JANUARY, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [SENATE. uals, from what motive he would not attempt to say, were making it their calling and business to increase that excitement, and to make it universal? And might he not claim that the action of the Senate should be such as would be most likely to calm the excitement in all the States and in every section of the Union? that subject. He had listened with pleasure | the subject? That a limited number of individand profit to the able argument of the honorable Senator from Virginia, (Mr. LEIGH,) upon the powers of Congress, and had marked his concessions of power equal to that possessed by the Legislatures of the respective States of Maryland and Virginia over the same subject within those States. He had not studied the question himself, because he was able to mark Mr. CALHOUN could not concur with the genout his own course, with perfect satisfaction to tleman from New York that so much delicacy his own mind, without examining either the was to be shown to the very small part of his constitutional powers of Congress, or the own State he referred to, that these petitions powers of those State Legislatures. He was were not to be rejected, lest the refusal to reready to declare his opinion to be, that Con-ceive them might be considered as a violation gress ought not to act in this matter, but upon the impulse of the two States surrounding the District, and then in a manner precisely graduated by the action of those States upon the same subject. Had the constitution, in terms, given to Congress all power in the matter, this would, with his present views and feelings, be his opinion of the expedient rule of action, and entertaining this opinion, an examination into the power to act had been unnecessary to determine his vote upon the prayer of these petitions. He was ready promptly to reject their prayer, and be deeply regretted that he was not permitted so to vote without debate. The refusal to receive the petitions, Mr. W. said, was, to his mind, a very different question. That was the question now presented. If the refusal should be sanctioned by the Senate, upon the broad ground of the subject prayed for, and not upon the distinct objection of indecorous language or matter in the petition itself, it would be considered and felt, in many sections of the country, as a denial of the constitutional right to petition, and, as such, would be infinitely more calculated to produce and increase, than to allay, excitement. The prompt rejection of the prayer of these petitions would express the sense of the Senate, in the most marked and decisive manner, against the objects of the petitioners. The refusal to receive the petitions would raise a new issue, infinitely more favorable, as he deeply feared, to the schemes of these mad incendiaries than all which had gone before this proposed step. of the right of the citizen to petition Congress. But, said Mr. C., does the gentleman look at our side of the question? If his constituents, continued Mr. C., are to be treated with so much respect, that their petitions are to be received, what is to be considered as due to our constituents? The Senator considered the petition before the Senate as moderate in its language-he did not say otherwise-language, said Mr. C., which treats us as butchers and pirates. The Senator said that they must receive this petition, and reject it, lest it might be considered as violating the right of petition. To receive it, and immediately reject it. This looked something like juggling. Was the petition of sufficient consequence to be received, and at the same time of so little consequence as to be immediately rejected? Was it intended merely that this petition was to be put on the files of the Senate as a record to show the opinion entertained of the people of the South by these abolitionists? The gentleman said that unanimity of opinion in the Senate was very desirable. He said so too. Let the gentleman and his friends join us, said Mr. C., and in that way we can obtain unanimity of opinion. If, as the gentleman said, the petition was to be immediately rejected, why receive it at all? Would the gentleman say that a refusal to receive the petition would press in the slightest degree on the constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances? If the gentleman had made up his mind to reject the petition, he could have no insuperable objection to refuse to receive it. He repeated, that so long as these petitions could be received in the Senate, so long would agitation on the subject continue. The question must be met on constitutional grounds, or not at all. He entreated, he said, his brethren of the South to reflect before they gave this immense advantage to the agitators. He was aware that the Southern feeling must be sensitive, perhaps beyond his ability to estimate, upon this subject of domestic slavery. The constitutional rights, the personal and private interests, the domestic Mr. MORRIS observed that, in presenting peace and domestic security, of the people of these petitions, it was his sincere desire to the slaveholding States, compelled them to avoid any thing like agitation or excitement in feel deeply and keenly upon every agitation of that body. Although he had had these petithis delicate question. He could not be insen- tions in his possession for some days, he resible to the existence of these feelings, or to frained from presenting them until he had an their justice. Yet, might he not appeal to opportunity of observing what was done with members of this body from those States, and others of a like tenor. The question now asask them to remember that excitement, grow- sumed a grave aspect. The constitutional ing out of the same subject, was also prevailing rights of the people peaceably to assemble and in the non-slaveholding States? That the pub-petition for a redress of grievances was involved. lic mind in those States had become aroused to On the subject of these petitions, it was not his SENATE.