H. OF R.] Partial Appropriation Bill—Slavery in the District of Columbia. The bill making appropriations, in part, for the support of Government for the year 1836, was taken up. Mr. CAMBRELENG moved to postpone this bill; and said that, in moving the orders of the day, it was his object to call up the bill for the relief of the sufferers by the fire in New York. It was necessary to act on this bill, in order to remove the embargo now laid on the commerce of the city of New York, in consequence of its delay. Mr. WISE remarked that he should oppose the motion to take up that bill. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS asked when the general appropriation bill would be reported. Mr. CAMBRELENG said it would be reported on Tuesday morning next. It had been delayed by the illness of one of the principal clerks of one of the Depart ments. The motion to postpone the bill was agreed to. After some conversation, in which Mr. HARDIN, Mr. CAMBRELENG, and Mr. WHITTLESEY, took part, On motion of Mr. UNDERWOOD, all other bills lying on the table were postponed, in order to take up the bill for the RELIEF OF SUFFERERS BY FIRE IN NEW YORK. The House having then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of the sufferers by the late fire in the city of New York Mr. EVERETT spoke briefly on the subject of the bill, and indicated several amendments which he should offer if in order. One of these amendments provides that the collectors shall take new bonds in every case; and another that the debtors shall pay interest on the bonds for the time for which the payment was deferred. [JAN. 21, 1836. that gentleman more highly than he did, but he never would consent to give up such control to any man, as was proposed in this bill. Another feature of the bill was objectionable. It provided that no sufferer could receive any benefit from it, whose loss did not amount to the sum of $1,000. He also referred to various analogous acts of relief, and argued at length against the provisions of the present bill. Let those, he said, who have suffered, bring their claims individually before Congress, and let them be investigated; but this bill was in violation of all existing precedents, and conflicted with the principle on which alone relief should be afforded. It provided for the most wealthy, and omitted the most needy. The bill was not what it purported to be. It was not "a bill for the relief of the sufferers of New York," but a bill extending accommodation to the mercantile interest of New York. Mr. PHILLIPS rose and stated that he desired to address the House on the bill; but that, as the hour was late, he would move that the committee now rise. The motion was agreed to, and the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. On motion, the House then adjourned. THURSDAY, JANUARY 21. SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The SPEAKER announced the first business in order to be the question of order upon the appeal from the decision of the Chair in reference to a petition praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, presented heretofore by Mr. ADAMS, upon which Mr. GLASCOCK had raised the question of reception. Mr. MANN, of New York, said the House had from time to time manifested a disposition to postpone this subject. He could see no propriety in disposing of it now, inasmuch as a question of more importance was before the House and undecided, which was connected with the same subject. Congress had been seven weeks of which was in relation to the accounts of the American consul at London, and the other in regard to the hostilities of the Indians in Florida. There existed manifest necessity for action upon various measures of importance, and he therefore moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject before the House until Saturday week. Mr. DENNY said his chief objection to the bill arose from its conflicting with that clause of the constitution which provided that there should be no preference given to one port over another. The second section of the bill did go to alter, to a certain extent, the present rev-in session, and but two bills had passed the House: one enue regulations. The first section of the bill provided for the relief of individuals who had suffered by the fire; but the second section was too general; for it extended to all the importations in the port of New York prior to the late fire, and to that extent gave preference to New York over every port in the country. It was partial legislation, in direct violation of that clause of the constitution. It also conflicted, he thought, with the act of 1832, commonly called the compromise bill. These were his objections to the bill. He would have been glad if the bill had been more specific, had classified the sufferers, and discriminated between those who were the citizens and the foreign agents. