from in the present case. Was it not the duty of the Chair to decide him out of order? And he would further inquire whether the question could be propounded to and decided by the House, before an appeal was taken. Finally he would inquire, why this distinction?

The CHAIR will state the question. There is no difficulty.

Mr. WISE. I am not through yet, sir.

The CHAIR. There is no appeal; but the Chair will require the gentleman from Virginia to reduce his point to writing.

Mr. PATTON said, as the point of order might consume more time perhaps than the remarks of the gen tleman, he would withdraw it.

Mr. ELMORE did not speak in anger, but with a view to make an appeal to the gentleman from Maine. He would suggest to that gentleman that they had already irritating topics enough before the House; and if he should be disposed to go on, an angry debate must necessarily grow out of it, on both sides of the House, that would, perhaps, be interminable; and, let him ask, what good could result from it?

Mr. EVANS would accept the application of the member from South Carolina in a corresponding spirit. He could assure that gentle man that he had endeavored not to say any thing of an irritating or angry nature. He wished, however, the member had thought of that a little earlier. He wished gentlemen on that side of the House had thought of this when denouncing the whole Northern country, and the whole of New England, in very clear language, and calling upon members from that region to abstain from doing their duty in presenting their petitions; and when they charged, and almost directly, Northern gentlemen with aiding, abetting, and assisting in getting up petitions, when they knew that all these charges did not justly attach to them.

Mr. ELMORE said, if the gentleman from Maine had heard his former remarks a few days ago, he would find that his present remark did not, at least, apply to him. He had then deprecated discussion, but he did not fear it, nor was he unwilling to go, or would shrink from going, into it, if it were brought up.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, wished to disabuse himself of a false impression of the tenor of his remarks, as he was the member who opened the debate. Now, in the preliminary remarks he had made, he should regard himself as unpardonable if he had not confined himself, as strictly as he could, to the question before the House, and alluded to no topics either of an irritating or angry character. The gentleman from Massachusetts had asked if the people of the North were to be denied the privilege of sympathizing in human suffering, of sympathizing for the oppressed, and those held in bondage as property. It was in reply to these remarks that Mr. T. had made his own. He had, however, used no epithets, but had adverted, as he conceived he had a perfect right to do, to the history of New England, and certain authentic facts connected with it. This he had done in repelling the attack made upon the South.

Mr. BYNUM concurred with the gentleman from Vir. ginia, [Mr. PATTON,] which seemed to be agreed on all hands, that the gentleman from Maine had certainly departed, in this instance, from the subject properly under discussion, and he should renew the point of order.

Mr. EVANS explained. What he had said was, that very many of the gentlemen who charged those of the North, and the petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, with using language not justifid in reference to Southern institutions, language not courteous to themselves, and showing a misconception of the institutions of slavery, had themselves used the same language, He wanted to rescue these petitioners,

[FEB. 9, 1837.

himself, and others, from the charge of first using such language, but that it had been used in all time.

Mr. BYNUM. If the object of the gentleman be to argue the question of slavery, he hoped no Southern man would countenance it, by arguing it also. It was a subject that House could not settle, and had no right to intermeddle with in any manner whatsoever.

Mr. EVANS. I am not going to discuss the question of slavery. I was going

Mr. BYNUM was also proceeding, when

Mr. GHOLSON rose to a subject of order. Both gentlemen could not be suffered to address the House at the same time.

The CHAIR said the gentleman from Maine was in possession of the floor; and if any gentleman called him to order, he must reduce it to writing.

Mr. EVANS was not going to discuss the question of the institution of slavery. They of the North had been charged with the use of words, in reference to the insti tutions of the South, for which they had been held re. sponsible. Now, he wanted to show that it was language they had borrowed from themselves. He wanted also to show they were not guilty of the charge of undermining the prosperity of the South. He said that many gentlemen on that floor complained that they hold at the North that slavery was an evil. Well, they did, and so did many of the South themselves, and that was what he was about to prove. But the North did not hold the present holders of that species of property, as many supposed, responsible for it. They regarded it, on the contrary, as an institution fixed, and found in existence, and tolerated among them, long before the pres ent time. He was about to show that that language, in reference to the institution of slavery, was language held by slaveholders themselves, and that those of the North had modelled their ideas from Southern authority.