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. (JANUARY, 1836. desire at present to say one word; his wish it was received, if it was found to ask for an was that the great question as to the right of intermeddling with the constitutional rights of the people of this Union to petition Congress any of the States, to stamp it with the disapmight come up unembarrassed by the objections probation it deserved. as to the language in which the petition was Anxious as he was that no excitement should drawn. It seemed that these objections did grow out of this matter, his design was to give not apply to the petition presented by the Sen-every individual his rights, he would vote for ator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. BUCHANAN,) and the reception of this petition. The magnanihe wished the question to be taken on that mous and patriotic stand taken by the gentlepetition. He concurred with the Senator from man from Pennsylvania, (Mr. BUCHANAN,) on South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) that there was this question, was worthy of himself and of the no difference in substance between the last-great State he represented, and was an earnest named petition and those he (Mr. M.) had pre- to him of the disposition of that and other sented; that those who voted against receiving Northern States to arrest the course of those the one ought to vote against receiving the deluded people in producing mischief here and other. His wish was to disembarrass this elsewhere. After this petition was received. question of the right of petition of the difficul- he was prepared to take the most efficient and ties as to the language of the petitions, and he energetic action to put a stop to this fanaticism. would therefore ask leave of the Senate to withdraw the one he had presented. Mr. CALHOUN had heard, with much regret, the argument of his friend from Alabama, (Mr. KING.) He understood the gentleman to put this question of receiving the petition on constitutional grounds. He asked the Senator if he was aware of the extent to which this doctrine would carry him. Was he prepared to receive petitions to abolish slavery in the navy yards and arsenals of the United States, in the Southern section of the Union? Was he pre Mr. MORRIS then withdrew the petition. On motion of Mr BUCHANAN, the Senate took up the petition presented by that gentleman from the Caln Quarterly Meeting of Friends, of Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, praying Congress to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, together with the motion of Mr. B. that the petition be rejected. The question pending was the one raised by Mr. CALHOUN-pared to receive petitions couched in abusive "Shall the petition be received?" Mr. CALHOUN called for the reading of the petition. On motion of Mr. MORRIS, the yeas and nays were ordered. and indecorous language? [Here Mr. KING said, No!] The Senator answered no. Then I ask him, said Mr. C., to show the distinction between such petitions as he has described and the one Mr. CALHOUN said that the language even of before the Senate. If the right to have petithis petition was very strange. It held up the tions received was constitutional, then there buying and selling of slaves in the Southern could be no qualification of that right. The States to be as flagrant a wrong as the slave Senator from Alabama, by saying no, surrentrade itself on the coast of Africa; declaring dered the ground he had taken. Then, by "that it was as inconsistent in principle, as in- what possibility, he asked him, was he prehuman in practice, as the foreign slave trade."pared to receive petitions to abolish slavery in The foreign slave trade, Mr. C. said, consisted this District? If he was prepared to receive in seizing on the Africans by violence, and selling such petitions, what was to prevent him from them into slavery. Now, he was not willing to receiving petitions to abolish slavery in every admit the parallel between slavery in the South-arsenal and navy yard in every State in the ern States and this foreign slave trade. We our-Union. selves, said he, have denounced this African slave trade, and made it piracy; though he did not himself believe that the offence could be properly designated as piracy, and ever should regret that this term had been applied to it in our laws. With regard to the petition, if he had no other objection to it than that of its using this language, he would not on that account receive it. Mr. KING, of Alabama, wished, as an individual, and as a representative, to give all the individuals of the Union, of every class, a full enjoyment of the rights secured to them by the constitution. If we, said Mr. K., from the whim or excitement of the moment, refuse to receive these memorials, might they not abridge the right of petitioning? When the language was decent and respectful, it was the duty of every Senator to show it every mark of respect due to its character. And then, when He confessed he was astonished at the gentleman's arguments. The right of petition was cautiously guarded in the constitution: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances." By these plain terms it was expressly limited; and yet, when gentlemen came to the petitions of these fanatics, for abolishing slavery in this District, they were disposed to enlarge the construction. I know, said Mr. C., that the Senator from Alabama represents constituents more