APRIL 7, 1836.] Public Deposites--Railroad Contracts. attacks will cease, or if renewed, it may in future have facts and specifications, instead of vague assertions and groundless insinuations. Mr. PORTER'S amendment was then agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. PUBLIC DEPOSITES. Mr. WRIGHT laid on the table the amendment which he proposed to move to the bill to regulate the public deposites, whenever that bill shall be called up. If the Senator from South Carolina did not call up that bill, (as he had intimated that he should not,) he (Mr. W.) would call it up at the earliest opportunity. Mr. CALHOUN expressed his gratification that the gentleman from New York and the Senator from Missouri had taken this bill under their protection. They had the power to carry it through, and he was glad that they had it in their charge. The amendments were ordered to be printed. Mr. PRESTON stated that he had some months since laid on the table a resolution from the Committee on the Judiciary, on the subject of the legacy of Smithson. He would now call it up, if it suited the convenience of the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. LEIGH.] Mr. LEIGH yielded his desire to have it taken up, and, On motion of Mr. BLACK, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and, after remaining some time in secret session, The Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, APRIL 7. ̧ RAILROAD CONTRACTS. Mr. GRUNDY, from the Committee on the Post Of fice and Post Roads, made a report on the subject of the bill to authorize contracts with the railroad companies; which he read from the table. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, stated that the report contained much important matter which it was proper to lay before the public; and he accordingly moved that there be 5,000 extra copies printed. Mr. GRUNDY suggested that there should be appended to the report the bill of the committee, as it was proposed to be amended. Mr. CALHOUN said that the report was an important one, but he could not but apprehend that it might be difficult to carry out the views which it contained. He feared that the Postmaster General would derive, as the agent of the Government to contract with these companies, too great an addition to his power, and in this respect the bill could not be too carefully guarded. He had not had sufficient time to turn in his mind the many difficulties which seemed to stand in the way of this plan. Whenever the bill should come before the Senate, he would co-operate heartily in guarding against too much power being given to the Department. He doubted the propriety of printing so large a number. It was often the case that these ex parte reports held out flattering prospects, which were doomed to be clouded, and to lead to expectations which were never realized. He hoped there would be a postponement of the question to print the extra number. Mr. GRUNDY expressed a wish that the gentleman from South Carolina had turned his attention to the amendments proposed to the bill. It was so framed that the Postmaster General would have no authority to make any binding contract. Every contract must be submit. ted to Congress, and must receive the sanction of the two Houses before it would be binding. This amend ment had been proposed by the Senator from Ohio, [SENATE. [Mr. EWING,] and had been unanimously agreed to in the committee. The Postmaster General would have no power on the subject of contracts. He would act merely as a negotiator with the War Department, for the purpose of communicating to the railroad companies all possible information which would be required as to the wants of the Government. But he was not to act on the subject of contracts; all he could do was to present the offers to Congress, by whom they must be accepted or rejected. No additional power, therefore, was conferred on the Postmaster General, as he was not authorized to do any thing which was conclusive. The amendment, which took away the power from the Postmaster Gen. eral, was offered by the Senator from Ohio, and had received unanimous concurrence; and the bill, in its amended form, is as free from giving any increased powers to the Postmaster General as possible. Mr. CALHOUN said he should be happy to concur in all the provisions of the bill which appeared to him to be practicable; but even in the modified form in which the bill was now presented by the Senator from Tennessee, he saw much difficulty. We are about to make a new movement. We had frequently seen plans which were equally plausible in their appearance, but which finally turned out to be mere fallacies. He was desirous that the motion to print the extra number should be postponed until there had been a little more time allowed for examination into the report. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, stated that it was only recently that the subject had been agitated at all. It was certainly impossible to foresee all the difficulties which might arise in carrying this new arrangement into effect. Although he had proposed the amendment, and assented to the report which had been made, he had reserved himself as to the main question of the policy of the bill itself, and had left himself entirely free to act on that subject according to the views he should then entertain. The original bill had this objectionable feature. According to its provisions, no railroad company could make a contract for the transportation of the mail without the permission of the Postmaster General. This provision was exceptionable, and he had pointed it out and suggested its impropriety. It was accordingly stricken out by the unanimous consent of the committee. The bill as it now stands provides that the Postmaster General shall send the proposals to