now a member of that House, [Mr. CHINN,] moved that the paper should be laid upon the table. The yeas and nays were called for, and ordered, and there the paper was placed by a decided majority of the House. There were then none of the scruples which exist now; no pretence that the vote was evasive. That decision was then taken as the clear, distinct, unequivocal sense of the House, against the propriety of acting upon petitions of that character. The same course had likewise been pursued before the motion made by the gentleman from Virginia to which he had referred, when previous papers of a like character had been repeatedly presented to the House. They had passed on to the table of the Speaker by the silent vote of the House, without having, on any occasion, for the last three or four years, (save on the occasion to which he had referred, and that was a speech by a single member last session,) elicited a debate. And here let him again advert to what must be within the knowledge of every gentleman there, that these votes of the House, thus placing upon the table papers of this character, had at all times been regarded, in the House and out of it, universally, as an expression of the House against the propriety of acting on petitions of this character. Until within the last few days no one had ever thrown a doubt upon the subject. Now, for the first time, they had been told that to put a paper on the table, where it would sleep the sleep of death, was an evasion of the question? Nobody before ever heard of such an evasion! Every one regarded it, as in his estimation they had a right to regard it, as a most decided and unequivocal decision of the House not to entertain and act upon questions of that character. The character of this House could not be mistaken. There were not fifty gentlemen in that body, judging from the votes given, who desired to agitate this subject, or to act upon petitions of this character. The sense of the House had been unequivocally, fairly, and fully expressed by the vote first given, to put the first petition upon the table, and the character of the House had since undergone no change.

Efforts, however, seemed to be making to change the real question to be decided by the House. It was now said that they must come up and give a vote of a different character; that they must either vote that they would not receive petitions of this character, or that, having received them, they would put them out of doors; or they must come to another question, and vote that the House had no constitutional authority to receive and act upon the petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. These, said Mr. B., were new inventions. Let him warn the gentlemen of the South, who stood firm on the vote of 180 to 30, against considering the first petition, not to change the real question, by permitting themselves to be drawn into the controverted position of the powers of that House; or into the controverted and debatable grounds whether they ought to reject petitions of this character; or, having received them, ought to turn them out of doors. If gentlemen from the South, who sincerely desired, as he knew they did, the harmony and peace of the whole Union, if they permitted this question to be changed, they might see from the votes of Friday last, and from the votes of Monday, that no man could decide, or undertake to predict, what in a few days would be the true character of that House. Upon the one subject, and upon the one ground, they stood firm, by a decided vote of 180 or 190 against 30 or 40 or 50; but, upon the other, they would open so wide a field of debate that ultimately, if he judged correctly of the sense of the House, his honest conviction was, they would find themselves in the minority.

Sir, said Mr. B., we go with the South (I speak for myself) against all agitation on this subject, and to put

[DEC. 22, 1835.

down the fanatics of the North. But, sir, (I give it as my own opinion,) I do not believe the freemen of the North or the freemen of the South ought to, or will, tolerate the idea that they should not be permitted to present their petitions to this body; or that, having presented them, in decent and respectful language, they shall be driven with scorn from our doors.

Mr. B. appealed particularly to the gentlemen from the South. There was no necessity to change their position; they stood firm on the ground already taken. Why should they change it? For what good purpose could they desire to change the character of the ques tion, and involve the House in a difficulty about the right of petition, or in questions of a debatable and exciting character, when such a clear sentiment and feeling, both in and out of the House, and throughout the whole country, had been elicited? Why would gentlemen permit themselves to be drawn into other questions, when the one already assumed and acted upon was a decisive expression of the true feeling of the House? Hle would warn them that, if they permitted themselves to be put in that new position, they would involve themselves in difficulties they scarcely dream of, and which, in his humble judgment, they ought seriously to depre cate. It was remarked by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that if this question were gone into, every speech made in that House by gentlemen north of Mason and Dixon's line, would furnish an incendiary pamphlet for the South. In one sense, Mr. B. could believe that remark a just one, and in one sense only. It was, because every speech made under such circumstances, by gentlemen residing north of Mason and Dixon's line, would be perverted, and misinterpreted, and misquoted, by factious and incendiary prints. It was not that every gentleman residing north of that line would desire to make a speech of that character; for he knew that many, a vast proportion of them, almost in the proportion in which the votes of the House had been given, he believed, would deprecate such a result. But they would be so misinterpreted and misquoted by the press that no one could undertake to say that every speech made in that House would not be truly a firebrand thrown into the South. In no other sense could he agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts on that subject.