Mr. E. was again proceeding to read from the debates in the Virginia convention, when

Mr. HARRISON, of Missouri, objected, and the CHAIR sustained the point that no gentleman could, under the rules, read any paper to the House without its leave. Mr. DAWSON hoped the gentleman from Missour! would withdraw his objection.

Mr. EVANS. I cannot yield the floor.

Mr. HARRISON. I call the gentleman to order, though, if the House were disposed to permit a discussion on the subject of slavery, he was himself fully pre pared to meet it.

Mr. EVANS. I will waive that part of my argument. The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Missouri waive his point of order?

Mr. GHOLSON. The gentleman from Maine does not waive his argument on the subject of slavery, but only the reading from the book.

Mr. ANTHONY moved that the question be taken, and asked for the yeas and nays; but, after a few words from the Chair, withdrew his motion.

Mr. BOULDIN said he was anxious for the gentleman to proceed.

The CHAIR said it was for the House to determine. Mr. BOULDIN rose again, and was proceeding, when Mr. EVERETT called the gentleman to order; and asked if there was any question before the House.

The CHAIR stated the question raised by Mr. HARRI SON, and decided in favor of the point of order raised by that gentleman. He suggested to the House that they take the question on the motion to grant leave for the gentleman to proceed.

Mr. ELMORE took an appeal from the decision of the Chair, for the purpose, he said, of getting an opportunity of setting himself right on the subject. He was for allow ing the gentleman from Maine to go on, according to his own judgment and his own discretion; and he was a'so

for holding that gentleman responsible. Mr. E. did not want to stifle debate, but to leave it perfectly open. We of the South (continued Mr. E.) did not fear discussion on this subject, here or elsewhere, in any manner in which it could be brought forward; but I would submit to that gentleman, and to those who act with him, that if there was any thing that could lead to the most lamentable consequences, it is the very course they are now pursuing. The gentleman from Maine had asked, why was not this call made upon him at an ealier period of this debate?

Mr. E. hoped the gentleman would remember that he bad, at the commencement of it, called upon all his friends, upon all the members from the South, to vote, and not to speak, upon the subject; for it was one calculated, in its consequences, to bring the different por tions of the country into direct conflict. It was that he might save the country, if possible, from a posture of affairs that could not but be most disastrous. At the same time, however, he was willing that they should be understood; but upon those of the North be the responsibility.

It was said that they of the South had provoked this attack upon themselves; that they had been the first in denouncing the gentlemen of the North, and had been pursuing a course of debate that called for a reply. He denied this. Had the gentlemen forgotten what was then on the table? Had they

Mr. VANDERPOEL called the gentleman to order. He understood the question the gentleman arose to discass was the appeal from the decision of the Chair; and he had not, as yet, even adverted to it.

Mr. ELMORE said, if the gentleman had spared his breath one moment, he should have concluded. He had risen simply to deprecate the allegation brought by the member from Maine. He then withdrew his appeal, and moved that the gentleman have leave to go on.

Mr. ANTHONY renewed the appeal. He stated that he did so because it was evident that, from the commencement of the debate till that time, a great deal had been already said of a most irritating character on both sides, and that irritation would only increase as it progressed, if it was suffered to proceed. He was the only member from his own State who had taken any part in the subject, and he had moved the previous question; but there were so many cries of "no!" "no!" that he was induced to withdraw his motion. He did it to arrest the excitement he saw growing out of the subjec', and he made the present appeal for the same purpose. The CHAIR again suggested that the best mode would be to take the question on the motion for the gentleman from Maine to proceed.

Mr. ANTHONY did not wish to give the gentlemen on either side leave to continue this discussion of slavery any further, and he therefore hoped every moderate man in the House would join him in arresting its further progress. Mr. A. then withdrew his appeal, and expressed a hope that the question would, according to the judicious suggestion of the Chair, be at once taken on granting leave for the gentleman from Maine to proceed.