Congress, for the action of that body, after such propositions have been submitted. To this provision he could make no objection. To the act, as it now stood, he could at first view see no objection. If, when the first contract was made, it should be found on trial that it was disadvantageous, the system could be broken up without going any further. He had proposed the printing of an extra number of copies, because he desired that the subject should be transmitted freely to the public, in order that public opinion might act upon it, and that the merits of both the report and the bill may be fairly examined. Still he had no particular objection to suspend his motion to print an extra number for a few days, until the arguments of gentlemen could go forth at the same time. Mr. GRUNDY expressed the hope that whatever number it might be thought proper to print of this report, they might be printed at once. It was a matter of business. It was important that the plan should be known abroad, in order that companies might make their contracts with a full knowledge of the views of the Department and the committee. Mr. KNIGHT said he was a member of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and had acquiesced in the report. But he did not feel himself committed as to his vote on the bill; he felt himself still at liberty to act in reference to the measure as his judgment might heareafter dictate. He regarded the bill as an indirect SENATE.] Incendiary Publications. measure for the prosecution of internal improvement. The general Government would advance to the compa nies the means for the construction of these roads, and would thus operate on all the railroads throughout the Union. The motion was then agreed to. INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS. The Senate proceeded to consider the bill prohibiting deputy postmasters from receiving 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. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, rose and said he proposed, as no other gentleman seemed inclined to take the floor, to invite the attention of the Senate to some considerations connected with this bill. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had justly observed that it was an important measure, and I (said Mr. D.) so view it, for it seems to me to propose a great, and, I fear, injurious change in the policy of the United States. The alleged object (said Mr. D.) is to suppress what are called incendiary publications; and it is necessary to look at the provisions of the bill, that the change in policy, and the manner in which it affects privileges which we have hitherto enjoyed, may be fully understood. shall be unlawful for any post1st. It provides that master to put into the mail, or deliver therefrom, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, addressed to any person living in a State where the circulation of such paper is prohibited by law. 2d. It makes a violation of this provision punishable with fine or imprisonment. [APRIL 7, 1836. Now, sir, (said Mr. D.,) the propositions seem to me The one proposes a sup to lead to the same result. pression of certain papers by the agency of the postmasters, and so does the other: not only the end, thereThe only differfore, but the means, are the same. ence is, that in one case the law comes from a State or States, and in the other from Congress; but if Congress, by its acts, so far adopts the law of a State as to make it a rule of conduct for public officers, requiring them, under penalties, to obey it, is not such a law in fact a law of Congress by adoption? Is it not in truth a part of our legislation in the regulation of the Post Office as much as if it had emanated directly from Congress? I confess I cannot perceive the difference, and the two parts of the report, which arrive at opposite reThe one disproves sults, seem to be irreconcilable. the other; for, if the one is right, the other is wrong. But, sir, I do not propose to enter into the question of constitutional power at this time, for I have other and distinct grounds of objection, about which I feel no embarrassment; and, therefore, shall at present leave this debatable question. It seems to me, if the power were unquestionable, the measure is inexpedient. To make myself understood, I must call the attention of the Senate to the character of the Post Office, and then distinctly to the proposed plan of regulation; and, if I mistake not, it will be found to be such a perversion of the purposes for which the Post Office was established, as greatly to impair its usefulness. There is, perhaps, no known definition of a post office which so distinctly indicates its character as to show the precise purposes of its establishment in detail. The general design is to transmit intelligence; but in what form and to what extent, are all matters undetermined by the constitution; for the authority is there contained in a single line. Among the enumerated powers, it This I need not (said Mr. D.) state the provisions more reads "to establish post offices and post roads." particularly, as the residue consists of details. It seems to me plain that the object is to transfer from the United is all. A naked grant of power, leaving to Congress to States the regulation of the mail and of the Post Office, determine how and in what way it shall be executed; in these matters, to the States, by making the laws of and Congress has hitherto determined both what shall go in the mail bags, and how they shall be transported, the States, whatever they are or may be, the laws to regulate the Post Office, and to that extent the laws of and upon what conditions. The reason of vesting this the United States. This is a manifest change of pub-power in Congress is apparent. The transmission of lic