Mr. B. said it had been a matter of sincere astonishment and regret on his part, that efforts should have been made, undoubtedly under a strong sense of duty, and under a strong belief that it would tend to tranquillize the South, to procure direct votes of the House upon two propositions, upon both of which the debate might be interminable. And would that expression of the House more operate to tranquillize the South, even if it were obtained, than the one already adopted?

It was said that a direct vote of the House that it would not receive such petitions, or that, having received them, it would drive them out of doors, or a direct vote of the House that Congress had no power to legislate on the subject of slavery within the District of Columbia, would go far to tranquillize the South. But what would that vote be? The opinion of gentlemen sent there for two years. And was it certain that that would be the opinion of the next House? Would it furnish any sort of assurance on that subject? It was asking too much. It was enough to ask of that House, and enough for the House to declare, that it would not act upon the subject. That was reasonable; that was unquestionably the sense of the House; and it ought to content gentlemen in every quarter.

The proposition submitted or suggested by the hon. orable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. OWENS,] did not affirm either point to which he had referred. It did not affirm that Congress had not the power-it did not affirm

DEC. 23, 1835.]

that that House would not receive the petitions, but merely and directly and explicitly, that the House was averse, and would not act upon any such subject. That was reasonable, and was precisely equivalent to laying such petitions on the table. Mr. B. believed that those resolutions would meet the cordial and universal approbation of the gentlemen of the North, except those, if any there were, who would be disposed to encourage the getting up of these petitions. The resolutions did not touch the power of the House. It was unquestion. able that there was a strong and fixed sentiment of that House and of the whole country on this question. Why, then, permit themselves to change the position they had taken, and involve themselves in the examination of controverted and debatable ground, and thereby lose the high character the House had certainly occupied upon this subject? He did hope sincerely that the motion to reconsider the reference of the petition would be at once adopted, and that they should either lay it on the table, or apply the resolutions of the gentleman from Georgia to it. Pass those resolutions, and they will furnish a clear, direct, and unequivocal expression of the sense of the House that it will in no event act upon the subject.

Mr. SLADE rose to address the House; but, stating that he was much exhausted by the long sitting, asked the House to indu'ge him with an adjournment, in order that he might express his views.

SUFFERERS BY FIRE IN NEW YORK.

Mr. CAMBRELENG, by leave of the House, offered the following amended bill, for the relief of the sufferers by the fire in New York, stating that the committee, after consultation, had determined upon some alterations, which they thought would render it more acceptable to the House.

The following is the bill as amended:

A BILL for the relief of the sufferers by fire in the city of New York.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the collector of the port of New York be, and he is hereby, authorized, as he may deem best calculated to secure the interests of the United States, to cause to be extended (with the assent of the sureties thereon, to all persons who have suffered loss of property by the late conflagration at that place) the time of payment of all bonds heretofore given for duties as aforesaid, to periods not exceeding an average of three, four, and five years, from and after the day of payment specified in the bonds; or to allow the said bonds to be cancelled upon giving to the said collector new bonds, with one or more sureties, to the satisfaction of the said collector, for the sums of the former bonds, respectively payable in average periods of three, four, and five years, from and after the day of payment specified in the bonds to be taken up or cancelled as aforesaid. And the said collector is hereby authorized and directed to give up or cancel all such bonds upon the receipt of others described in this act; which last-mentioned bonds shall be proceeded with, in all respects, like other bonds which are taken by collectors for duties due to the United States: Provided, however, That nothing in this act contained shall extend to bonds which had fallen due before the 17th day of the present month.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to transfer to such banks as he may select, as safe depositories of the public treasure, any surplus moneys of the Government, or any part thereof, which may not be required for the public service, and to permit the same to remain in such

[H. OF R.

banks for a period not exceeding twelve months from the passage of this act. Provided that this section shall not interfere with any further regulation of Congress concerning the collection, deposite, distribution, or disbursement of the public moneys.

On motion of Mr. SLADE, the House then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23.

OHIO BOUNDARY.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS called the attention of the House to the subject of the President's message in relation to the northern boundary of Ohio. It would be recollected, he said, that the subject was referred, ten days ago, to a select committee, at his instance, and the Chair had done him the honor to appoint him chairman of that committee. Subsequently, a motion was made to reconsider the reference of the subject to a select commit. His object in rising was to give notice that, unless the question of reconsideration should be taken up and disposed of to-day, he should feel it his duty to call the committee together, for the purpose of proceeding to consider the subject referred to them.

tee.

SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The House resumed the consideration of the motion of Mr. PATTON, to reconsider the vote referring to the Committee on the District of Columbia, a petition presented by Mr. BRIGGS, from sundry citizens of Massachusetts, praying Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

Mr. SLADE, who was entitled to the floor, rose and said he had been charged by a large and respectable portion of his constituents with the duty of presenting memorials of similar import to that under discussion; and for that reason, if for no other, he felt bound to ask the indulgence of the House to a few remarks.

He approached the subject, he said, with an oppres sive sense of its magnitude, and knowing its exciting character, of the great danger of being betrayed, in the progress of its discussion, into a state of feeling, unsuited to the place and the occasion. It was a subject on which he, as well as his constituents, felt most deeply; and he could neither represent their feelings, nor express his own, without a plainness and directness which might give offence. He begged gentlemen to believe, however, that he should say nothing intended to give the slightest personal offence to any; though he should, without fear of any, vindicate the petitioners, and assert the claims of those in whose behalf they plead. He regretted to hear the memorialists spoken of in debate as intruders, and their respectful petitions upon a subject of great national importance treated as a vexatious intermeddling with concerns in which they have no interest. Gentlemen must have patience. These petitioners, as far as he was acquainted with them, were among the most intelligent and respectable of the community in which they reside; while the subject of their petitions was one of which it well became them to speak, and the Congress of the United States to hear.

The great purpose (said Mr. S.) of most of those who have hitherto spoken upon this subject seems to be to get rid of the petitions. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] wishes to have them all laid on the table, as fast as presented, and "nailed" there; and yet he is exceedingly regardful of the "sacred right of petitioning," which must on no account whatever be impaired. The gentlemen from South Carolina [Messrs. HAMMOND, PICKENS, and THOMPSON] are more consistent. They profess to regard the petitions as disrespectful, and the petitioners as officious meddlers with that which does not concern them. They, therefore,

would have the petitions rejected. There is in this the merit at least of consistency, and the gentlemen have my thanks for evincing a disposition to meet the question fairly. Another gentleman, my honorable friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] would have the petitions committed to the Committee on the District of Columbia; in other words, to use his own significant, and, in this case, appropriate language, to have them consigned to the "family vault of all the Capulets;" and yet he, too, is jealous of the "sacred right" of petition! The sacred right of petition!-that is to say, the "sacred right” of being "nailed to the table,” by the gentleman from New York, or the "sacred right" of being gathered by the gentleman from Massachusetts into the "family vault of all the Capulets."

Sir, the petitioners well understand the nature of both these rights. The last they have long enjoyed, and desire to enjoy it no longer. They want the action of Congress on the subject, which, judging from the past, they are sure not to have, if it is to depend upon the decisive action of the Committee on the District of Columbia. I intend no disrespect to that committee. To continue to do what has been done--that is, to do nothing—would follow of course a commitment to them, with an express understanding that the petitions were consigned to the tomb, without the hope of a resurrec

tion.

I, sir, (said Mr. S.,) am in favor of the prayer of the petitioners. I believe that Congress has a right to legislate on the subject, and that the time has come when it ought to legislate. Something has been suggested with regard to political objects connected with the present ing of these petitions. Sir, I have no such object, nor do I believe that any such purpose exists in the minds of the petitioners. They are moved by a spirit of philanthropy, and deprecate the mingling of any considerations with this question which may tend to divert attention from its real merits.

Gentlemen, I regret to say, seem willing to overlook the real object of the petitioners, and to go off into denunciations of "abolitionits," to the end that the odium which has been attached to their measures for effecting the abolition of slavery in the States may be transferred to the exercise of an acknowledged right of asking Congress to abolish it in this District. But what do the petitioners ask at our hands? Why, sir, simply that meas ures may be taken to put an end to slavery here, and especially that here, where the flag of freedom floats over the Capitol of this great republic, and where the authority of that republic is supreme, the trade in hu man flesh may be abolished. These are the questions which gentlemen are called on to meet, but which they do not meet, either by calling the petitioners "ignorant fanatics," or denouncing them as "murderers and incendiaries." If, in the fervor of their philanthropy, any have adopted measures of more than doubtful expediency, for the purpose of acting on the public sentiment in the slave States, in favor of immediate emancipation, it surely furnishes no reason why we should obstinately shut our eyes to the evils which are within our control, and which call loudly for our interposition.

