« AnteriorContinuar »
template or could see the blood reeking from the bosoms | To bring about so desirable an event, you agreed to reof our wives and children, pouring from wounds inflicted strict the powers of Congress, and prohibit their interthrough the instigation of these disturbérs of our peace, ference with slavery, and even for a time with the Afri. and enemies of our lives and liberties. We should feel, can slave trade. But now it is all wrong. New-fangled and that acutely, too; we should revenge to the utmost doctrines have thrown new lights upon this subject, and their blood upon the heads of those who shed it. Mr. you now reproach us with that very thing you have Speaker, we may suffer much in the conflict with which sworn to protect. Generous-minded people of the we are threatened; but be assured that, unless God in North! I again appeal to northern members, and em. his providence has determined our fate otherwise, we phatically ask, will you violate your plighted faith? Will shall d:ive back the storm; we will maintain our prop. you reproach those who confided in you, and in their erty, keep our slaves in subjection, and drive back, confidence entered into a solemn league with you, and with a signal overthrow, these intruders upon our rights. destroy those rights which you have pledged your faith
Mr. Speaker, I shall not, upon this occasion, enter the to protect? I hope, I believe not. lists with the gentleman from Massachusetts, to discuss Mr. Speaker, I had not intended, in the outset of my the " sublime merits of slavery," nor with the gentleman remarks, to have said so much in relation to these fa. from Vermont, into a religious controversy, to prove natics; but I trust the House will pardon my feelings on that slavery is in conformity with holy writ. The latter this occasion. I will now, sir, as briefly as possible, regentleman may find, if he search his Bible, that the pa. car to the constitutional power of this House to legislate triarchs of old held their bondmen, as well as their free on the subject of slavery within the District of Columservants; and both sacred and profane history will teach bia. I shall pass over the Presbyterian Synod of Kenhim that slavery has existed, in one form or another, tucky, merely remarking that, judging from this resofrom the foundation of the world; and by not a few pious lution, they seem to be fit companions for the abolition and learned divines it is supposed to be a curse pro- priests of the North, who have led some pious females nounced upon the descendants of one of the sons of so unwarily into their schemes. As to the article quo. Noah. But into the philosophy or discussion of these ted from ihe Richmond Enquirer, I have only to say matters I design not to enter. If it be a stain in our that the benevolence of its editor betrayed him into an escutcheon, I wish to distribute the honor to whom the error, of which I do not doubt he has long since rehonor is due, and let our former mother, England, who rented. As to the quotation from the Richmond Whig, bequeathed it to us, take her full share. But, sir, who I have only the same thing to say. In either case, howfor a long time carried on the African slave trade? The ever, I will remark that they were urging the State merchants of the North. Who navigated the slare | Government, which they supposed had the constituships? The seamen of the North. Yet they reproach tional right to interpose. As to the article signed “A uis, having no further profits to derive from the prosecu. South Carolinian," I do not believe it was written by a tion of the slave trade.
South Carolinian, but by some individual who assumed The able and patriotic gentleman from Pennsylvania that name, for the purpose of giving more force to his (Mr. INGERSOLL) has told us that slavery had been abol remarks, South Carolina being an extensive slaveholdished in the North, because the nature of the soil and its | ing State. productions did not longer justify their employment. A I will now, Mr. Speaker, approach the constitutional very good and sufficient reason, and withal true; and question, and would solemnly ask if it is to be seriously when we are in that situation that we cannot benefit our argued that the sages of the Revolution, linderstanding selves by holding slaves, why, we will endeavor to imi-uberty as they understood it, would have manifested so tate the noble example of our northern brethren, and much caution in the framing of the constitution, by sal. emancipate too! Interest will certainly induce us to utary restrictions upon this subject, and yet have been believe that slavery is an evil, as it did our northern so incautious as to leave Congress in possession of this brethren. When it is not our interest to hold slaves, | power any where? Where is it found? It is neither then we will emancipate them, too, in imitation of this expressed directly or indirectly in any one of the proexample,
visions of the constitution. Again, sir, is it to be be. Mr. Speaker, this question has not been brought upon lieved, for one moment, that the States of Virginia and us by ourselves. We have not interfered with theinsti. | Maryland, the foremost in the ranks of those who retutions of the North; and wby should they meddle with stricted the power of the Federal Government, would ours? I will here ask the honorable member from Ver- have given up a portion of their citizens, in order that mont one question. Will he inform us what we are to there might be inflicted upon them an unlimited, unmit. do with our slaves, if we abolish slavery in Virginia? Is igated, and unrestricted despotism, reserving not even it intended to let them loose upon us, and to be located the right of representation?--for, if the argument of the among us, upon terms of equality? If not, where have gentleman from Vermont be true, this Government, these benevolent schemers provided an asylum for them within these ten miles square, is as despotic as that of But I will make one proposition to him, and to the abo. | Russia or ihe Grand Turk. Would the people of Virlitionists; and it is this: open your purse strings; give ginia and Maryland have consented to pass off a portion the best test of your benevolence; come among us, and of their citizens, like herds of swine, without one solitary buy our slaves, and you may emancipate them at your act of restriction and restraint upon the power of the will, so you remove them from among us. That will be Federal Government over them? Would they have a better test of your sincerity and purity of motive than been willing to have erected a despotism in the midst of all your speeches and writings. Till you do this, I em- this Union? Sir, I cannot believe it. This very idea is phatically say, let us alone.
