Legislature, can it do as a local Legislature for the District of Columbia. 2d. That all the duties and obligations which the States are bound by the constitution to discharge and observe from one to the other, the District of Columbia or its Legislature is bound to discharge and observe towards the States, respectively. [H. OF R. from the national; and, if so, where are the coffers of the Legislature of the District of Columbia, from which to make just compensation? Can this local Legislature plunder the Treasury of the national Legislature; take the money of your constituents and of mine, to pay for emancipated slaves here? The entire revenue of which Congress has control belongs to the Treasury of the United States, and not to the Treasury of the District of Columbia. The purposes for which that national treasure shall be appropriated are specified; the powers all enumerated which can touch it. Is there such a purpose or such a power as to purchase slaves? If they may be bought for freedom, may they not be bought for bondage? Will these petitioners themselves contend that the Government can become a slaveholder and taskmaster? And, if the local Legislature shall not use the funds of the national Legislature for such purpose as this, what other means has it to abolish slavery by making just compensation? Will you rob Peter to pay Paul, tax the right hand to pay the left, tax the slaveholders themselves to pay themselves? 3d. That the local Legislature of the District of CoJumbia can do no act or pass no law which the States are prohibited from doing or passing by the constitution. Sir, in addition to these rules, deduced, and necessa rily deduced, from the constitution, it has already been decided by that judge, who is now in heaven reaping the rewards of his righteous judgments-by Marshall that there are great leading principles in the nature of society and of government which prescribe limits to our legislation. In Fletchers vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, he says: "It may well be doubted whether the nature of society and of government does not prescribe some limits to the legislative power; and, if any be prescribed, where are they to be found, if the property of an individual, fairly and honestly acquired, may be seized without compensation? To the Legislature all legislative power is grant-pay themselves, who are without representation of their ed; but the question, whether the act of transferring the property of an individual to the public be in the nature of the legislative power, is well worthy of serious reflection." "How far the power of giving the law may involve every other power, in cases where the constitution is silent, never has been, and perhaps never can be, definitely stated." Even so, sir, where the constitution is silent, but here, fortunately, the constitution speaks too plainly to be misunderstood. It expressly declares that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation." Sir, several of the States of this Union have gradually emancipated the slaves within their borders, in their own way, and in their own time. But no State, to the honor of the nation and its institutions, has ever yet violated the great principle of vested rights. None of them have ever, within my knowledge, taken slave property, against the consent of the owners, and without compensation. They have never gone farther than, with the unanimous consent of masters, to adopt what is called the "post nati" principle, and to declare that rights which did not exist at the time should never exist-to make those free which would in future have been slaves. It may be well said, in reference to State legislation, that private property can only be taken for public use. What "use" is a slave taken for, who is taken for emancipation? 66 Why, sir, that which can only be taken for "use," would be taken to be disqualified for " use. True, you may say there is a "use" of policy, of philanthropy, of fancy, or fanaticism, for which a slave may be taken, but that is not the true sense of the constitution. The only foundation of the Government's right to take a > slave, is, that he is private property-the Government cannot change the relation of master and slave, even for public use. The Government may impress a horse or a slave for the public use of defending a city, or for any other emergency. If the horse or slave be destroyed, the Government must make just compensation for the entire value; and if not destroyed, they are returned to the master. The power to change all the relations of property and ownership, and to destroy vested rights, cannot be admitted to be in the State Legislatures even; they could not make compensation without taxing their people to pay themselves, which is no compensation at all. The nature of society and of government" in the District of Columbia restrains the local Legislature here, much more than "the nature of society and of government" in the States restrains their Legislatures. Remember, sir, that the local Legislature here is distinct Again, and above all, will you dare to tax a people to own choice? Taxation without representation, to take private property for no public use, against the consent of the owners, would be the very essence of tyranny and oppression. The constitution must forbid so violent a wrong, and no right of petition or any