Mr. GLASCOCK rose to address the House; but The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that this was not a debatable question.

Mr. GLASCOCK wished simply to remark that ap peals had been made, in the most respectful manner, from various quarters of the House, that the gentleman from Maine should dispense with pursuing this subject any further; and Mr. G. was inclined to believe, from the course recently taken by that gentleman, that he was disposed to acquiesce. On the call to order, the gentleman had taken his seat, and did not take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. If, then, the motion on granting

[H. OF R.

leave were withdrawn, all difficulty would be removed, and the doing so would save a great deal of unpleasant feeling, and supersede the necessity of taking either question.

The CHAIR then propounded the question, "That the gentleman from Maine have leave to proceed." Mr. GLASCOCK moved to amend the motion by adding the words, "if he feels disposed to do so."

The CHAIR propounded the question at length, as follows: The gentleman from Maine is called to order, because he is speaking of the opinions of others on the subject of slavery, when that question is not before the House. The Chair decides that it is not in order to discuss the question of slavery, or to cite the opinions of others upon that subject, on the question before the House. The gentleman from Maine resumed his seat, and acquiesced in the decision of the Chair, taking no appeal. The rule required, therefore, that, before the gentleman could proceed, the sense of the House must be taken; if the decision had been in favor of the member called to order, he would proceed as a matter of

course.

Mr. HARRISON, of Missouri, begged to inquire whether, if the gentleman should be permitted to proceed by a vote of the House, he must not still confine himself within the rules of the House.

Mr. BOULDIN. He would, he expected, go on pretty much as he had done.

The CHAIR said the gentleman would still be limited to the rules of debate.

Gen.

Mr. EVANS did not want to discuss this matter. tlemen supposed he wanted to discuss the institution of slavery, but it was not so. He did not wish to introduce any new topics there, but to confine himself to what had been opened by those who had preceded him. This, he believed, was what he had done. He had been strictly on the defensive-on the defensive against a charge made against the venerable and distinguished member from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] for presenting petitions to that House containing language offensive to the South. He wished to prove this was not so, but that the language came originally from the South, in substance and in terms.

Mr. E. should not proceed at all on the vote of the House, be it which way it might.

Mr. ELMORE preferred allowing the gentleman to proceed as he pleased, as he had introduced these topics. The CHAIR said, if leave should be granted, the gen. tleman must still proceed in order.

Mr. ALFORD remarked that, if the gentleman went on a little, he would soon explain his purpose.

Mr. BRIGGS. The gentleman did not himself ask leave, but refused, beforehand, to proceed on the vote of the House. What would be the use of granting leave?

Mr. ELMORE replied, the gentleman asks what would be the object of granting leave? It was that the House might not be charged with having choked the member down, but that he might be permitted to go on upon his own responsibility.

Mr. PATTON then read the following modification of his amendment:

Resolved, That any member who shall hereafter present to the House any petition from the slaves in this Union ought to be considered as regardless of the feel. ings of the House, the rights of the Southern States, and unfriendly to the Union.

Resolved, That the honorable JOHN Q. ADAMS having solemnly disclaimed all design of doing any thing disie spectful to the House, in the inquiry he made of the Speaker, as to the petition purporting to be from slaves, and having avowed his intention not to offer to present the petition to the House, was of opinion that it ought

not to be presented-therefore, all further proceedings in regard to his conduct do now cease.

Mr. ELMORE withdrew his motion.
Mr. PATTON moved the above, which

Mr. THOMPSON accepted, and Mr. BYNUM withdrew his amendment.

Mr. ELMORE then renewed his motion in relation to granting leave to Mr. EVANS; and, after a few words from Messrs. BRIGGS, PHILLIPS, and MERCER, it was agreed to.

Mr. EVANS then rose and said that the course of remarks he was pursuing having been decided to be out of order, if he should again proceed he would still be pronounced to be out of order, which from the first had been far from his intention. He intended, certainly, and thought he was standing on the defensive, and there he meant to stand. Had he been permitted to proceed, he should have concluded in a few minutes. He had, however, several other things to say; but as they would be pronounced out of order, and he be again required to take his seat, he had expressed a disposition not to preceed if the House voted him leave, because that vote for leave would carry upon its face the implication that he was seeking to introduce topics not pertinent to the question. He therefore would not conclude the observations he designed making on this resolution, except by saying that he should vote against it.