preposterous. Fortunately for us, however, there is no Sir, there is another reason why we should not meddle proof positive on this subject. The language of the act with this subject. What was the condition of things at of the Virginia cession is clear, unequivocal, and deci. the formation of the confederacy? During the arduous sive upon ihe point, and it will be found to answer every struggle of the Revolution, you were willing, gentle argument urged by the gentleman from Vermont. men, to fight the battles of freedom side by side with The proviso to the act of cession by the State of Vir. slavebolders. Together the blood of our fathers was ginia is in these words: “Provided that nothing lierein shed, and together their bones bleached the battle-field. contained shall be construed to vest in the United States You were willing to erect this Union in conjunction with any right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights the slaveholder, and with him to cement it together, I of individuals therein, otherwise than as the same shall
or may be transferred by such individuals to the United should have a territory of its own, and exclusive legislaStates." By this clause no right of soil passes. Con tion over that territory, 10 prevent interruption or disturgress cannot affect the right of individuals to the soil, on-bance. The necessity will be sufficiently illustrated by Jy so far as individuals may convey to the United States. the recollection of the fact, that during the sittings of The reversion of the soil is in the State of Virginia. Is it Congress at Philadelphia, previous to the adoption of not, therefore, most manifest that, with these reservations the constitution, it was surrounded by a mob, and kept and restrictions, Virginia regarded the rights of the citi- l 'in duresse during a whole day; and that it finally adjourn. zens of the District as effectually secured and guarantieded to meet at Trenton, in New Jersey. Having territoas they were under her own constitution and laws pre-ry and exclusive jurisdiction of its own, the Federal vious to the cession? Congress cannot declare any Government, by its own laws, protects itself; but withthing designated and held as property not to be proper out it, it would depend on State authorities for its pro. ty, without express grant. In relation to slavęs, the tection, which would not, probably, always be afforded, constitution regards them as property, and guaranties its and the legislation of the whole nation arrested. The security. If the power to abolish slavery in the District following remarks of Mr. Madison, in the convention of of Columbia exists, then the people of ibe District, al Virginia, will prove the correctness of this view: "Ile though American citizens, stand on a footing of gross next objects speaking of Mr. Ilenry) to the exclusive inequality: for Congress is restricted as to all other citi-l legislation over the District where the seat of the Gov. zens. I then emphatically ask if Virginia and Maryland
ernment may be fixed. Woula he submit that the Rep. did so disfranchise this portion of their former citizens? resentatives of this state should carry on their deliberaThe language of the act of cession by Maryland is rath
tions under the control of any one of the members of er more equivocal, but yet the spirit and design were the Union? If every State bad the power of legislation the same. When the objects of the cession expressed
over the place where Congress should fix the General in the preamble to the act, the reference to the constitu Government, this would impair the dignity and hazard tion, and the restricted character of the cession as to the safety of Congress. If the safety of the Union were property in the said District, are seen, it seems to me
trict, are seen, it seems to me | under the control of any particular State, would not forthere can be no doubt upon this question.