other right can claim to effect it. And, sir, as to this right of petition, what common interest in slavery here have the people of Maine or Massachusetts with the people of this District? These petitioners must pray to us as the local Legislature of the District. This local Legislature is to this District what the State Legislature of Virginia is to that State. Have the people of the non-slaveholding States a right to petition the Legislature of Virginia to abolish slavery within her limits? No more have any other people than the District people themselves a right to petition the local Legislature here to abolish slavery in their limits, if it be a subject of petition and legislation at all. These fanatics are as alien to this tender interest as the foreigner Thompson, whom they have nursed like a viper in their bosoms. But, sir, local legislation in this District is still more restrained by the affinity of this local to the national Legislature. Though we constitute two distinct Legislatures, yet we are the same body of men. At the same time we are the Legislature of this District, we are the Legis. lature of this Union. The same Congress which enacts municipal laws for the people of the District of Columbia, is the high constitutional lawgiver of the people of the United States. The same body of legislators which is bound to protect and provide for the local welfare of this people immediately around us, is, by a paramount duty and interest, bound to protect and provide for the general welfare of this whole nation. This is incorporated deeply in the bosom of the constitution, and is no principle of mere expediency. What would be the consequence of exercising or attempting to exercise this legislative power claimed? Congress never can act upon the subject of abolition in the District, with the consent of a majority of the people of this nation. The South will always be unanimous, and I flatter myself, sir, that we shall always have a large minority at least of patriotism and intelligence with us in the North. No human tongue can tell the consequences--fanaticism would triumph, indeed, and this nation would bid a long farewell to all its glory, freedom, and happiness! This Congress, which is solemnly bound by the constitution to protect the States of this Union from domestic violence, would, by abolishing slavery in this District, send a flaming torch of discord throughout the land; excite insurrection and rebellion; force resistance to violations of civil rights, and eventually dissolve the Union. By madly attempting to knock imaginary manacles from off the hands of some few nominal slaves, it would merge a prosperous nation of happy freemen into the horrors of a bloody revolution, and finally handcuff both bond and free with the chains of inevitable despotism! But, sir, let us advert to the reading of the constitution again. If Congress has entire and absolute legislation over this District, it has the power to exercise "like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the State Legislatures, for the erection of forts," &c. Now, sir, I put this case: Old Point Comfort is a place purchased for the erection of a fort in the State of Virginia. There are a number of slaves hired out there from the adjoining counties. Some persons, I believe, have removed there from the neighborhood, hold their slaves there, and hire them out to Government. Congress abolish slavery there? Sir, if we can abolish slavery here, we can there. Is there any such ultimate design? Would it be tolerated? What, sir, can you station outposts of abolition in the very heart of the slave States? Monstrous and absurd! Can Again, sir, if ambition and madness, joined with false philanthropy and fanaticism, do not arrest our onward march to unparalleled greatness, this nation of freemen, this empire of civil liberty, this asylum of the oppressed, will extend its vast boundaries from sea to sea--its dominion will extend to the uttermost bounds of this continent. When we shall thus have increased, we must at some not far distant day remove our seat of Government. Abolish slavery in this District, and what an anomaly will be exhibited when it reverts back to the slave States which have ceded it! Could you return the trust as it was committed to your charge? Could you now place these portions of Virginia and Maryland in statu quo? Would your freedmen again become slaves? Would these States permit them to remain freedmen? Sir, if you did not violate the letter of the acts of cession, you would commit a breach of the faith implied by the cession of those States. Why was their cession required, why is their consent to the purchase of places required by the constitution--if it was not to give the States the power of imposing condition and restraint upon your legislation over their ceded territory? And I confidently ask if the nature of society and of Government" in Maryland and Virginia is not, of itself, independent of conditions expressed in the acts of cession, sufficient to restrain your powerof legislation over this subject? Such, sir, are the considerations and causes which imperiously restrain your power of legislation on the abolition of slavery in this District, and which authoritatively forbid the North to meddle with a subject which concerns not its people. Shall we be asked, then, is there no power any where