I have said, sir, that I am in favor of the prayer of the petitioners. Let me not be misunderstood. The abolition of slavery which I would advocate is a gradual abolition. I believe the immediate and unqualified abolition of slavery to be inconsistent with a just regard, both to the best interests of the community, and the highest welfare of the slave. The philanthropy which aims at such an abolition, whatever I may think of its purity, I cannot commend for its intelligence or discretion. But though I would have abolition advance by a gradual progress towards its final consummation, I would have the work begin immediately. Sir, I cannot stand here

|

[DEC. 23, 1835.

as a freeman, and the representative of freemen, with out declaring, in the face of this House and of the world, that the right to hold men as goods and chattels, subject to sale and transfer, at the will of a master, should cease and be discontinued instantly and forever.

But while I say this, I would not render worse the condition of the slave, by conferring upon him rights which he is not fitted to enjoy, and which would become to him a curse rather than a blessing. I would not, at once, entirely emancipate him from the control of his master. But it should not be, as now, an arbitrary, unqualified control. For that control I would substitute the authority of law, which should be supreme. In saying this, sir, I do but carry out a principle which has long been dear to me as an anti-mason. I have maintained, and still maintain, and shall continue to maintain, as a cardinal principle in my political creed, that, in opposition to all individual, and all associated, self-constituted authority, the laws should be maintained in full and uncontrolled supremacy. There is no being, entitled to the appellation of man, who should not find shelter under the ægis of their broad and ample protection. In applying this principle to the case of the slave, however, I would not confer upon him the same rights which are possessed by his master; and for the obvious reason that he is not fitted to enjoy them. But I would place him under the supervision of laws made for his special benefit, and adapted to his new condition--laws which should essentially qualify the control of the mas ter over him--Jaws which should protect him in all the rights which he is fitted to enjoy, and prepare him for the enjoyment of those to which it would be but a suicidal philanthropy immediately to admit him. Sir, we owe it to this degraded race of men to prepare them for freedom; to communicate to them moral and religious and literary instruction; to restore and protect the domestic relations among them; to teach them the duties which they owe to God, and to us, and to one another; and to build upon the foundation of a conscious responsi bility to the government of Heaven, and the authority of righteous human laws, a social structure which it shall be our glory to rear, and their highest earthly happiness to enjoy.

But, Mr. Speaker, while I thus repudiate the doctrine of the immediate and unqualified abolition of slavery, I maintain the duty of immediately and absolutely abolishing the slave trade within the limits of this District. And here I come to a part of the subject which gentlemen do not choose to approach, but manifestly desire to avoid. In this I commend their prudence. The slave trade is an evil for which they well know there is no defence, and no palliation. I regret, sir, that I have not the means of ascertaining its extent and character within this District. But the fact that I have no such means furnishes a strong argument for referring the petitions to a select committee, raised for the purpose of going into a full investigation, and making a full report of the facts connected with this traffic. I can at present only say, I am well assured that the trade is actively carried on in the cities both of Washington and Alexandria, especially in the latter, where there is a large re

*The following advertisements appear, daily, in the principal newspapers in this city:

"CASH FOR 200 NEGROES, "Including both sexes, from twelve to twenty-five years of age. Persons having servants to dispose of will find it to their interest to give me a call, as I will give higher prices, in cash, than any other purchaser who is now in this market. I can at all times be found at the Mechanics' Hall, now kept by B. O. Sheckel, and formerly kept by Isaac Beers, on Seventh street, a few

accounted piracy upon the high seas, shall no longer be suffered to go unpunished and unmolested in the capital of this republic.

The venerable member from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] has said, and said truly, that opposition to slavery is, with the people of the North, a religious principle. An honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. JONES] replies, by asking, with emphasis, whether it is the religion of the Saviour of men? Sir, I did not expect to hear such a question seriously propounded here. I was not prepared for an intimation that that religion justified the holding of human beings as property. Why, sir, what is the great, leading, moral precept put forth by that Saviour, whose name is thus invoked to sanction the practice of slavery?

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them."

Sir, I will attempt no commentary on this precept. It needs none. I will only say that it contains the seminal principle of the pure and elevated morality of the Christian system-a morality so congenial with the spirit, and so constantly enforced by the example of its Divine author while upon earth.

Now, sir, let gentlemen show me that Africans are not "men," and I will give up the argument. But until this is done, until the declaration is blotted from the Book of Revelation, that "God hath made of one bloed all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the carth," and until this great truth ceases to find a response in every human bosom, shall slavery stand rebuked by this all-comprehensive and sublime precept of the Saviour of men.