deeply interested in this question than mine. The South-western States were more deeply interested than the South Atlantic States, as the former had a growing slave population, continually augmenting by purchases from Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia; and he was, therefore, the more astonished at his argument. JANUARY, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [SENATE. Not to receive these petitions was considered | of right. Had they not a right to select their wonderfully disrespectful to these petitioners; but to receive and reject them immediately was considered entirely respectful. What did gentlemen mean? He could not, for the life of him, make out why gentlemen were so anxious to receive these petitions, when they were determined to reject them. Mr. MOORE desired more time for reflection before he recorded his views, particularly since his colleague had indicated the course he intended to pursue. He could not see the propriety of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in offering the petition he had presented, and forthwith moving to reject it. If I had a petition to present here, said Mr. M., the consideration that would induce me to move its rejection would induce me to withhold it. MONDAY, January 25. Mr. ROBINSON presented the credentials of W. D. EWING, elected a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, in the room of Elias K. Kane, deceased. Mr. EwING was introduced, and qualified. TUESDAY, January 26. Michigan Memorial—Admission into the Union. The memorial from the Legislature of Michigan, on the subject of her admission into the Union, having been presented, Mr. HENDRICKS submitted the following: "Ordered, That the memorial purporting to be from the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan be referred to the select committee, appointed on the 22d of December, in relation to the admission of Michigan into the Union, and that the Senate regard the same in no other light than as the voluntary act of individuals." Mr. DAVIS was in favor of giving the petition the usual direction. A petition from a man representing himself to be a ship owner did not prove him to be a ship owner, nor did the petition of a manufacturer, representing himself as such, prove him to be one, and we are not bound to recognize their character. Now, these persons represent themselves to be, I suppose, a political body. As a matter of principle, when a petition came here in respectful terms, it ought to be treated in a respectful manner. He would be satisfied to consider the petition as containing a faithful description of themselves, and was disposed to let it take the ordinary course. Mr. NILES said that, aside from matters of form, he was disposed to regard the petition as coming from the people of Michigan, claiming political rights of the highest magnitude, and he could not refuse to hear them, and least of all a memorial coming from a whole people, claiming admission into the federal Union. Have they, said Mr. N., not a right to select their own mode of application? They came here not asking a matter of favor, but a matter own committee to represent those rights? For his part, he was disposed to hear them. If there ever was a people who claimed rights of a high character, it was those who had political rights, and were not represented. He regretted to see a disposition manifested to shut out the inquiry, and to prevent them from being heard. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, said he would assure the Senator from Connecticut that there had been no attempt made there to shut this people out from a hearing. There were ways enough of presenting this communication to Congress without the petitioners presenting themselves as the Legislature of a State. His objection was to the form in which the memorial came, and not to giving the people of Michigan a hearing. Gentlemen therefore were mistaken, and misstated them in saying that they were opposed to giving the people of Michigan an opportunity of being heard. The true question before the Senate was, whether this memorial came from a State-whether the Senate could address Michigan as a State, and receive communications from her as such. Mr. CALHOUN regarded the political existence of Michigan as a State, as a nonentity. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DAVIS) had said that we were not bound to recognize a petitioner as a manufacturer, because he called himself one in the petition. That case did not apply to a corporate body, and especially to a political body. The petition must or must not be received. The position it assumed was strongly illustrative of the position some gentlemen had assumed on this floor. To receive this petition would amount to a recognition of Michigan as a State, and he could therefore not agree to receive it. Mr. CLAYTON, in reply to Mr. CALHOUN, said he hoped the Senator from Indiana would not vary his motion. It appeared to him that the course now proposed was the very one to prevent all dissatisfaction on either side. By referring the subject to the select committee, with the qualification proposed, we do not, said he, commit ourselves at all as to whether Michigan is, or is not, a State. Mr. HENDRICKS's motion was adopted, and the memorial referred to the select committee appointed on the same subject. THURSDAY, January 28. Slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. SWIFT presented a petition from citizens of Vermont, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. CALHOUN desired to know if the language of the petition was respectful to those who had sent them there. He therefore wished to hear the petition read. [The petition was read by the Secretary.] Mr. C. demanded the