to legislate upon this subject in these limits, even though the people of the District themselves should demand its exercise? No, sir, no. The people of the District themselves cannot ask you to violate the constitution, much less can they give you the power to do so. They can no more give you, by their petitions and prayers, the power to abolish their slavery, than they can by any act of their own give you the power to allow them a representative on this floor. I would sooner vote to violate the constitution by giving them representation in Congress, than I would vote to violate the constitution by taking from them their private property without representation. What need have they of legislation to abolish their slavery? May they not emancipate without further legislation to aid them? Yes, sir; by the laws of Virginia and Maryland, which are still unrepealed as to them, each man who holds slaves, and wishes to petition for legislation, may already, without our assistance, legislate by will or deed of emanci. [DEC. 22, 1835. pation for himself! And dare you, or any power, to tear from him his property against bis assent? Idle, and hypocritical, and false, then, is the pretence of any necessity for the exercise of this power so dangerous and dreadful! We desire Congress to expressly disclaim any such power, in order that the people of the North may understand it will be vain for them to offer such petitions, because it is unconstitutional for us to grant them. It must be settled that there are restraining principles in the constitution; restrictions to the power of local legis | lation; restrictions to all the rights of government and citizenship. Sir, my object in explaining these views has been purely to convince the honest and patriotic portion of the North (and I know that there are many such) of their error and misapprehension on this subject of pow. er, and to obtain their aid and efforts in giving peace and security to their brethren of the South. Sorry, indeed, was I to listen to the inflammatory and intemperate remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] and of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GRANGER.] The figures which they presented to me were those of the keepers of bloodhounds, holding them by the leashes. They patted their bloodhounds on the head, and caressed them for "no murderers.” Sir, those whom these pets of the gentlemen pursue and harass, can best judge of their taste for blood. Can these gentlemen, can any, be so inhuman as to feel the disposition to hiss on these bloodhounds? Do any delight in encouraging the spirit of fanaticism, by soothing and complimenting these kind, amiable, peaceable, good Quakers, priests, foreigners, and ladies, who heat this agitation? The honorable gentleman [Mr. ADAMS] asks if we wish to discuss the "sublime merits of slavery I think, sir, it is a subject as sublime at least as his conceptions of the character of the fair Desdemona, who carried "amalgamation" practically too far in his opinion and mine, too; but it is not a discussion of slavery that we ask. We never will discuss that subject with gentlemen but in one way, which I will not mention. The only question which we will discuss, and that to enlighten the public mind on a question which has never been discussed enough to be understood, is, "whether Congress has the power to abolish slavery in this Dis trict?" And I hope, sir, that in the discussion of that question, "every speech north of Mason and Dixon's line" will not be, as he has predicted, "an incendiary pamphlet." I cannot believe it. Nor do I think it possible that the people of the North, when they are suffi ciently enlightened by temperate and sober discussion of that question, would turn out their representatives for supporting the rights of our people and the sanctity of the constitution. The gentleman from New York [Mr. GRANGER] said that his good petitioners were not abolitionists. I think, sir, they are next akin to them. Many of them are women. By the by, sir, have women, too, the right of petition? Are they citizens! No one, Mr. Speaker, pays more cordial homage to the fair sex than I do. Woman in the parlor, woman in her proper sphere, is the ornament and comfort of man; but out of the parlor, out of her sphere, if there is a devil on earth, when she is a devil, woman is a devil incarnate! If I were to paint the image of a demon, a fiend riding on the blast of strife and ruin, hissing rage, and rapine, and rape, and murder, on our lives and property, and matrons and maids, of the South, it should be the form of a woman with the hair of the furies! One good sanctified priest can persuade all the women in the parish to be abolitionists. And what sort of a Government are we to have if women and priests are to influence our legislation? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] told us that DEC. 22, 1835.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. this is a religious question. I protest against religion having any thing to do with the political and constituNeither women tional questions of this Government. nor priests are politicians, except in the intrigues of court. This is a delicate political question, and those only should deal with it who have some common sense as well as experience as statesmen, and who are honest patriots. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. INGERSOLL] has given the message of the Governor of his State as an assurance of fraternal feeling to the South. Sir, that message was, no doubt, like many other assurances from the North, well meant; but the South can view no such assurances as satisfactory. The Governor, if I read his message right, recommended no legislative action whatever to his State Legislature, but recommended them to We leave the whole subject to public sentiment alone. require, particularly in my section of Virginia, most efficient aid from the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. Not a year passes in which numbers of our slaves do not escape to some one or all of these States. The constitution guaranties to us our right of property in fugitive slaves; but that guarantee is rendered null and void for the want of State protection from mobs and "public sentiment," which obstruct the exercise of that right. What kind of protection do we meet when we go in pursuit of our slaves? Every obsta cle is interposed between the master and the recovery of his property. It was but a few months since that a citizen of my own county went to New York to recover his fugitive slave; the slave knew his master, and the master knew his slave; but black witnesses were arrayed against respectable white witnesses, and were made to swear that the slave had been a resident of New York for a time longer than that within which he had eloped. All that we And this, sir, is not an uncommon case. ask is, that the faith of the covenant shall be kept; and how can this provision of the constitution be available to our rights, if black witnesses shall be allowed to swear against white men in a case involving the question of a right of property to a fugitive slave in a non-slaveholding State? The South asks no other aid or protection of the North than a faithful observance of the federal compact. They feel no other apprehension than from northern violators of the constitution. The gentleman [Mr. INGERSOLL] alluded to the case of St. Domingo. I beg him to remember that the French of that island were not overrun and massacred by the blacks, notwithstanding the immense disparity in numbers between the white and black population, until an English army assisted the slaves. Sir, that is all that we have to fear-an English army from the North! Already has a miscreant foreigner from Great Britain been We scorn recruiting his army of fanatics in the North. the crusade, but hold the constituted authorities of the North bound for the consequences of "blood and burial" which are to flow. If an English army, sir, were actually to invade our shores, every sword would leap from its scabbard to repel the foe-it would be treason to aid and comfort the enemy in our borders. And, though all the fleets and armies of combined Europe could not so effectually attack and destroy this nation and its institutions as George Thompson and his northern recruits, yet this worst of enemies is not only tolerated in our borders, unwhipped of justice, unpunished by penal laws of protection, but he is left to that omnipotent guardian, "public sentiment"-" public sentiment" in the Northwhich not only countenances, but aids and comforts and encourages him and his followers-ay, pampered and petted him with all the soothing and succor of the hospitality and kindness and assistance of some of the VOL. XII.-128 [H. OF R. most powerful, influential, and wealthy citizens! Strange upon I hope, sir, I have had a higher and nobler object in view, in thus addressing the House, than any party object. If those who have disclaimed the imputation of bad motives to me and my friends, meant thereby to do what they disclaimed, I have only to say, sir, I hold the imputations and their authors in contempt. My motive is not agitation, but tranquillity-to teach forbearance to "hold off," to all who the agitators of the North-to say will rudely touch this tender point-and to give permanent peace and safety to the South. I now beg the House to speak peace and safety to the country through a resolution which I shall take the opportunity to move, declaring that "Congress has no power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia." Give us this, and it is all we ask. Mr. JONES, of Virginia, said he did not rise to discuss the merits of the proposition, which would be necessarily presented by the petition now offered to the House; that was what he not only did not desire to do, but it was what he dare not do. He designed briefly to assign the reasons which would induce him to reconsider the vote by which, in a moment of inadvertence, that petition had been sent to the Committee on the District of Columbia; and also to reply to the objections urged by gentlemen to the course now proposed to be adopted in reference to that, and, he hoped, all other petitions of He expressed himself grateful to the same character. the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. INGERSOLL,] for the remarks he had made this morning. But while he rendered this tribute to the good feelings and sympathies of the gentleman, he hoped his own motives would be consent to entertain or discuss here the right by which duly appreciated by him, when he said he could never the people of the South held title to their slaves. The great object he desired was to obtain a direct