eign corruption probably prevail in such a State, to inSir, there is another reason why the States of Vir- duce it to exert its controlling influence over the memginia and Maryland would not have been guilty of the bers of the General Government. Gentlemen cannot excess of folly of making the cession unrestricted, have forgotten the disgraceful insults which Congress and which proves the character of the proviso referred received some years ago. When we also reflect that to; and it is this: Maryland was a large slaveholding the previous cession of particular States is necessary, State, and Virginia the largest in the Union; and they before Congress can legislate exclusively any where, we both provided that their citizens should return to their must, instead of being alarmed at this part, heartily respective Governments whenever the ceded territory
e ceded territory approve of it." should cease to be used as the seat of the Federal Gov. The words “in all cases whatsoever" cannot be re. ernment. Now, sir, extinguish slavery here, and what garded as conveying any independent power, or condo you do? You make a rallying point for free negroes ferring, contrary to the whole scope and intention of in the very centre of slavery itself. Here might be the framers of the constitution, and every principle gathered all the disaffected and insubordinate spirits upon which it is based, all powers of legislation not among the slave population of the surrounding States,
expressly prohibited. I cannot think the constitution who might resort here in such hordes that the citizens
can claim to itself a principle of inherent powers, when of the District would be unable to control or check all its powers are derivative and restricted. These words them. I say, sir, the Legislatures of those two States
y, sir, the Legislatures of those two States must be interpreted to mean all powers of legislation would not, and could not, have been guilty of the folly authorized by the principles upon which the constitu. of making such an unrestricted cession.
tion is framed, and conferred by that instrument. Those who contend that Congress has the power to With these very few remarks, therefore, I leave this abolish slavery in the District of Columbia attempt to branch of the subject, not deeming it necessary to rederive it from these words in the 1st article and 8th secepeat the able and perspicuous views of my colleague, tion of the constitution, having reference to an antici- Mr. Wise, so forcibly expressed. pated cession of territory to the Federal Government,
But, Mr. Speaker, the question now seems to be, for a seat of Government: "To exercise exclusive legis
To exercise exclusive legis- how is this matter to be decided? It has come up belation in all cases whatsoever over such District.” The fore us, and, in the language of gentlemen, it must be cession of this District was not made until some time met. We all admit this property is guarantied to us by after the adoption of the constitution; of course it had the constitution, and that Congress has no power to leno direct reference to this District, or to the question of gislate in relation to it in any of the States. The conslavery, because it would not then have been known stitutional power to do so is denied by every member whether the cession would be made by slaveholding or upon this floor. Why, then, was the constitutional non-slave holding States. Any interference with slavery, in power of the Congress of the United States restricted any form, by Congress, was expressly restricted; yet it is in relation this subject? Because it is property over contended that this clause, making no direct or indirect which we, individually, have control; was interwoven reference to the subject, conveys this power, so totally into our system; and the constitution has determined at war with the principles of the constitution, and the that jurisdiction over it shall not be transferred from explicit restriction upon this subject. A very satisfac- l the domestic control of the State Governments to that tory interpretation of what was intended by the words of the Federal, because, in their domestic rights and “to exercise exclusive legislation" is to be found in relations, they are sovereign and independent of the the fact that without such a cession of territory, and the Federal Government, and of each other. How, then, right of exclusive legislation, the Federal Government is this question to be decided? I do not wish to avoid a would have had no territory upon which to erect her | vote upon it in the most direct manner. I am pre. public buildings, or its Legislature to conduct its delib pared, sir, to meet it, come when it will, whence it erations, but would have been at the mercy of State au- will, and in whatever shape it may. But, while I am thorities, liable to be disturbed and interrupted at the thus prepared to give my own vote, I am willing to pleasure of State authorities. It was necessary, then, make every concession that gentlemen can ask, reasonafor safety and security, that the Federal Government bly, in the form in which the decision of the House shall
Dec. 23, 1835.]