policy, a departure in principle from the uniform course of legislation; and, not being prepared for such a step, I have risen to express the hope that it will not be hastily taken. It was the pleasure of the Senate to place me upon the committee; and, as I did not concur in the report or the bill, it is probably expected that I should state my reasons for this difference of opinion. The report drawn by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] treats the matter in two distinct views, which, however ingenious and able, seem to me not to be reconciled to each other. In the first place, it contains an able argument to prove that Congress has no constitutional power to pass a law to regulate the Post Office, by making the postmasters the judges to determine the moral, political, religious, or other tendency, of printed or written matter, for this would be an indirect invasion of the liberty of the press, and a perversion of the purposes and intent of the power granted to manage the Post Office. It likens the case to that of the sedition law, which was condemned on the ground that the press was indirectly invaded by it. In the second place, it contends that, while this direct exercise of power by legislation here is denied, there is a full and complete constitutional authority to sanction and carry into effect the laws of the States, when they require precisely the same investigation of the mail, the same objectionable separation of its contents, and the same practical invasion of the press. intelligence through all parts of the country was obviously a matter of great public concernment, in which all were interested; and, as all would be represented here, that could manifestly be better regulated and provided for here than by the States separately. The matter was supposed to be thus confided where there could be no dispute or conflict of interest, but the laws would be uniform, and the transmission certain. It is, then, I think, clearly the duty of Congress to provide for the speedy transmission of intelligence; and in this, I doubt not, we all concur. The question, then, raised by this bill is this: shall we further regulate the Post Office, by requiring the postmasters to investigate the contents of the mail? The bill makes it penal to receive or deliver any papers, the circulation of which are forbidden. Now, sir, how can the receiving or delivering postmaster know what he receives or delivers, without examination? If he fails to examine them, the whole purpose of the law is defeated. If he examines them, the contents of the mail are exposed. The bill embraces all letters, as well as printed matter; for, after enumerating newspapers, pamphlets, handbills, pictures, &c., it says, or any other paper. The mail is necessarily submitted to the inspection of the postmasters, with a power to reject or withhold so much of the contents as have any thing in them touching the subject of slavery, if it is prohibited circulation. We are told that all incendiary publications are prohibited; but what are incendiary? Yes, what are incendiary? I will read to the Senate, from a document before me, that they may be the better able to judge what is and will be inhibited as incendiary. A short time past, a citizen of New York, residing in that State, and editing a newspaper called the Emancipator, was indicted in Alabama; and as he was not resident in that State, the Governor demanded him of the Governor of New York as a fugitive from justice, (though he had not been within the limits of Alabama,) that he might be tried upon the indictment. A copy of this bill was exhibited to the Governor of New York, as the foundation of the right of claim, and thus became public. The Governor of New York denied that a person who had not been in Alabama could be a fugitive from that State, and so he was not surrendered. Now, (said Mr. D.,) I beg the Senate to be attentive to the offence set forth in this indictment. It consists in matter extracted from the Emancipator, and is as follows: "God commands and all nature cries out that man should not be held as property. The system of making men property has plunged 2,250,000 of our fellow-countrymen into the deepest physical and moral degradation, and they are every moment sinking deeper." Of all the matter published in this incendiary periodical, as it is styled, this has been selected as the most criminal, as designed, as the indictment alleges, "to produce conspiracy, insurrection, and rebellion, among the slave population of said State, in open violation of the act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided." Such is the law of Alabama, and such the language which it makes criminal, and sends the publisher, on conviction, I suppose, to the pentitentiary. With the policy of such a law I have nothing to do on this occasion, for I adduce this indictment as a leading example to show what is by law made incendiary. Whatever may be the views entertained in the States where slavery is lawful, I cannot forbear remarking that this language will be read with surprise in this connexion out of them. It will be esteemed a mere expression of opinion, a mere truism, by nine tenths of the people; and they will find it difficult to understand how, in a land where the freedom of speech and the press are secured by the constitution, it can be in law criminal. If, sir, such declarations are to be denied the privilege of the mail, the constitution of Massachusetts would be excluded as libellous, because it declares all men are born free and equal. This sentiment is manifestly as much at war with slavery as that contained in the indictment. The speeches made here in the halls of legislation could not pass through the mail. The debates themselves would be suppressed; the speeches delivered