vote upon these petitions, which continued daily to come in; and that the solicitude he felt on the subject arose from a vote would satisfy the members from the South, or quiet conviction upon his own mind, that nothing but a direct the apprehensions of their constituents; and deeply as he lamented the necessity which rendered it proper, in the opinion of honorable gentlemen, to go into this debate-unwilling as he had always been, so far to countenance the views of those misguided, deluded, and infatuated men, who for years past had been scattering firebrands among the people of the South, and who, to accomplish their base purposes, were willing not only to aim a deadly blow at their prosperity as a people, but to peril the lives of millions, and to endanger the perpetuity of the Union-he felt as though he should be unfaithful to the high trust confided to him, if he did not contribute his aid in obtaining a direct vote upon this all-absorbing question. But a few days ago there seemed to exist a unanimity of sentiment upon this deeply interesting subject, which had very seldom manifested itself upon any important question which had come up for consideration before the Representatives of the people. There was then heard from all sides of the House a wish expressed, not only to put down the abolitionists, but to do it in the most effectual possible manner; and the great point of difficulty was to determine upon the mode by which it could be most effectually done. With one of the modes, Mr. J. said he should be satisfied. Promptly to reject these petitions as they were presented, he believed, would meet the approbation of southern gentlemen; and if they, who were more deeply interested than all others, 1egarded that mode of disposing of them as effectual to the accomplishment of the great object they had in view, and the people of the East and the North really intended, in good faith, to co-operate with them, (as he believed they did,) he could perceive no good reason why the proposition to reject should not be sustained. It had been said that gentlemen from the South were over sensitive, and disposed to act with too much precip. itation on this subject. It had also been contended that this course of proceeding was calculated to abridge the great right of petition; and others there were, who thought the only proper course was to refer them to a committee. The intimation that this was a subject upon which the people of the South were sensitive, was just. The fact could not be disguised, that there existed throughout the slaveholding States an excitement which bad never been witnessed at any former period of their history; and strangely indeed must he be constituted, who could look upon the conduct of the abolitionists, and witness the scenes to which it had given rise in the South, and not have his sensibility wrought up to the very highest pitch. Was it not known to every gentleman upon this floor, that numerous abolition societies had been formed in the eastern and northern States, frowned upon, indignantly frowned upon, he believed, by the intelligent, the well-informed, and respectable portions of these communities? But could they shut their eyes to the fact, that these societies existed; that they had gone on to collect large sums of money, and had put into operation printing presses, which were worked by steam? Yes, sir, worked by steam, with the open and avowed object of effecting the immediate aboJition of slavery in the southern States. That by means of these two great revolutionizers of the world--he meant steam power and the press-they had caused to be printed, and, by means of the public mails, circulated throughout the slaveholding States, large numbers of newspapers, pamphlets, tracts, and pictures, calculated, in 'an eminent degree, to rouse and inflame the passions of the slaves against their masters, to urge them on to deeds of death, and to involve them in all the horrors of a servile war--productions which, Mr. J. said he would take upon himself to say, were as foul libels upon the people of the South as were ever printed. And, as if to add insult to injury, there were those here who had the charity to believe that they were influenced in their conduct by humane and religious motives. If, indeed, (said Mr. J.,) this most uncalled for, officious, and dangerous [Dic. 22, 1835. intermeddling with the rights of others, be dictated by religion, he would say it was not the religion which was inculcated by the Saviour of the world, or taught by his disciples. Mr. J. said he hoped it would not be understood, by any thing he had said, that he was in favor of abridging either the freedom of the press or freedom of speech: far from it; he regarded them as the great safeguards to our republican institutions. There was, however, a difference between the freedom and licentiousness of the press, and what he objected to was the right of these misguided and deluded men to propagate slander, to instigate murder, to disturb the peace of States, and to endanger this Union; and, if persisted in by them, he called upon the representatives of the people to interpose, and stamp their conduct with the scal of their disapprobation. But (said Mr. J.) we have been told by the gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts, [Mr. BEARDSLEY and Mr. ADAMS,] that to vote to reject this petition