[H. or R. be expressed, so that it be decisive and effectual. But | pose the committee, to whom a petition may be referI cannot go so far as to record my vote to affirm that red, report that it should be rejected, where is the slavery is an evil, because I will make no concession want of power or the disrespect on the part of the whatever to the abolitionists, who are not affected with House to do the same thing without the reference? If it, and have nothing to do with it. This is a subject the House confirms the report of the committee, it all with which we have nothing to do, and my individual amounts to the same thing ---to rejection; and the only opinion need not be expressed. I say, sir, I am willing question is, whether the same thing shall be done dito make the most liberal concession that the nature of rectly without reference, or indirectly by reference and the case will admit. Now, let us investigate the true | report, the House having determined its course before character of the question under consideration. Our a reference is asked. Now, these petitioners know brethren of the North have no direct interest in this nothing about the formula of proceeding here, and it question, but our interest is directly at stake; our lives, is the same thing to them whether their petition be reliberty, property, all are in danger. It has not originated jected by a direct vote of the House, without going to in the South; nothing was heard of it until this abo. a committee; or whether it go to a committee, who may ·lition society awakened our fears, and alarmed uş for report that it be rejected, and the House confirm that our safety. The question, then, is, will you quiet the report. people of the South? Will you decide this question in But, say gentlemen, it conflicts with the right of pe
such a form as to tranquillize their fears? We are all tition-a sacred right, guarantied by the constitution. · brethren of the great American family, and have been Sir, there is no man on this floor who respects the right • associated together for upwards of fifty years; let us, of petition more than I do; but yet, with all this regard · then, continue in the same bonds of fraternal love. The for the right of petition, there is some respect due to southern people tell you we wish to continue in frater ourselves, and it must always be understood with some nization and union with you; but their march is impe
restrictions. The right of petition is the right to peti· ded, and their prospects blighted, by these harassing tion for a redress of grievances affecting the petitioners interferences with their rights. It creates a feeling themselves; but when pious and godly-given Indies, in of insecurity on the stability of our property. We ask, some few portions of the North, are petitioning to rethen, our brethren of the North to quiet us in the most dress my grievances, when I feel no grievance, when I decisive form they can, consistent with their duties. If know of no grievance at all, ! humbly conceive it to be
they cannot sustain all the propositions that have been an improper and impertinent interference with my rights. · presented, they can either submit or vote for some one Now, sir, pray, how are these good and godly and pious
that shall be considered decisive. I have disposed of and Christian-like ladies affected by slavery in the Dis
the question of laying these petitions on the table; that trict of Columbia? They are not living in the District · course is not decisive, and not adequate to the emergen of Columbia, but in Vermont or Massachusetts. They
cies of the occasion. Many gentlemen are unwilling to are not affected by slavery in the District of Columbia. · reject any petitions, on the ground that it is the con They are not stained by its guilt. They are not affected
stitutional right of the citizen to petition. I myself, by its sins. Its blood is not upon their skirts. Why,
Mr. Speaker, have no objection to that course; but am then, should they ask a redress of the grievances of the • prepared to vote not only that such petitions be not re-l people of the District of Columbia. Are not the people
ceived, but, if I could do so, I would vote that they of the District themselves the best judges of their own
should be all thrown together into the midst of the Po. grievances; are they not adequate to judge for them. • tomac.
selves and to apply for redress of grievances, if they have • Mr. Speaker, let us examine the proposition to reject, any; and do they come here, or to their own Legislature,
which will likely follow a reconsideration of the refer to ask redress? Sir, I must say I respect no petition < ence. In the course of this debate, reference was bad coming from people who are not interested, directly or
to the example of the Senate during the first session of indirectly, on the subject about which they petition; and the last Congress, to show that the rejection of this less so when its object is to interfere with the rights of memorial would be disrespectful. Sir, ihe cases are others. When petitions come from those who feel and · not analogous. If my recollection be right, the vote suffer grievance, couched in respectful language, I will of the Senate, in that case, was not upon a proposition then respect and hear them in the most respectful manto reject, but upon a proposition not to receive the pa-ner. Then, sir, why not come up directly to the quesper. That was more disrespectful than to reject, be- tion, and reject this petition, and all petitions of a similar cause the motion to reject is necessarily made after the character, ins/anter? I have referred to what has taken paper has been presented after it has been in the hands place heretofore in relation to petitions of this character, of the Speaker, and read to the House; but the motion which I then thought sufficiently decisive--laying them not to receive is in priority of all these formalities, and on the table; but that was when the country was quiet, is therefore a more decisive expression of the disrespect and had not been disturbed by the circulation of pam. of the body to whom it is offered. The motion to reject phlets and vile wood cuts among the