preliminary question on receiving the petition. The Senator from Vermont, he said, objected to the calling these pe SENATE.] Incendiary Publications. [FEBRUARY, 1836. titioners incendiaries, and yet, said Mr. C., he | April, 1835, and copies of any other official note does not object to the language used by them addressed by Mr. Livingston, during his mission to towards those who sent us here. France, either to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs or to the Secretary of State, not heretofore communicated to Congress. Mr. SWIFT had only said that gentlemen could judge of the language of the petition for themselves. The petitioners, he had said, were entirely respectable, were influenced by the purest motives, and believed themselves justified in speaking of evils as they supposed them to exist. pe Mr. CALHOUN cared not what their motives were; he cared not whether they acted from ignorance or design; he only judged of the effect. Those persons who presented this tition knew of the existence of the Southern institutions, and yet they spoke of them as unjust, wicked, and diabolical. Whatever might be the design of these men, the course they were pursuing was calculated to destroy this Union and subvert its institutions. After some additional remarks from Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. BUCHANAN moved to lay the question on the table, and it was agreed to. MONDAY, February 1. Monument to Nathan Hale. Among the petitions presented to-day was one, by Mr. NILES, of sundry citizens of New Haven, Connecticut, setting forth the extraordinary services, the great merits, and the untimely fate, of Captain Nathan Hale, of the revolutionary army, and praying that a monument may be erected to his memory. The reading and reference were agreed to. WEDNESDAY, February 3. On motion of Mr. CLAY, the previous orders were postponed, in order to consider the resolution he offered some days since, calling for information from the President, which it was necessary that the Committee on Foreign Relations should have before it. The resolution was accordingly taken up, as follows: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate, if they be at his command, copies of the expose which accompanied the French bill of indemnity from the Chamber of Deputies to the Chamber of Peers of France on the 27th of April, 1835, and of the report of the committee presented to the Chamber of Peers, on the 5th of June, 1835; and, also, a copy of the original note in the French language, from the Duc de Broglie to Mr. Barton, under date of the 20th October, 1835, a translation of which was communicated to Congress with the President's special Message of the 18th January, 1836. Resolved, also, That the President be requested (if not incompatible with the public interest) to communicate to the Senate a copy of a note, if there be one, from Mr. Livingston to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, under date of the 27th day of THURSDAY, February 4. Incendiary Publications. Mr. CALHOUN, from the select committee to whom that part of the Message of the President the following bill: was referred, made a report, accompanied by A BILL prohibiting deputy postmasters from receiv ing or transmitting through the mail, to any State, Territory, or District, certain papers therein mentioned, the circulation of which, by the laws of said State, Territory, or District, may be prohibited, and for other purposes. Be it enacted, &c., That it shall not be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, Territory, or District, knowingly to receive and put into the mail, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, addressed to any person or post office in any State, Territory, or District, where, by the laws of the said State, Territory, or District, their circulation is prohibited. Nor shall it be lawful for any deputy postmaster in said State, Territory, or District, knowingly to deliver to any person any such pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation, to any person whatever, except to such person or persons as are duly authorized by the proper authority of such State, Territory, or District, to receive the same. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Postmaster General to dismiss from office any deputy postmaster offending in the premises, and such deputy postmaster shall, on conviction thereof, in any court having competent jurisdiction, be fined in any sum not less than dollars, and not more than dollars, according to the aggravation of the offence, at the discretion of the court. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of deputy postmasters, mail carriers, and other officers and agents of the Post Office Department to co-operate, as far as may be, to prevent the circulation of any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation as aforesaid, in any State, Territory, or District, where, by the laws of said State, Territory, or District, the same are prohibited; and that nothing, in the acts of Congress to establish and regulate the Post Office Department shall be construed to protect any deputy postmaster, mail carrier, or other officer, or agent of said Department, convicted of knowingly circulating in any State, Territory, or District, as aforesaid, any such pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation, forbidden by the laws of such State, Territory, or District. SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Postmaster General to furnish to the deputy postmasters, and the agents and officers of the Department, copies of the laws of the several States, Territories, and Districts, prohibiting the publication or circulation of any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, FEBRUARY, 1836.] District of Columbia—Assumption of the Dutch Debt. or pictorial representation, within the limits of said States, Territories, or Districts, for their government in the premises; and make such regulations, and give such instructions for carrying this act into effect, as may not be contrary to law. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the deputy postmasters of the offices where the pamphlets, newspapers, handbills, or other papers, printed or written, or pictorial representations aforesaid, may be deposited, shall, under the instructions of the Postmaster General, from time to time give notice of the same, so that they may be withdrawn by the person depositing them; and, if not withdrawn in the space of one month thereafter, shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed. Mr. MANGUM moved that five thousand extra copies of the report be printed. Three members of the committee (Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, Mr. KING, of Georgia, and Mr. LINN, of Missouri) rose and expressed dissent from the report. Mr. CALHOUN said that a majority of the committee did not concur in the report, though there were two members of it, himself and the gentleman from North Carolina, who concurred throughout; three other gentlemen concurred with the greater part of the report, | though they dissented from some parts of it, and two gentlemen concurred also with some parts of it. As to the bill, two of the committee would have preferred a different one, though they had rather have that than none at all; another gentleman was opposed to it altogether. The bill, however, was a natural consequence of the report, and the two did not disagree with each other. Mr. MANGUM modified his motion by moving to print 5,000 copies of the report, together with the bill; which motion was agreed to. MONDAY, February 8. France and the United States-Mediation of Great Britain-Message from the President. [SENATE. the United States and France, and know, too, that our own pacific policy will be strictly adhered to. until the national honor compels us to depart from it, we should be insensible to the exposed condition of our country, and forget the lessons of experience, if we did not efficiently and sedulously prepare for an adverse result. The peace of a nation does not depend exclusively upon its own will, nor upon the beneficent policy of neighboring powers; and that nation which is found totally unprepared for the exigencies and dangers of war, although it come without having given warning of its approach, is criminally negligent of its honor and its duty. I cannot too strongly repeat the recommendation already made, to place the seaboard in a proper state for defence, and promptly to provide the means for amply protecting our commerce. ANDREW JACKSON. On motion of Mr. CLAY, the Message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.* New York Sufferers. Mr. WRIGHT presented the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York, urging the passage of the bill now before the House of Representatives for the extension of the time of payment of the duty bonds falling due in the city of New York subsequent to the great conflagration of the 16th of December last, and said he felt bound to occupy a few moments of the time of the Senate in bringing to their attention the suggestions contained in this memorial. The memorial stated that the importance of the passage of the bill had been vastly increased by the delay which had already taken place. Mr. W. then moved that the memorial, without reading, be laid on the table and printed; which motion prevailed without a division. THURSDAY, February 11. Debt. A Message was received from the President District of Columbia-Assumption of the Dutch of the United States on the subject of the mediation of Great Britain, as follows: WASHINGTON, February 8, 1836. To the Senate and House of Representatives: The Government of Great Britain has offered its mediation for the adjustment of the dispute between the United States and France. Carefully guarding that point in the controversy which, as it involves our honor and independence, admits of no compromise, I have cheerfully accepted the offer. It will be obviously improper to resort even to the mildest measures of a compulsory character, until it is ascertained whether France has declined or accepted the mediation. I therefore recommend a suspension of all proceedings on that part of my special message of the 15th of January last, which proposes a partial non-intercourse with France. While we cannot too highly appreciate the elevated and disinterested motives of the offer of Great Britain, and have a just reliance upon the great influence of that power to restore the relations of ancient friendship between VOL. XII.-46 On motion of Mr. TYLER, the special order was postponed until Monday, and the Senate took up the bill for the relief of the several corporations of the District of Columbia: * This proffered mediation of Great Britain is one of the most beautiful incidents in the history of nations. France and the United States had fought together against Great Britain: now Great Britain steps between France and the United States to prevent them from fighting each other George the Third received the combined attacks of the French and Americans: his son, William the Fourth, interposes to prevent their arms from being turned against each other. This mediation, voluntarily offered, and from motives elevated and disinterested, was accepted by both parties, and in four months the delayed instalments were paid, and the two countries, allies in the war of Independence and on the eve of a rupture now, were restored to their ancient friendly relations. |