here by the Senator from Carolina himself, if the matter he has read to us from papers is carried into them, could not be distributed in Alabama through the Post Office; and for aught I see, in following out the same doctrine, an essay on education sustaining its general importance would be deemed incendiary, because it is a portion of the public policy not to educate slaves. And why should not a discussion of free and liberal principles, asserting the right of mankind to govern themselves, follow the same fate? I need not multiply instances to show where this power leads to. Incendiary matter is any thing unfavorable to slavery. The general principle urged by the Senator from Carolina is, that where the States have power to legislate, the United States are bound to carry into execution their laws. They have power to prohibit the circulation of incendiary matter, and therefore Congress ought to aid that power. It is clear, however, in doing so, we ought not thereby to surrender or impair the power vested in us by the constitution. Without this qualification, where will the doctrine lead us to? Suppose a State, in a highly excited state of the pub- [SENATE. lic mind, should pass a law prohibiting the circulation of all political matter not in accordance with the opinions of a majority; or of bank notes, or checks, or drafts, through the mail in payments of debts, as has lately been menaced; or of speculations in philosophy or religion: can this Government, consistently with the fundamental principles of the constitution, lend its aid to countenance such measures? Are they not clearly in restraint of public liberty, and hostile to free Government? And yet, if whatever touches the subject of slavery is to be shut out from the mail on the principles upon which this bill rests, how are we to shun these consequences? One State makes a law, which stigmatizes as libellous, and therefore criminal, whatever touches or affects slavery, ay, mere opinions, as in Alabama. Another condemns religious sentiments as heretical, and another stamps with reprobation all political discussion, except what is agreeable to the views of its own majority. Each demands the aid of Congress to enforce its laws, because they have, under their several constitutions, a right to make such laws. If you admit the claim of one, on what principle will you resist the others? Such, sir, is the general character of this bill, and such its obvious tendencies. If no further objections could be found, are we prepared to countenance doctrines pregnant with such injurious consequences? For myself, I could have no hesitation in saying to the southern States, you must first satisfy me that you have no other remedy for the evil of which you complain, before I would establish a precedent tending strongly to invade the great principles of public liberty. But, sir, beyond all this there are insurmountable difficultics. How, and by whom, is this law to be executed? Who is to determine, and in what manner, whether the constitution of Massachusetts, which declares that all men are born free and equal, or the declaration of independence, which declares that "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," touch the subject of slavery, or are incendiary? Who is to decide whether the people shall see the debates in Congress, and know what their agents are doing and saying here? These are momentous considerations: for whoever holds this power, may shut up the great channels of intercommunication; may obstruct the great avenues through which intelligence is disseminated. I say close and obstruct them, because the Post Office power is a monopoly in the hands of this Government. It claims the exclusive right to transmit the mail, and denies to individuals the right to send letters by private convey. ance under severe penalties. It may, also, if it chooses, claim the exclusive right to transmit printed papers. is obvious, therefore, that this right of decision is one of great moment; and it is vested in each and every deputy postmaster, and any clerk he may see fit to employ. These persons are required to sit in judgment upon matters that would perplex the greatest judicial talent in the country. What is incendiary? What touches the subject of slavery? These are the questions. Every one is aware that few matters are carried into the courts of law so difficult to determine as what are libellous, or what slanderous; and yet, if I wish to send a letter, a paper; yes, sir, the declaration of independence itself, through the Post Office, it must first be scrutinized by a clerk, to ascertain whether it violates the laws of Alabama, Carolina, or some other State; and if, in his opinion, the subject of slavery is touched, so as to offend one of these sweeping laws, I am denied the privilege of the mail. It Ordinarily, when our rights of property or privileges are assailed, we are entitled to be heard, and to have the matter settled by a court and jury. But here a mere boy may shut us out from a most important privilege by a solitary judgment, made according to his own whim, caprice, or want of understanding; and, besides, it is not difficult to imagine that, in corrupt, prejudiced, or perverse minds, this power may be exercised both wickedly and oppressively. That it will be done partially is almost certain; that it will be done unequally, and by different rules, is inevitable from the nature of man; for there are eight or nine thousand post offices. How easy it will be to subject one newspaper to the severest scrutiny, and to suffer another to pass with a casual examination. The postmasters and their clerks will thus become judicial officers, settling great ques tions, and determining great rights, by an inquisitorial power as odious and offensive as that of the holy