slaves of the South. means, simply, to reject the application, that is, the Then we were satisfied, because there was nothing se. prayer of the petitioners or memorialists, and nothing rious to apprehend; the demon of discord had not then more. But it is contended that even this, as well as been stalking through the land; but now, sir, we see the motion not to receive, is at war with the right of the danger, and all we ask is an express declaration on petition. Now, sir, what is this right of petition! Gen. the part of our brethren of the North of their determiilemen bring petitions bere, present them, and ask ref nation not to legislate upon this subject; this we have a erence to some committee of the House. Committees right to ask and to expect. If we had the power, as are not organized by law or by the constitution, but by as they have, we would not ask even this of them. No, a rule of the House, for its own convenience, and for sir; we could manage these fanatics exceedingly well, if the convenience of having that brought to its considera- we had them among us, but we cannot reach them as tion which could not be conveniently done by the whole long as they confine themselves within the liniits of other House. A committee sometimes reports, or passes over sovereign and independent States; we cannot, we will sub silentio, or asks leave of the House to be discharged not, violate the jurisdiction of other States. from the further consideration of the subject; and can But, say gentlemen, why press the constitutional quesnot the whole House do at once what it may do on the tion now? I reply, we press it from the most urgent and recommendation of one of its own committees? Sup. l imperious necessity. It is due to our safety, to our
H. OF R.]
(Dec. 23, 1835.
--- - - -- -quiet, that we press it. Every other form in which this The question being then taken, “Shall the main ques. question has been presented has failed to secure us tion be now put!" it was decided in the affirmative: against the repetition of these memorials and petitions, Yeas 137, nays 71. exciting our passions, and endangering our safety. Noth The CHAIR having stated the question to be whether ing, it seems to me, short of a declaration, on the part the vote be reconsidered, of Congress, of their want of constitutional power, will Mr. GLASCOCK asked, if it was carried in the affirmrestrain these fanatical crusaders from seeking the in ative, what would be the next question? tervention of Congress in aid of their diabolical schemes, The CHAIR said it would be on the motion to commit. and perpetually harassing the country. I do not ask Mr. LANE moved an adjournment, but withdrew it. gentlemen to vote contrary to their sense of right. It! Mr. WHITTLESEY asked for the yeas and nays, and they believe Congress has not the power, then this agi- they were ordered. tating subject will be put to rest, so far as Congress is The question of reconsideration being taken, it was concerned. If gentlemen think Congress has the con decided in the affirmative, as follows: stitutional power, let them say so; we shall not, if they Yeas--Messrs. Anthony, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, decisively refuse all legislation upon the subject, upon Bell, Bockee, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Bunch, grounds of expediency, complain of their opinions upon Burns, John Calhoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carter, the mere question of power--a power which they do John Chambers, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Claiborne, not intend to exercise, and sever the Union on that ac- Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushcount. No, sir; we value it too highly, and love it too man. Davis. Deberry. Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromdearly. But if the power exists, this House cannot goole, Dunlap, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, Fowler, pledge its successors--the South has no security for the
French, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, future. The constitution provides for its own amend. Rice Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Graham, Grayson, ment, by reference to the source of all power--the peo. Griffin, Haley, Hiland Tall, Hamer, Hammond, Hanneple. It will be our duty to seek through the people an gan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, amendment to the constitution, restricting the power of Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, lluntsCongress upon this subject. Such an amendment must man, Ingbam, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson,
rail, if the northern people are sincere, which Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, I do not doubt, in their professions of attachment to the John W. Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Union, and respect for our rights-seeing, as they must | Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Lawler, Gideon Lee, do, the infinite danger to our rights and our safety Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Logan, which would result from the abolition of slavery in the | Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, District of Columbia. This would test the true feelings John Y. Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, Maury, of the North, and quiet the apprehensions of the South, May, McComas, McKay, McKeon, McKim, Mercer, and secure the Union against the most formidable enemy
Miller, Montgomery, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parke, by which its integrity could be assailed.
Patterson, Patton, Franklin Pierce, James A. Pearce, 'Sir, I am anxious to see this distracting question put Pettigrew, Phelps, Pickens, Pinckney, Rencher, John to rest, and that we may be able to say, with new feels Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Robertson, ings of national pride, in the language of the poet, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, William B. Shepard, Augus
"Where e'er beneath the sun, by sea winds fanned, tine H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Smith, Spangler, There floats the banner of my native land."