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, said the bill was already so encumbered with the amendments, that he should not offer then what he intended to at a future period of its consideration. The bill was too partial in its operations, and left altogether unprovided for those who had most claim upon the community and upon Congress. There was but one portion of that community who ought to be relieved. It was those who had imported goods, had them in packages, and lost them by the fire. Mr. P. said, at the proper time, he should move a third section to the bill, providing that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to all other persons who have suffered loss of property by the late conflagration in the city of New York, not provided for in either of the sections of the bill, fifteen per cent. on such loss. Mr. P. urged another objection to the bill; which was that of giving up the power of Congress over this matter to the collector of New York. No man esteemed Mr. ADAMS said he was desirous of having the question taken on the appeal from the decision of the Chair, because, so long as that decision stood, there was no possibility of the people having a chance of presenting their petitions to the House. On the last petition day it was with difficulty that a discussion, which would have occupied the House the whole day, was avoided, and the people precluded from having their petitions received. If the question was decided that a motion not to receive a petition was not subject to the 45th rule, he would pledge himself to offer an amendment to the rules, because it would be in the power of any one member to get up and move that a petition be not received, and then, according to the decision of the Speaker, the whole day might be consumed in discussing that petition. He hoped the House would decide the question at once. If the House decide that the decision of the Speaker was wrong, it would be equivalent to an amendment of the rules. Gentlemen were mistaken if they thought that by putting this question off from week to week they would get rid of it. He believed if the Speaker would reconsider his decision he would reverse it; but if he would not, he (Mr. A.) would ask the House to decide whether the people should have the right to have their petitions received or not. JAN. 21, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [H. of R. The motion to postpone was then agreed to: Ayes 94, ties, and is identified with the dearest and_paramount noes 59. After transacting some other business, The House then resumed the consideration of the following resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. JARVIS, of Maine: Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress. And be it further resolved, that in case any petition praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion of the House that the same ought to be laid upon the table, without being referred or printed. To which Mr. WISE submitted the following amend ment: "Resolved," and insert, That there is no power of legislation granted by the constitution to the Congress of the United States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that any attempt by Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery will be not only unauthorized, but dangerous to the union of the States. Mr. JARVIS subsequently modified the original resolution as follows: Whereas any attempt in this House to agitate the question of slavery is calculated to disturb the compromises of the constitution, to endanger the Union, and, if persisted in, to destroy the peace and prosperity of the country: Therefore, Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress. And it is further resolved, that in case any petition praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion of the House that the same ought to be laid upon the table, without being referred or printed. The question before the House being Mr. WISE'S amendment, which he subsequently moved as an additional resolution to Mr. JARVIS'S Mr. PICKENS rose and observed that he regretted exceedingly the necessity that induced him to say any thing on the interesting and deeply exciting topics before the House. Sir, when I had occasion, some weeks since, to make a few remarks on this subject, I, as well as the party I have the honor to be associated with, were then denounced as attempting to raise a discussion, and excitement for party purposes. It was said that, like the Hartford convention men and abolitionists, we were put down and sunk in the country, and that we desired some sectional excitement to raise us from our weak position, &c. I would disdain to notice this, if the charge had originated from, and been confined to, a miserable whipster editor, who has been hired to hunt down all that is virtuous and intellectual in the country, who has fed upon calumny and fattens upon slander, and upon whose countenance envy and malignity hold their cadaverous union; I would loathe to touch this pitiful thing, that lives by licking the spittle of men, if it were not that it is understood to represent the executive branch of this Government, and is the organ of the dominant party that now rules the destines of this republic. This being the fact, I call upon every honest and virtuous man to brand it with the indignation that its falsehood and infamy deserve. Let no man suppose that, because I belong to a comparatively small party, persecuted and misrepresented, my voice is ever to be silenced upon this floor, when the honor or the interests of those I stand here to represent may be involved, directly or indirectly. No earthly consideration shall deter me from uttering the sentiments of my heart on this subject. Let no man make it a question for partisan warfare or for party triumph. It rises above all parVOL. XII. 141 interests of every southern State in this confederacy. Mr. Speaker, I have seen enough to convince me that there is an unsound