But, sir, the religion which contains this precept, also enjoins submission to the "powers that be." The same mouth which uttered it said, "render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's"-a precept coincident with that which exhorts-"servants, be obedient to your own masters; not answering again; not purloining, but show ing all good fidelity." The Saviour made it no part of his business, while upon earth, to subvert the existing order of things, or to prescribe specific regulations for the administration of civil government. But he came to redeem men from sin-to write the law of love upon their hearts-to establish principles and proclaim precepts, before whose searching and all-pervading influence the time-honored systems of injustice and oppression shall inelt away.

Permit me now, Mr. Speaker, to examine, for a few moments, some of the objections which are urged against the legislation of Congress on this subject.

We are told, in the first place, that this is a question which concerns exclusively the people of this District; that the petitioners have no interest in it, and have no more right to ask Congress to abolish slavery here than they have to petition the Legislature of Virginia to abolish it within her limits.

Sir, the people who have signed these petitions regard themselves as citizens, not alone of the particular States in which they reside, but of the republic. Every interest within the scope of the legislation of Congress is their interest. Every thing which concerns this territory concerns them: its police; the value and security of the public property within its limits; and the safety of the representative bodies annually assembled here. This is the growing capital of a great republic. What may be the absolute or relative increase of its slave population, or how much it may affect the future condition of this District, cannot easily be foreseen. That population amounted, in 1830, to more than 6,000. The time may come when it will amount to ten times that number. And is it of no importance to our country whether its Capitol shall be surrounded by a mass of hardy, independent freemen, ready to peril their lives

[DEC. 23, 1835.

in defending it, as well as themselves, from the invasion of a foreign power, or whether it shall be guarded by 60,000 slaves, who, instead of rallying in its defence, may hail the invader as an angel of deliverance from their bondage? And is not this subject invested with additional interest, when it is considered that the Congress of the United States will be surrounded by such an amount of such a population? Have the petitioners, then, as a part of the American people, no interest in this question?

And then, too, there is the character of the country, as it may be affected by the institutions within the territory, where the legislative power of that country is supreme. Is slavery tolerated in this District?-the petitioners feel themselves, in some sense, responsible for it. Is merchandise made of men, within sight of the Capitol in which their Representatives are assembled, and on whose summit wave the stripes and the stars of freedom?-as Americans, they keenly feel the reproach, and instinctively reach forth their hands to wipe out the stain from the escutcheon of their country.

But, in the second place, it is asserted that Congress has no right to legislate on this subject; that, however great may be the evil of slavery or the slave trade within this District, it is an evil which must be borne, since authority to remedy it is not to be found among the powers granted in the constitution.

And what are the powers of Congress touching this subject? Is it true that Congress is authorized to extend. its legislation to the high seas, even to the very coast of Africa, and to prohibit the traffic in slaves, under the penalty of death, while it is powerless to reach the same evil in the very heart of the republic? If the grant of powers must be so construed-if there is clearly no authority by which the Government can act in this matter, then must we submit to the evil, and wait an amendment of the constitution, which shall make it consistent with itself, and save the country from reproach.

But, sir, fortunately for the country, the constitution, through which we derive our powers, is not thus defective. The power to legislate upon this subject is granted; and that, not by remote implication, but in terms of obvious and familiar import. The 8th section of the first article gives to Congress authority to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as inay, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States."

In the first place, let it be observed, the power of Congress to legislate in this District is exclusive. There is no other jurisdiction, either concurrent or conflicting. The jurisdiction of Virginia and Maryland, from which this territory was acquired by cession, is as perfectly excluded as is the authority and jurisdiction of the Emperor of all the Russias.

The exclusive character of the jurisdiction being ap. parent, the next question is, what is its extent? The answer is in the language of the grant, that it extends to "all cases whatsoever." The framers of the constitution could have employed no language of more comprehensive import than this-"all cases whatsoever." But are there no limitations to this? Certainly. The grant is subject to the limitations which are incident to all legislative power. There are many things which no Legislature can rightfully do. It cannot pass an ex post facto law. It cannot, by a mere act of legislation, transfer the property of one individual to another. It cannot authorize the commission of crime. These, and such like limitations, exist in the present case; not because of any thing in the language of the grant, but because they are inherent in the very nature of all legislative power.

Now, will it be scriously contended that the abolition of