Standefer, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Not, sir, the banner of a northern empire, not the ban Waddy Thompson, Toucey, Towns, Turrill, Vanderner of a southern empire, but the banner of the Union- poel, Wagener, Ward, Washington, Weeks, White, the banner wbich conducted the heroes of the Revolution Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Wise--148. to victory in the cause of freedom, and which has now! Nays-Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Hernan Allen, waved in triumph for upwards of half a century, untar- Ashley, Bailey, Beaumont, Bond, Borden, Briggs, nished and unscathed. Sir, I hope this question will Buchanan, William B. Calhoun, Carr, Casey, George now end; that our northern bretbren will meet it in the Chambers, Childs, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, most decisive form, and give such an explicit expression Denny, Evans, Everett, Philo C. Fuller, Granger, of their sentiments as will tranquillize the South on the Graves, Grennell, Joseph Hall, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, one hand, and silence the fanatics on the other.
Harper, Hazeltine, Hoar, Howell, Hunt, Ingersoll, As to the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsyl. William Jackson, Janes, Benjamin Jones, Laporte, Law: vania, (Mr. InGERSOLL,) for whose patriotic feelings, ex rence, Lay, Lincoln, Love, Mason, McCariy, Mckenhibited upon this occasion, I cannot withhold the ex- | nan, Milligan, Morris, Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Potts, pression of my highest admiration, I can only say that Reed, Russell, Slade, Sprague, Storer, Underwood, it is true; but it does not meet the present case; the Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey-61. question before the House relates to the District of Co. Mr. OWENS said, in consequence of the wide range lumbia alone. The proposition of the honorable gentle. which the debate had taken, he had determined to move man refers to slavery in the States. The proposition to lay the petition on the table, with a view to prevent that Congress has no constitutional power to abolish sla the continuance of the discussion upon the motion to very in either of the States of the Union need not be commit. The same course he should pursue in regard decided, because none assert it; and a decision of that to every similar petition which might be presented. His question would in no wise decide the question arising resolutions on the subject, which he had indicated to the upon this petition.
House, he would offer when the States were called for The only way in which the question can be presented resolutions. He moved to lay the petition and the mo. so as to procure the definitive and speedy action of the tion to commit on the table. House, will be by reconsidering the vote of reference, Mr. WISE made a point of order. Had not the mo. now sought to be reconsidered, which I earnestly hope tion to reject precedence of the motion to lay on the will be done.
table? When Mr. GARLAND had finished his speech
The CHAIR said no motion to reject was before the Mr. MANN, of New York, moved the previous ques. | House, and the motion to lay on the table was not de
batable. The motion was seconded by the House, by a vote of Mr. WISE called for the yeas and nays on the ques. 104 to 79.
tion, and they were ordered.
The question being taken, it was determined in the portant the subject be speedily acted upon by Congress. affirmative, as follows:
He had taken the trouble to examine the journals of the Yeas-Messrs. Chilton Allan, Anthony, Ashley, Beale, House in regard to former applications of a similar charBean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Boon, Boul. acter; and he had found, without exception, that the din, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Bunch, Burns, course had been to refer all such applications to a select Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, George Chambers, Chaney, committee. Tbat was the reason which induced him to Chapman, Chapin, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, make the motion he bad. He had the whole of the preCorwin, Craig, Cramer, Crane, Cushman, Davis, Deberry, cedents before him, including every State admitted into Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, the Union from the foundation of the Government. He Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, Fowler, French, Pbilo C. would again remark that he had himself no disposition Fuller, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Graves, on the subject; but he presumed there was a disinclina Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Hardin, Harlan, tion on the part of the mover that the subject should Sainuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Ilaynes, Hen- go to a separate and select committee. Mr. M. then derson, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Howell, Hubley, stated it as his belief that the two subjects ought to be Huntington, Huntsman, Ingersoll, Ingham, Jabez Jack kept separate and distinct if possible; but, if it met the son, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave pleasure of the House, he should be perfectly willing Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore,
to refer it to the Committee on the Territories, merely Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Gideon
remarking that such had been the usage of the House in Lee, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, former instances. Lucas, Ahijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, Job Y. Mason,
It was true that, in every other case, there bad been William Mason, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, May,
I no conflicting claims; and that circumstance, perbaps, McKay, McKeon, McKim, Mercer, Miller, Montgomery, might make an exception to the general rule heretofore Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parker, Parks, Patterson, I pursued with regard to this subject. He hoped the Franklin Pierce, Phelps, Pinckney, Rencher, John Rey
House, however, would promptly refer it either to the nolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Schenck, Sey. one committee or the other, in order that the sense of mour, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Smith,
e Shinn. Smith. I the House might be speedily ascertained, and the quesSpangler, Standefer, Storer, Sutherland, Taliaferro, tion settled in a way satisfactory to all parties. Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Turrill, Un 1 Mr. HAMER then withdrew his motion to refer the derwood, Vanderpoel, Vinton, Wagener, Ward, Wash- subject to the same committee to which the message and ington, Webster, Weeks, Lewis Williams, Sberrod Wil. documents on the northern boundary of Ohio had been liains--144.