state of feeling here and elsewhere, totally at war with our rights and our institutions. I have not read passing events for the last year, to be now deceived at what I see. I agree with gentlemen, when they say the abolition societies and their open partisans are at present, compared with other great parties, small, so far as numbers are concerned. But, to ascertain their real strength, we must examine the peculiar division of parties that exists in the non-slaveholding States. Take, for instance, New York, and we find there the anti-masonic party, the whig party, and the party [ believe called the "regency party." From the division of these parties, the abolitionists become important and powerful, as holding the balance of power; hence it is that all other parties, desiring their strength, acquiesce, to a certain extent, in their measures and movements. There is a high game playing for political power, and those who would seem to be weak from numbers become strong from position. Their strength consists in fanaticism-in painting scenes of imaginary evil-in appeal. ing to the passions of the heart, and, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] says, to their religion. And when was fanaticism arrested? Look at its history all over the world. In its first commencement, it is seen like a speck in the distant horizon; but mark it as it rises--it spreads and widens, and grows blacker and blacker, until it sweeps with the fury of the rushing tornado, desolating the earth; and the good and the wise stand as if stricken with dumbness, while the bold and the strong quake and tremble like unweaned infants under the trumpet's blast. In its first struggles it is despised for its weakness, but at length, "crescit eundo,” until it walks erect in its giant strength and power, and, with the muscular action of a madman, tramples into the dust and earth those who at first felt pity for its delusion, and contempt for its impotence. The only way to contend with it is to meet it and strangle it in its infancy. What has been the history of the last summer? We have seen the whole country excited and agitated to the highest degree. There has not been a State, nor county, nor town, from one end of this Union to the other, that has not been tremblingly alive to the "general welfare." Societies upon societies have been formed, thousands upon thousands have been raised, for the avowed object of producing a change, a deep and vital change, in the domestic institutions of the southern States. There is scarcely a common newspaper, a magazine, or review, that comes from the North, but what brings something of prejudice and denunciation against There is not a school book, not a common geography, which does not contain something, by innuendo or insinuation, calculated to train up our children to believe that the inheritance of their fathers is full of evil and iniquity. The prejudices, opinions, and moral power of the whole non-slaveholding States are directly and openly against us on the subject of domestic servitude. And well may the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] declare that every member's speech on this subject, from north of Mason and Dixon's line, would be an incendiary pamphlet, and if they pursued a certain course here, they would be swept from their seats. us. Sir, under these circumstances, is it astonishing that we should be excited here? But it is not in our own country only that we have to encounter prejudice. England has emancipated her West India islands. France is also moving in the same direction-her press, too, is calling up the prejudices of the nation against this institution. And in England there is no Review, from the polisked and talented Edinburgh, down to the H. OF R.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [JAN. 21, 1836. glory of the past, whose hearts must beat with impulses and emotions of a new and degenerate nature, whose mothers must quicken with a new and unnatural offspring. Sir, I deprecate all party ties and party feelings in this matter. It is too solemn a subject for this. If there be any man here who has any misgivings or trembling as to the future on this subject, let me say to him, this is no place for him. If there be any representative here, from any part or portion of the slaveholding race, whose heart is so bowed down in subserviency and servility to party discipline and party organization as to be drawn off on this question for the vile purpose of partisan asof the day, let me say to him, this is no place for him, unless he is prepared to cover himself with prostitution. If there be any gentleman here, from the same region, whose aspirations are to please the dominant interests of this confederacy by sycophancy and flattery, for the purpose of clothing himself in the livery and trappings of office, this is no place for him, unless he is prepared to abandon the inheritance of his fathers, and cover his children with degradation and ruin. Jeremy Bentham levelling Westminister, that does not open its battery and denunciations upon us. Even, too, that prince of modern demagogues, Mr. O'Connell, in the plenitude of his arrogance and vanity, must think fit to strike the vilest and basest notes, to call up the passions and prejudices of the ignoble and low against in stitutions the true nature of which his ignorance forbade him to understand, and against a gallant people, whose