Mr. VANDERPOEL moved the previous question. Mr. ADAMS appealed to Mr. V. to withdraw this motion, to allow him to submit some remarks to the House.

Mr. VANDERPOEL could not withdraw the motion, unless the gentle man from Massachusetts would pledge himself to renew the motion when he had concluded his remarks.

Mr. ADAMS said it was not in his power to comply with this request, because he desired to have the oppor tunity of a full hearing in his own defence; and he had hoped he would be granted the privilege.

Mr. KENNON moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. RENCHER called for the yeas and nays on this motion; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 50, nays 144, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chilton Allan, Anthony, Ash, Barton, Bell, Black, Bockee, Cair, Casey, Chaney, Chapin, Chetwood, Cramer, Crary, Doubleday, Dunlap, Farlin, Forester, Fry, Fuller, Rice Garland, Hannegan, Henderson, Hubley, Huntington, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Jolinson, Kennon, Klingensmith, Lansing, Laporte, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Logan, Jub Mann, Moses Mason, McCarty, McKay, McKim, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Parks, Patterson, Phelps, Joseph Reynolds, Seymour, Sickles, Taylor, Turrill-50.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, Heman Allen, Bailey, Bond, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Briggs, Brown, Buchanan, Bynum, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carter, George Chambers, John Chambers, Chapman, Childs, N. H. Claiborne, John F. H. Claiborne, Clark, Cleveland, Connor, Corwin, Craig, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Dawson, Deberry, Denny, Dromgoole, Efner, Elmore, Evans, Ev- | erett, French, Gholson, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Grantland, Graves, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Haley, Hiland Hal', Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Harper, Samuel S. Harrison, Hawkins, Hazeltine, Hvar, Holsey, Holt, Hopkins, Howard, Howell, Huntsman, Ingham, William Jackson, Janes, Jarvis, Jenifer, Henry Johnson, John W. Jones, Lane, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Martin, Samson Mason, Maury, May, McComas, McKennan, McKeon, McLene, Mercer, Miller, Milligan, Montgomery, Owens, Page, Parker, Pat

[FEB. 9, 1837.

ton, Dutee J. Pearce, James A. Pearce, Pearson, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, John Reynolds, Richardson, Robertson, Rogers, Russell, Schenck, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shinn, Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, John Thomson, Waddy Thompson, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Weeks, White, Elisha Whittlesey, Thomas T. Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Wise, Yell, Young-144. So the motion to lay on the table was decided in the negative.

Mr. GRANGER said he rose, as a representative of the State of New York, to appeal to his colleague to withdraw his motion, to allow the gentleman from Massachusetts to make some remarks in his own defence. member of this House not to be permitted

Is a

The CHAIR said it was not in order to entertain debate after the previous question was moved.

Mr. BRIGGS inquired if it was not in order to make an inquiry of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. VANDERPOEL said he had considered of what he had done, and he could not withdraw the motion he had made.

Mr. REED wished to know how the present resolutions got before the House.

The CHAIR explained that it was a modification of the former resolutions.

Mr. REED made a point that the resolution before the House was not in order, because other resolutions and amendments were pending.

The CHAIR decided that the resolution was in order, and explained that the amendments had been withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, wished to know if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. REED] had appealed from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. REED appealed from the decision of the Chair, but, after a few explanations between him and the Chair, he withdrew the appeal.

Mr. BRIGGS then raised a point of order, that, because the first resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina being in relation to the subject of slavery, it ought to lie on the table, under the order of the House of the 18th of January last.

The CHAIR decided that the resolution of the 18th of January did not operate on this resolution, and that it was in order.

From this decision Mr. BRIGGS took an appeal to the House, and was proceeding to debate the appeal, when

The CHAIR informed him that this appeal could not be debated, inasmuch as the previous question had been moved.

Mr. BRIGGS then called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered; but withdrew the appeal before the vote was taken.