brotherhood-the inquisition of Spain. This is not all. The labor will be immense, demanding great additional force, and causing great delays in the transmis sion of the mail. Who can estimate the labor and time necessary to analyze the mails at the post office in New York? This right of scrutiny into the contents of the mail, and of inhibition, cannot fail also to excite distrust, and to impair, if it does not entirely destroy, the usefulness of the Post Office. It will so certainly be the grave of letters and papers, that the public will cease to use it. It may be said the heavy penalties afford some security. It will, I fear, be easy to shun them. If not, then the condition of the humble deputy will involve a fearful responsibility, such as no man ought to incur. For you require him to decide what he is incompetent to understand, and, if he decides wrong, subject him to an action for damage if he injures an individual, or a severe penalty if he violates your law. This again shows that the matter is surrounded with embarrassment, and should be approached with the greatest caution. I repeat, is the tendency and character of this bill; and if these objections are allowed to have their proper weight in the minds of gentlemen, they will, without hesitation, pronounce the measure inexpedient. They will also hold it inexpedient, as a measure of doubtful constitutional authority, from the showing of the report itself; for if it be unlawful for Congress to confer this authority un postmasters by a law of their own, it is difficult to comprehend how it can be done by indirection; by adopting the laws of the States, when those laws lead to exactly the same result. Such, Notwithstanding these objections, which stand forward as if insurmountable, yet the Senator from South Carolina says there are precedents for the measure, and affirms that the proposition is not new in its general aspect. I do not feel inclined to pay great respect to precedents, especially if they appear to rest on doubtful authority. They certainly impose no binding obliga tion, but come to us simply as the expression of opinion upon former occasions. The precedents quoted certainly fall far short of covering this measure. They are in no respect, as it seems to me, applicable, unless to prove that Congress has, on two occasions, shown a willingness to aid the States in their policy; and I believe the Senator produces them for that purpose. The first is a law, passed in 1803, to prohibit the importation of persons of color into such States as made it unlawful. The object of this act seems to me to be obvious. It was designed to diminish the slave trade. The constitution provided that, until after 1808, Congress should not prevent any of the States that authorized it from importing such persons. It is manifest, therefore, that a general law could not be passed in 1803, prohibiting the trade, for it is well known that several of the States authorized it. The constitution, therefore, only allowed Congress to go just as far as it actually went, that is, to sustain the prohibition, where [APRIL 8, 1836. the laws of the States allowed it. The power of the States in this matter was paramount to that of the United States. They held the thing in their own hands, and the United States could not interfere, except where the right to import had been prohibited by the voluntary act of the States. All this act implies is a disposition on the part of the United States to discountenance the importation of slaves, to the full extent of their power. I cannot perceive that it has any bearing, as a precedent, to prove an acknowledged obligation on the part of the United States to sustain State legislation. The next is the quarantine laws. The detail of these laws I do not recollect; but am aware that the sanatary regulations of the seaports are made by the States. This is obviously both convenient and proper, as the mixed jurisdiction which the States and the United States have in this matter would almost render separate and independent action impossible. Congress gives countenance and support to these laws. The course is the result both of convenience and necessity. Before, however, this will stand as a precedent for this bill, a like case of urgent necessity ought to be shown. But, even in this instance, I do not believe the United States adopts the course because they hold themselves bound to do so, but because the object is most easily attained in this manner. The precedents, therefore, so far as I have been able to consider them without any opportunity for examination, appear to me to fail to sustain the doctrine advanced. They have no tendency to prove that Congress is, under any circumstances, bound to adopt and enforce the law of a State. There are other topics which I intended to notice, and may do so at another time; but I am able now to proceed no farther, and will conclude by saying that I am not able to perceive any such urgent necessity for this measure as has been represented. At any rate, it is so objectionable that it ought not to be adopted until other means fail. Why does not South Carolina, if she has not done it, make it penal for persons who take from the post offices incendiary papers, to circulate them? Why does she not require them to be delivered to a magistrate, or to be otherwise suppressed? Let her try these strong measures, and, if they fail, it will then be in season to ask for aid here, and then soon enough to consider such a measure as this. Mr. CALHOUN said that the Senator from Massachusetts had certainly raised a very important point; and he could not do justice to his argument and to himself without previously arranging the various points of it. The Senator, however, was mistaken in his view of the subject. It was because the subject