would be to abridge the right of the people to petition Congress. He admitted that to be a right, the free exercise of which was secured to the people by the constitution, and he would be among the last, he hoped the very last, to lay violent hands upon that sacred instrument. He had sworn to support it, and, as a Representative of the people, support it he would, at every hazard, for upon it depended the last hope of freedom throughout the world; and if he could be satisfied that any constitutional right of the people was to be invaded by the course he proposed in disposing of that petition, he would be the first to abandon the position he then occupied; but (said Mr. J.) in what consists the right of petition, if it be not to set forth, in written form, the grievances complained of, with a view to procure upon them the action of Congress? And had not these petitioners already enjoyed that right? Did not the proceedings which had taken place upon this petition furnish the affirmative answer to the inquiry? Had they not petitioned, had not their petition been presented by a member in his place, received by the House, read by the Clerk; and was Congress not then engaged in endeavoring to dispose of it in conformity with rules which had been made and adopted for the government of the House? And if it should ever be disposed of, would not this petition have been so fully considered as it could have been, had any other form of proceeding been adopted? Mr. J. said, that when a petition had been presented to the House, received, and read by the Clerk, (unless it should be afterwards withdrawn by the consent of the House,) it became the property of the Representatives of the people: they might refuse to consider it, lay it on the table, postpone it to a day certain, refer it to the committee, or, what they had in vain attempted here, they might reject it. Here, then, were five several ways in which this petition might legally and properly be disposed of; and how it was that the dispo sition of it in one of these modes, in preference to another, (all of which were prescribed by the rules of the House,) was in any possible way to affect the riglit of the people to petition Congress, he was wholly at a loss to comprehend. But they were told by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that, if these petitions were sent to a committee, they would there be allowed "to sleep the sleep of death;" and that thereafter we should be troubled with no others of like character. Would to God that this assurance of the honorable gentleman could be realized; but they had only to look to the past history of their legislation upon that subject to be satisfied that the expected consummation to which he looked forward, had existence nowhere except in the fertile imagination of him who conceived it. It would then be DEC. 22, 1835.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [H. OF R. seen that that course had been tried again and again; gentleman held title to his horse, his house, or, to use still these petitions continued to flow in upon them, and his own language, "his place upon that floor." They would continue to do so, so long as they were received held them under the constitution and laws of the land. and referred to committees. What, he inquired, was That gentleman [Mr. ADAMS] had also taken occasion the object in referring subjects to a committee? It to refer the members from the South to Mason and was to collect information, which, in the ordinary course Dixon's line: warning them that every member to the of legislation, could not conveniently be collected in north of that line, who should discuss this subject, would any other way. But did this House stand in need of in- send forth to the world an incendiary pamphlet; and, formation upon the subject sought to be brought to its although that gentleman seemed to speak as one notice by that petition? Certainly not. It was well un- "having authority," he had seen too many evidences not derstood that it was a subject to which public attention to be satisfied of the error into which he had fallen. had been long turned, with the most intense interest; He saw assembled here, from every quarter of this widethat from the river St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, ly extended Union, patriots prepared to make every the best talents of the country had been almost every sacrifice upon the altar of their country's good. He where engaged in its consideration, and in communica- lamented to hear what had fallen from the gentleman ting information to the people. So soon as the excite- from Massachusetts upon that subject; he believed that ment over the country commenced, meeting after meet- gentleman himself, in his calmer moments, would lament ing was called in the southern States, in almost every it. The people had cause to lament it. But if that be town and county; discussion after discussion was had be- the course determined upon by gentlemen, the sooner fore the people; resolution after resolution adopted, un- we had it acted out the better. This he would take til, like a wave from the ocean, it swept over the whole occasion to say to him: let those threatened pamphlets southern country. It resulted in strong appeals to our come when they might, they would be received by the brethren of the North, to step forth and aid us in