virtues his natural vulgarity could never appreciate. He talk about equal rights and public truth, when he lives upon a splendid income raised by "grinding the face of the poor," by drawing the last farthing from a starving and devoted people! And here I regret, deep-cendency and political triumph in the miserable conflicts ly regret, that a gentleman on this side of the Atlantic, distinguished for his learning and elegant diction, has recently thought proper to echo back these notes, and play a second part to this Irish demagogue, by publishing sentiments and a tissue of visionary declamation, calculated to have no other effect than to excite feelings, sympathies, and prejudices, at war with the harmony of the Union and the forbearing principles of the constitution, which he, as well as every other good citizen, has tacitly sworn to support. I allude to Dr. Channing, and I allude to him with pain and regret. Instead of standing on his palmy eminence, with the benevolence and charity of an enlightened Christian, to pour out "oil upon the troubled waters," we find him inculcating senti ments and spreading doctrines calculated to alienate the affection and sympathies of the people of this Union from different sections. It Mr. Speaker, we cannot mistake all these things. The truth is, the moral power of the world is against us. is idle to disguise it. We must, sooner or later, meet the great issue that is to be made upon this subject. Deeply connected with this, is the movement to be made in the District of Columbia. If the power be asserted in Congress to interfere here, or any approach be made towards that end, it will give a shock to our institutions and the country, the consequences of which no man can foretell. Sir, as well might you grapple your iron grasp into the very heart and vitals of South Carolina, as to touch this subject here. Georgia has perceived this, and felt its full force. She, under these views, has recently passed a resolution declaring it unconstitutional for Congress to touch this matter here, and met the whole subject as became her and her interests. Under these circumstances, I was astonished to hear the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HOLSEY] intimate that he was willing, for the present, to give this resolution the go-by. [Here Mr. HOLSEY explained that he was willing to meet the question when it came up at the proper time, in a distinct and independent resolution, &c.] Mr. P. then proceeded, and said that he would not press these circumstances at present. Virginia has but the other day passed a resolution to the same purport. She, alive to the deep stake she has in the question, has approached near to unanimity on it. The resolution, denying to Congress any constitutional power over the subject in this District, was passed by a vote of one hundred and fifteen to nine, in her House of Delegates. There, there is one subject at least upon which all parties can unite. I was deeply gratified to see that noble State speaking as became her ancient character. That proud State, justly proud, from having enrolled on the scroll of fame her hundred patriots, has felt her vital interests and honor concerned, and moved with a unanimity and spirit that became the land of Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. I trust no son of hers here will fall below the position she has chosen to occupy. Before she can waver or falter on this subject, directly or indirectly, you must first break up the foundations of all her institutions; you must make a new race of people in her bosom, who must forget the It is of no avail to close our eyes to passing events around us, in this country and in Europe. Every thing proclaims that, sooner or later, we shall have to meet the strong and the powerful, and contend over the tombs of our fathers for our consecrated hearth-stones and household gods, or abandon our country to become a black colony, and seek for ourselves a refuge in the wilderness of the West. It is in vain to avoid the contest. Mr. Speaker, as to the constitutional power of this Government to touch the subject in any shape or form, within the States of this Union, I disdain to argue that point. If the dominant interests of this nation should ever become so bold and reckless as to touch the matter, or exercise such a power, directly or indirectly, then, if we hold our seats on this floor, we shall become the slaves of slaves, and deserve our infamous destiny. If ever we should be forced to hold up the noble but mutilated parchment of the constitution as a shield between us and the Goths and the Vandals who may have come in to desecrate and desolate all that is venerable and fair in the institutions of our country, then indeed shall we have lived to see the day when conflagration shall sweep through the land and scath its living monuments-when the scattered fragments of a broken and dismembered empire shall exist here and there, only to mark where the republic once was. While I can never consent to discuss the constitutional power of this Government as relates to the States, yet it becomes us to examine the powers under the constitution given in this District. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed on this point, it would be well for us to call to our minds the circumstances and causes that induced the acts of cession granting jurisdiction in this District. When Congress was in session at Philadelphia, a mob created great disturbance, and they found themselves unable, for want of authority, to protect themselves and their officers. Hence it became important that they should have some territory with exclusive jurisdiction over it. The object and sole desire of Congress was to be able to protect itself, its officers, its public buildings, and make such other municipal regulations as might be deemed necessary for the harmony, quiet, and independence of the Government. When we look at these circumstances, and then compare the clause in the constitution conferring legislative power, we can come to but one conclusion as to the great leading objects of the trust. The words are, that Congress "shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the JAN. 21, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [H. OF R. important to ascertain whether slaves are private prop erty. And here let it be observed that there is a loose idea abroad, that we hold our rights to that species of United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful build-property under the compromises of the constitution. ings." "Exclusive legislation" here cannot mean absolute and unlimited legislation. This Government cannot legally exist in any position without all the restraints of the constitution binding upon it. It is created by the constitution, and cannot act in any sphere except under its specific grants; and to contend that it has all the powers here that the States can exercise within their territories, is a solecism in constitutional law; for the States can exercise all the powers not prohibited by the principles and spirit of their own constitutions, or the constitution of the United States, while this Government can exercise no power not specifically granted by the constitution, or absolutely necessary to carry into effect some specific grant. Exclusive legislation means that no other Government shall have concurrent legislation. Congress shall exercise "like authority" over all places purchased for forts, arsenals, &c. The legislation and authority exercised in this District, in like manner, shall be exercised over places purchased for forts, &c. If, then, Congress is unlimited here, then it is unlimited in those other places where public works are; and if slavery can be abolished here, then, in like manner, can it be abolished in all those places in the heart of a State where there may be public works, &c. All the power intended to be given was to enable this Government to protect and preserve its public works and improvements, and "like authority" was intended to be given in this District--authority that might be essential to carry out the legitimate objects of the original trust, and no more. Any exercise of power beyond the obvious meaning and plain intentions of the grant of power at the time it was given, is a violation of its spirit and perversion of its purposes. Again: The ninth section expressly excludes Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808. If the clause giving "exclusive legislation" embraces the power to abolish slavery, then it was created without limitation at the date of the instrument. But if Congress had, before 1808, attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves, here or elsewhere, it would have been directly against the letter of the constitution. There has been no new acquirement of power since the date of that instrument, nor enlargement of the provisions of the clause granting "exclusive legislation." We cannot do that indirectly which we cannot do directly: and if Congress had abolished slavery here prior to 1808, it would have been the most effectual measure to prohibit their importation; and this they were clearly and expressly prohibited from doing. I do not refer to this so much as being perfectly conclusive as to show that it was the whole spirit and intention of the constitution that this Government should have no power to disturb this delicate and exciting subject. We all know the extreme jealousy that existed amongst the States on this matter at the formation of the constitution--so much so, that it was one of the principal difficulties in forming a "more perfect union." Is it to be supposed that Virginia, sensitive and jealous as she was at that time on the subject of slavery, would have ceded a portion of her territory and citizens, if she had, for one moment, conceived that, under the clause in the constitution conferring legislative powers, they were to be thrown at the mercy of other interests, and other sections, antagonist to herself on this vital point? The fifth amendment declares that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation." Much less can it be taken for private use. cannot be taken except for public use. It becomes, then, It sons. use. We hold them as original rights, before and above the constitution, coming from the States in their separate existence. The compromises of the constitution relate entirely to the relative representation that the States, as political communities, shall have upon this floor; but this is not the source of rights to us in this or any other private property. The constitution recognises them as private property: the second section, apportioning our representation, the clause enabling the owner to recover his fugitive slave, and the clause sanctioning their im portation until 1808, all show that the