referred. Nays-Messrs. Adams, Heman Allen, Bailey, Bond, / Mr. H. remarked that, in withdrawing bis motion, bis Borden, Briggs, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, principal object was to present another question to the Campbell, John Chambers, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, House. He desired that this whole subject should co Cushing, Denny, Evans, Everett, James Garland, Rice to the Judiciary Committee, in order to arrive at a fair Garland, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Grayson, Gren. | expression of the sense of the House. He therefore nell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hammond, Hard, Harper, moved that this matter be referred to the Committee on Hazeltine, Hoar, Hunt, William Jackson, Janes, Henry the Judiciary. Johnson, John W. Jones, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, Luke Mr. STORER said if the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Lea, Lincoln, Love, Lyon, Maury, McCarty, McComas, MASON] would permit the pending question of reconsid. McKennan, Milligan, Morris, Patton, Dutee J. Pearce, eration of the vote referring the President's message on James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Pickens, Potts, Reed, the subject of the northern boundary of Obio to be first Robertson, Rogers, Russell, William B. Shepard, Slade, disposed of, he would interpose no objection to the Sprague, Waddy Thompson, Towns, White, Whitile-wishes of the gentleman in regard to the reference of sey, Wise--67.
the other document. So the petition and the motion to commit were order. Mr. MASON said he would merely suggest to the ed to lie on the table.
House that the two subjects were distinct and indepenThe House then adjourned.
The SPEAKER stated the motion first in order would THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24.
be the reference to the Committee on the Territories.
Mr. VINTON said he hoped the motion of bis colCONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN.
league, to refer this subject to the Committee on the Mr. MASON, of Virginia, asked the unanimous con. | Judiciary, would prevail. He bad no doubt but the gen. sent of the House to take up and dispose of the message tleman from Virginia, who had moved its reference to a of the President of the United States, transmitting a select committee, would bestow upon it an able and copy of the constitution and other documents emanating faithful examination. Nor did he know of any objection from a convention in Michigan, in reference to the for to the gentlemen who compose the Committee on the mation of a State Government of said Territory,
Territories. It, however, appeared to him that neither The unanimous consent of the House having been ob. a select committee nor the Committee on the Territories tained,
was the appropriate committee to take charge of this Mr. M. remarked, when the subject was last before subject. He believed it was true, as had been stated tbc House, there were three different propositions pre. by the gentleman from Virginia, that on former occa. sented to its consideration. He had moved that the | sions, when States had been admitted into the Union, message of the President of the United States, with the the subject had been referred to a select committee; but accompanying documents on this subject, be referred to | as the case of Michigan was unlike those which had gone a select committee; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HA before it, they did not furnish a precedent for her's. In MER) had moved its reference to the select committee no instance, not even that of Tennessee, was there any already raised on the subject of the northern boundary dispute about boundaries. In every case the question of Ohio; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ilow- of admission was one of expediency merely; there was ARD) moved its reference to the Committee on the 'Ter- | nothing else to settle or decide. The subject of the ex. ritories.
pediency of admitting new States into the Union does For himself, Mr. M. said, he had no disposition on the not belong to the powers and appropriate duties of any subject. He believed, however, that it was very im- one of the standing committees of the House; and for