Mr. ADAMS then made a point of order, that inasmuch as the first resolution was not upon the subject then pending before the House, namely, the question of privilege, it could not be entertained.

The SPEAKER decided that the resolution was in order, and stated the grounds of his decision.

Mr. ADAMS appealed from this decision, and was proceeding to make some remarks, when

Mr. GHOLSON called him to order.

Mr. ADAMS then asked the consent of the House to submit some remarks.

The CHAIR said this could only be done by the general consent of the House.

Mr. GHOLSON objected.

Mr. BRIGGS moved a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of allowing the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] to address the House.

The CHAIR decided this motion to be out of order, inasmuch as the previous question had been moved. Mr. WISE rose to inquire whether it was in order to modify a privileged question, so as to make it any thing else than a privileged question.

The CHAIR said the modification of the resolution at present before the House was in order.

Mr. WISE remarked that he had nothing more to say on this subject.

Mr. HOWELL wished to know whether these resolutions did not effect a change of the rules of the House. The CHAIR did not consider that they did.

The question was then taken on the second to the previous question, when it appeared that the previous question was not seconded: Yeas 79, nays 100.

Mr. WISE then said he wished merely to remark that he hoped the House, after hearing, as they ought to hear, the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] would be disposed to take the question without further debate; because he had an important matter to lay before the House from one of the select committees.

Mr. ADAMS began by observing that he would take up as little of the time of the House as was possible for him to do on this important subject. The first question before the House was the inquiry addressed by himself to the Speaker and to the House. On this inquiry, no question had yet been taken. He (Mr. A.) was, however, extremely anxious that the question should be taken, and that every member of this House should record his vote on this important proposition, namely: "Whether the House shall refuse to receive a petition from slaves, under any circumstances whatever." When be (Mr. A.) first made this proposition as a matter of inquiry only, and when the Speaker submitted the inquiry to the House, a member immediately rose, [Mr. HAYNES,] and said that he did not know how to meet a proposition of this kind. He [Mr. HAYNES] thought it was not deserving attention; that to receive it in any shape would be bestowing upon it more attention than it deserved. If, then, the question did not deserve attention, how came it to happen that the House bad been engaged so long a time in debating upon such a question? Why, if the question was not deserving attention, have gentlemen professed to feel so deeply upon it, and been so anxious to bring me to the bar of the House to receive censure? Why was not an inquiry of so little importance disposed of at once? If the Speaker had objected to receiving the petition, I (said Mr. A.) should not have presented the paper, out of respect to the House, though I know that it is a question more important than the honorable gentleman [Mr. HAYNES] imagines. Sir, I know it to be a question de- | manding deep attention from this House, from this na tion, and from the civilized world. I said (continued Mr. A.) that I was willing to abide by the conclusion the House might think proper to come to on this subject, whatever that conclusion might be; but at the same time I confess I was exceedingly anxious that this question, in the abstract, should be taken and decided upon by the House. I was anxious that every member of this House should record his vote, for all time to come, on a question of such importance-a question which opened the whole subject of the condition of slaves in this country-a question which brought into inquiry the whole subject of the power and privileges of this House, and of the freedom of speech in debate. These are questions of vital importance; these are privileges dear to some, though there may be those by whom they are not valued. I had hoped, sir, to have received an answer to the proposition "if a petition from slaves would be received by the House," because, as I have stated, the answer to this proposition would open the whole subject relating to slavery, and the whole

[H. OF R.

question relating to the privilege of speech of the members of this House. The answer to this inquiry involved all this, and more than this.

Amidst the prevailing excitement, and among the vari ous speeches which the numerous resolutions against him had elicited, he (Mr. A.) had heard but one indi. vidual who had undertaken argumentatively to discuss the question which he (Mr. A.) had propounded to the Speaker; and that individual was the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. FRENCH.] That honorable gentleman, who is an able judicial character, has treated the subject as an argument before a court of law; but, sir, the subject demands a different kind of argument. What was his argument, sir? It was this: that if you abolish slavery, you take away a part of the representation which the constitution has guarantied to the Southern States. But, I ask, has that gentleman established any connexion between his premises and his conclusions? What, sir? If slavery were abolished, they will be deprived of the right of representation, and therefore the House cannot receive petitions from slaves!