constitution recognises them as property, as things other than perThe judicial tribunals of the non-slaveholding as well as the slaveholding States have all settled this principle. Then they cannot be taken except for public What is public use? If they were wanted on our public works, if they were needed in a great emergency, then might they be taken on just compensation. But if there be any one thing clearer than another, it is, that abolition was not the public use contemplated in the constitution. They cannot be taken without just compensation, even for public use. How can money be drawn from the public Treasury, except through appropriation by law? There can be no legal appropriation, except to carry into effect some specific power granted in the constitution, or clearly implied as absolutely necessary to carry into effect some specific grant. There is no specific power to abolish slavery, and it, being itself a high exercise of substantive power, cannot be implied as absolutely necessary to carry into effect any other power. As well might we pass appropriations to pay the people of this District for their cattle and horses, to give them the blessed privilege of running free and unrestrained over the barren hills and waste commons around this Capitol. As to principle and power, it is the same. But it is said, all the States may emancipate, and this District be left without the means of changing its condition. This is certainly any thing but a constitutional argument; for I answer, that even if this were to be the case, it is the constitution, and will be so until it is changed by the proper authorities. There is really no difficulty on this point, as those who choose can now emanipate by deed or will. In connexion with the constitution, let us for a moment examine the act of cession from Virginia. The proviso declares "that nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States." Let it be understood that this follows immediately after the clause describing the tract of country and particular extent of territory ceded. I admit the terms are somewhat equivocal at first. If the words, "the rights of individuals therein," refer only back to control the property in the soil, then they were of no use; for, under the constitution alone, Congress could not have interfered in the freehold. One of the first principles of the magna charta is, that no freeman shall be deseized of his freehold without a judgment of his peers. If those words were meant only to limit the power of the Government over the freehold of a citizen, then they were useless verbiage. Those who inserted them must have meant something more. When we look at the sensitiveness of Virginia on the interesting and vital subject of the peculiar property of her citizens she was about to cede, we are led to believe that she must have meant, in the words "rights of individuals therein," other rights than those of "soil." Connec this with the clauses in the constitution, and no man can refrain from admitting that it is, to say the least of it, a doubtful power, which every patriot in a limited Government would refrain from claiming as under the constitution. But, Mr. Speaker, I take higher ground than this, and contend that, according to the bill of rights of Maryland, and the constitution of Virginia, those States themselves could not have ceded absolute and unrestrained power over private property of any kind in this District. The citizens of this District had peculiar rights secured in their property by the constitutions of their own States; and if Virginia and Maryland had attempted to cede absolute power over this subject, they would have violated the rights of their own citizens, and would have committed, not a legal act, but an act of force. Next to life and liberty, these citizens had, under the paramount laws of the two adjoining States, the rights of property secured in the most solemn and unqualified manner; and as well might Virginia now divorce from herself any portion of her freemen, and transfer them, bound hand and foot, to the jurisdiction of New York, as to have thrown the citizens of this District, in their rights to a peculiar property, upon the uurestrained and tender mercy of this Government. Again: No State, from the Potomac to the Mississippi, under its constitution as it now stands, has any right to abolish slavery without the consent of the individual owners. I assert this upon that great principle of English liberty which is incorporated into every constitution, that no freeman shall be deprived of his property but by the judgment of his peers or the laws of the land. The constitutions are the paramount laws of the land, which the action of no Government, constituted under them, can legally subvert. States may do unlawful acts, which their citizens may assent to or acquiesce in, but this does not constitute legal authority. Those States that hold slaves as property might, if they desired, assemble in their conventions, representing the sovereign power of the community, for the specific object of abolishing that property, and the people might choose their delegates for that alone. But this would be a reorganization of the body politic, above the constitution. And even in convention they would do it under the unwritten and organic law that governs all simple consolidated communities, and which exists from the necessity of the case, that the majority must