will show, sir, by the constitution, that there is no such power in Congress. Congress is created the Legislature of the Union, with certain specific powers of national legislation granted; and the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people. Over the people of the States of this Union the powers given to Congress are enumerated and limited. Among the granted powers is the power-

"To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district, &c., as may by cession of particular States, &c., become the seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts," &c.

Thus Congress is constituted a Legislature in two characters and in a twofold relation.

It is a national Legislature for the Union, with specific and enumerated powers. And,

It is a local Legislature, with "exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over" the District of Columbia. In order to decide this great and serious question correctly, all that we have to do is to bear in mind the fact of this double relation of Congress, and the proper distinction between Congress as a national and Congress as a local Legislature.

Do these petitions come to us in the one character or in the other? They cannot come to us as the Legislature of the Union, for it will not be contended that there is any such power enumerated or implied even in the constitution, as that which they ask of us to exercise as the national Legislature. They are sent to us as the local Legislature for the District; and what do the words "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" mean?

These words certainly give to Congress alone, exclusively, the power to legislate for the District of Colum