[Mr. FRENCH, the member referred to, explained. He (Mr. F.) did not affirm that slaves were entitled to representatives, if that was what the honorable gentleman (Mr. ADAMS) understood him to say.]

Mr. ADAMS resumed. Has he taken the right issue, sir? Has he drawn his premises and his conclusions to a closer connexion? What, sir? If you should deprive the South of its representation, what then? Is that any reason to assign why slaves should be deprived of the opportunity of crying for mercy to this House? There is no connexion between the two things. Sir, he has travelled out of the record; he has raised a totally dif ferent question than the actual question which is alone before this House; he has substituted the question "if slavery should be abolished," in place of the question put to the Speaker, viz: "if the House would receive petitions from slaves under any circumstances." My colleague [Mr. CUSHING] has, more forcibly than I can do, already discussed the proposition of the freedom of petition. He has shown that it is a right not derived from the constitution, not given by parchment, but prior to the constitution; given, by the God of Nature, to every man when he created him; it is the right to implore favor, to seek for mercy! a right which the framers of our constitution would have spurned the very idea of abridging or limiting, or restricting to any particular color or class of men! He recognised this right as belonging to all men in the constitution which they framed; and, in that constitution, sir, instead of imagining any limits to this right, they solemnly declared, in that instrument, that it should not be abridged! Yes, sir, that it should not be limited-they recognised no limitation of any kind to this sacred right. It is, sir, a right belonging to every human creature, which does not depend upon the condition of the petitioner, and which cannot be denied to man in any condition. This, sir, is the principle involved in the inquiry put by me to the Chair-a principle more than recognised by the constitution, which has declared that this right shall suffer no abridgment, no limitation wha'ever! If vou now abolish this principle, this first and humblest right given from God to every human being, a limitation will next be put to the right of petitioning, in the fullest extent to which party madness might hereafter be inclined to carry it. If the House shall decide that the paper [ possess comes under the order of the House of the 18th of January, I will present the petition, and in doing so shall be doing my duty-a duty of the highest importance to my country, to humanity, and to human nature. What, sir? Will you put the right of petitioning, of craving for help and mercy and protection, on the footing of political privileges? It is an idea which has not

even been entertained by the utmost extreme of human despotism; no despot, of any age or clime, has ever denied this humble privilege to the poorest or the meanest of human creatures. If this House decides that it will not receive petitions from slaves, under any circumstances, it will cause the name of this country to be enrolled among the first of barbarous nations. A petition is supplication; and supplication for what? For relief from those who have the power to give relief, and who are placed in a situation to attend to the cry of distress. That would be a sad day, sir, in my opinion, when a vote should pass this House that would not receive a petition from slaves? What would it lead to? When the principie is once begun of limiting the right of petition, where would it stop? Gentlemen have objected to the petition immediately preceding that which I presented, because it came from colored people! from color! That, sir, is giving color to an idea with a witness! The honorable gentleman makes it a crime because I presented a petition which he affirms to be from colored women, which women were of infamous character, as the honorable gentleman says-prostitutes, I think the gentleman said.

[Mr. PATTON explained. He (Mr. P.) did not say they were prostitutes; the objection he made was that the petition came from free mulattoes in the South; he did not object on the ground of opposition to the right of petition, but because he (Mr. P.) considered that the House ought to refuse to open its doors to applications from the Southern slaves. As to the infamous character of the women in question, he mentioned that, not as if he deemed it a reason for refusing the right to petition, but because he wished to wipe away the stain from the ladies of Fredricksburg, as these women had been called "ladies of Fredericksburg" by the honorable gentleman, [Mr. ADAMS ] He (Mr. P.) was sure that no ladies from Fredericksburg had sent such a petition to this House.]