govern. This exists only in a consolidated community, when it is thrown into its simple and original elements. And even then the minority acquiesces more from a calculation of expediency than obligation. Sir, if this view be true of the great principles that regulate even the power of the States on this subject, how futile and shallow is that argument which claims for this Government all the legislative powers here that the States have within their territories. But it is stronger than this. The Government of the United States can acquire no legal power, even by consent of citizens. It has no existence beyond the express grants of the constitution, and no power can be acquired for it by the action or acquiescence of the people, as people or citizens: this must be given by the States that made it, and who alone can alter it. There is a wide mistake and loose notion on the subject of the power of Government over private property. Gentlemen draw their ideas on this subject from the history of European Governments and the jurisprudence of Great Britain. If there be any one principle that has distinguished our Revolution from all others, it is this: that we have succeeded in limiting and restricting the power of Government over private property, and more effectually securing the rights of citizens thereto. If this was not the great principle of the American Revolution, then it has none. The line that separates the [JAN. 21, 1836. power of Government from private property is the line that defines the limits of liberty, in all countries. I know, sir, that the British Government, under the claims of omnipotence in Parliament, has again and again trampled over the great principles of the magna charta, and it is not there that we are to look for examples to define our notions of power in Government over the property of a free people. Under the plea of state necessity and the high prerogatives of police power, a country may be protected and a people regulated, but the Government may be a despotism. But in this country, with our constitutions and limitations defined, I deny the right to interfere with private property except by "due process of law," through the verdict of a jury of freemen. It is, however, suggested that, although you cannot pass an act to abolish slavery at present, yet you may pass it to take effect in future, upon the post nati principle. Let us examine this. If the rights of citizens be secured unqualifiedly at present under the constitution, how can you directly or indirectly interfere in the future? If I have a perfect right to my stock, I have a right to its proceeds, and the Government that attempts to cut off the right of proceeds is as absolute and despotic as that which would take the property itself. A free Government may regulate and shape descents," to preserve and protect them for the benefit of its citizens; but no Government is free that, instead of a wholesome and judicious exercise of this power, usurps to cut them off entirely. If Government have no right to destroy the existing property itself, it has no right to destroy its proceeds. The principle and the power are the same in the one case as the other. Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to our northern friends the propriety, if they can, of taking these constitutional grounds. I respectfully suggest whether it would not be better for them to raise the constitutional restrictions as a shield between themselves and popular fanaticism, than to rely upon the grounds of expediency. If they intend to save the institutions of this country, let them raise the constitutional powers against the movements for abolition in this District; let them go home with the constitution in their hands, to show that it precludes any interference. 1 entreat them to take this ground now, and make the issue with this abolition spirit, when the good and the virtuous have some power and control. Put them down now, by this and strong acts of local legislation, or you will be compelled to come here and cry aloud to save this Union, after it shall be too late, when the beacon-fires of an indignant people shall blaze over a thousand hills, and the swords of a hundred thousand freemen shall gleam on high to avenge our wrongs and vindicate our rights. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that slavery is a "foul blot upon our national escutcheon," "an evil," that "all men are created equal," &c. Let us examine these propositions for a moment. "All men are created equal." What, sir, was the meaning that the author of the Declaration attached to this proposition? Was it meant that all men are created equally strong and of equal size? Surely not. Was it meant that all men were born free? From the child in the bulrushes up to those of the present day, there never was an infant wrapped in "swaddling clothes" that was born free. Was it meant that all men were born with equal rights, to an equal destiny? From the time it was declared that the iniquities of some should be "visited unto the third and fourth generations"-from the days of Moses and the children of Israel-the history of mankind proclaims that there is "an elect and chosen few," made the peculiar receptacles of the favors and blessings of an allwise and all-pervading Providence. This is the world as we find it, and it is not for us to war upon destiny. What, then, was the meaning? It was intended to de |