put-people of the South as it became freemen who knew ting down these base attempts upon our rights, our their rights, and, knowing, dared maintain them. property, and our lives. And it was with mingled emotions of pride and pleasure he referred to the fact that these appeals were not made in vain. They too called the people together; meetings were held throughout the whole eastern and northern countries; and the measures adopted by those meetings for a time gave quiet, and, to some extent, allayed the excitement in the South; and it was for gentlemen from the North to say whether we may still rely upon their assurances, by heartily cooperating with us in putting this subject to rest by a direct and decisive vote upon the question. Mr. J. said it must be obvious that there could be no need of further information on the subject, to enable gentlemen to vote understandingly upon it. Why, then, send it to a committee? Was it believed that the report of a committee was to produce any effect upon the abolitionists? Did gentlemen flatter themselves that the spirit of fanaticism could be checked by a calm, dispassionate, and logical argument? To such he would recommend to read the reports of committees which have been already made on like petitions; and he doubted not but that gentlemen would be satisfied that no benefit was likely to result from the adoption of the same course in reference to the petition before them. So far from that course of proceeding having had a tendency to check the wild spirit of fanaticism now abroad in the land, the reverse was true; for the tables of gentlemen were now groaning under the weight of similar petitions. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] has referred to his own course, on a former occasion, in reference to this subject. This was commenced in a tone, and in a spirit, which seemed to Mr. J. to bespeak the deep anxiety which he felt to allay the very unpleasant excitement which had began to show itself in the House, and to reconcile, if he could, the causes of discontent which continued to agitate and disturb the people of the South. He viewed the remarks of that gentleman as oil poured out upon the troubled waters. It was, however, but the calm which precedes the storm. At length, lashing himself up to a state of high excitement, he asked what it was the South desired? Was it, said he, to discuss the "sublime merits of slavery?" That was a subject which Mr. J. could not discuss with that gentleman; and, taunt them as he might with their slaves, whose condition they had no agency in producing, and no means of changing, he would take that occasion to say to him that the people of the South held their slaves by a title as secure, by an authority as high and as sacred, as that by which that Mr. J. remarked, in conclusion, that he had felt himself called upon to say thus much in explanation of his own views, with an earnest desire that a direct vote on the subject might be obtained. Mr. BEARDSLEY said the proposition before the House was simply to reconsider the reference of a paper to the Committee on the District of Columbia. It would seem very obvious, looking to what had been the express sense of the House, and what was known to be the public and general feeling of the people throughout the country; looking also to the particular circumstances under which this paper had been referred to that committee, that there could be no doubt that when the House should come to decide upon this proposition, it would be carried in the affirmative by an overwhelming vote. They all knew, so far as they knew any thing upon this subject, that the reference which the paper took was by misapprehension, or without the understanding of the House; they all knew it, unless the House might be charged with abandoning the ground it had assumed upon this subject-a charge which was derogatory to its high character, and which he would not make or intimate. It was but a week since that the House, by a decided vote of about 180 to 30, had determined it would not act upon petitions of this character, but would lay them upon the table, with a view that they should sleep the sleep of death. To Mr. B. it was inconceivable that, after that vote, the House would entertain a proposition to give these petitions a different direction. It was clear that the reference given to this petition was by mistake and surprise; and when the House should be able to vote upon it, then the error would be corrected. Bring the paper before the House for its immediate direction, and when thus brought properly before them, we shall see what the House will do with it? And here he would beg leave to suggest to the consideration of the House what was to him most clear. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] fell into a mistake in his recollection of what had been the course of the House heretofore. That gentleman referred to a debate, if the speech of a single member made in the course of the last session, on a petition of a similar character, might be so termed; and Mr. B. understood the gentleman to state, as most undoubtedly was his recollection, that the House, on that occasion, had referred the paper to the Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. B. had turned to the journal of that day, and he found that on that cccasion an honorable member from Virginia, not |