Mr. ADAMS continued. He (Mr. A.) was not certain that he called them ladies, or whether the petition itself had not stated that they were ladies. Whenever he presented petitions from ladies, he was not in the habit of using that term for their designation; the word "woman" was an expression much dearer to his heart than that of "lady." But to return to the idea he was about to enforce. He (Mr. A.) thought the honorable gentleman had said that they were infamous; but the proposition which he would ever maintain was that the sacred right of petition, of begging for mercy, as it did not depend upon condition, so also it did not depend upon character; it was a right which could not be denied to the poorest, the humblest, and the most wretched; and, moreover, it was a right which could not be refused to the most vile, the most abandoned, or most infamous. He (Mr. A.) did not, however, know that they were in the present case infamous, but he thought that was the word used in debate by the honorable gentleman, [Mr. PATTON,] and that it was so reported in the National Intelligencer.

[Mr. PATTON again explained. He (Mr. P.) had not said that he knew those women.]

Mr. ADAMS continued. He was glad to hear the honorable gentleman disclaim any knowledge of them; for he had been going to ask, if they were infamous women, then who was it that had made them infamous? Not, he believed, their own color, but their masters; and he had heard it said, in proof of this fact, and he was inclined to believe it was the case, that there existed great resemblances in the South between the progeny of the colored people and the white men who claimed the *One of the resolutions presented to the House charges Mr. ADAMS with giving color to the idea, &c.

[FEB. 9, 1837.

possession of them. Thus, perhaps, the charge of being infamous might be retorted upon those who made it, as originating from themselves. [Great agitation in the House.

Mr. GLASCOCK here interposed, and produced from the Clerk's table the original petition referred to, and said that it bore on its back an endorsement in Mr. ADAMS's hand, "from nine ladies of Fredericksburg." Cries of order! order!]

Mr. ADAMS continued. He (Mr. A.) would observe that he did not know they were colored people; whether they were called ladies or women was very indifferent; the term "woman" was enough for him. But (observed Mr. A.) if you once admit the principle that the right of petition is limited, and will not apply to slaves, the next thing will be to limit it still further, by extending the limitation to free colored people; and, after this, the next limitation will be to the question of the character of the petitioners; then the next limitation will be to inquire on what side of political parties are the petitioners and then, sir, from one side all petitions will be perfectly good and receivable, but on the other side all the pe titions will be from people of bad character, according to the representations of any member who may say he does not know who they are; they will be all infamous, sir, who are on the wrong side. This will be the case. To this state will things come if the right of petition shall be limited by peculiar distinctions, and shall be made to rest on such grounds as these which have been relied upon in this debate.

Another gentleman [Mr. ROBERTSON] has taken another ground. He says the right of petition is not to be admitted, except when it is in the power of the party petitioned to grant the object prayed for. There is some plausibility here; the expediency of petitioning those who have not the power to grant the petition might, perhaps, be made a question; but the right itself is not affected. The absence of power on the one side does not involve the deprivation of a right on the other side; incompetency in one man does not involve the deprivation of his rights to another man; take away the party petitioned, the party offering the petition remains with all its rights unimpaired. Where, then, is the objec tion? Besides, the power to grant a petition might be made one of the most mooted questions in the world. If the right of presenting a petition or of not presenting is made to depend upon the question of power, then it may be shown, by the opinions of slaveholders themselves, that Congress has the power; and, consequently, according to the gentleman's own argument, the right of petition is also possessed on the other side. The opinion that Congress had the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia was entertained by the great ma jority of Southern gentlemen themselves only a few years ago; now, however, not many can be found who would venture to acknowledge such an opinion. Some, indeed, there are, who have that magnanimity, though I know not what it may cost them for expressing their opinions. I appeal to the records of this House, which will show that, on the question of its power to abolish slavery in the District, a great majority of this House will be found to have been in its favor; the House has been, heretofore, almost unanimous on the subject. The honorable gentleman [Mr. ROBERTSON] thinks that Congress has no such power; and that therefore, on this accoun', the petitions ought not to be received. The ground he [Mr. ROBERTSON] takes is this: that the peti tioner has no right to petition, because Congress has no power to grant! Let us concede the premises, then it is clear that the whole right of petition is rendered a nullity; it is reduced to nothing; it is annihilated; for, let but a majority only please to assert the absence of power on any question not agreeable to them to entertain, and