particularly belonged to the States, and it was the duty of the general Government to aid and co-operate with them in carrying their law's into effect, that the bill was framed. He ventured to assert that not only did this duty result from the relations between the States and the federal Government, but that it was an indispensable duty. The principle was not a new one; it had been applied more than once; but it was an oid principle applied to a new case. He threw out these hints to prevent any erroneous impressions resulting from the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts. On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, FRIDAY, APRIL 8. NEW HAMPSHIRE RESOLUTIONS. Mr. HUBBARD stated that the Legislature of New Hampshire, on the 25th of June, 1835, passed a resolution instructing their Senators in the United States Senate to vote for expunging from the journals of that Senate a certain resolution which was adopted on the 28th of March, 1834; and that the Legislature also passed, at the same time, a resolution instructing their Senators to present their resolution to the Senate. In obedience, therefore, to the instructions of the Legislature, and in accordance with his own feelings, he would now ask leave to present the resolution, and would move that it be laid upon the table and printed. The following is the resolution referred to by Mr. HUBBARD: "STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Represent atives in General Court convened, That our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby, authorized to vote that the resolution passed by the Senate of the United States on the 28th day of March, 1834, in the words following, viz: That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both,' be expunged from the journals of that body; and that they be further instructed to lay this resolution before the Senate of the United States." MAINE RESOLUTIONS. Mr. RUGGLES said that he held in his hand a copy of resolutions passed by the Legislature of Maine, relating to the subject of abolition proceedings in the nonslaveholding States. They are responsive to resolutions transmitted to the Executive of Maine from the States of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, calling upon the non-slaveholding States to suppress, by Jaw, abolition publications. These resolutions of the Legislature of Maine assert, as the sense of the two Houses, that the Government of the United States is one of enumerated, limited, and defined powers; that the power of regulating slavery within the States does not belong to Congress, not being one of the enumerated powers; that the States, with certain defined exceptions, are, with respect to each other, distinct and sovereign States, each having an independent Government, whose action is not to be questioned by any power whatever, but by the people of such States; and that any interfe rence by a State, or by the citizens of a State, with the domestic concerns of another State, tends to break up the compromises of, and to disturb, the Union. The resolutions further declare it to be inexpedient to legislate on the subject of abolition publications, because there is no abolition paper printed within the State, and because all discussion on the subject has been arrested by the decided expression of public disapprobation. These resolutions, said Mr. R., were reported from a large and respectable committee of both Houses, and received the unanimous assent of that committee. In the Senate they passed unanimously, and nearly so in the House of Representatives, a body composed of upwards of one hundred and eighty members. There was one circumstance, said Mr. R., which he considered deserving of the particular attention of certain honorable Senators. He could not refrain from recommending it, with due deference, to their serious consideration, as furnishing an example worthy of imitation in this body in its action upon the abolition memorials which had been, or should hereafter be, presented here. The circumstance to which he alluded, he said, was this: the resolutions were permitted to pass through both Houses of the Legislature of Maine, without one word of agitating and exciting debate. He then moved that the resolutions be read. Mr. CALHOUN expressed his gratification at the tenor of the resolutions, which he said gave the correct view of the subject in discussion, going back to the good old republican principles. He was also gratified to understand from her Senator that the reasons which in [SENATE. duced Maine not to legislate on the subject, were, that no abolition papers were printed in that State, and no discussion of the kind was carried on there. He would now ask the Senator whether there was not an abolition society in Maine, and whether it did not issue addresses that were extensively circulated. He put these questions because he was anxious to give correct information to the South on the subject. Mr. RUGGLES replied to the inquiry of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that there had been in times past, as he had been informed, a society in Maine friendly to the abolition of slavery. But whether that society is in existence now, he was not able to say. He regarded the resolution just read to the Senate, asserting that public discussions of the subject had been arrested, as justifying the belief that there were now no proceedings relating to abolition in that State, which it was necessary to suppress by law. Mr. CALHOUN observed, he had put the question because, shortly after his arrival here, he saw a publication, drawn up with great ability, said to be issued by a society calling itself the Maine Abolition Society, having numerous signatures appended to it. Now, he held the existence of such a society to be as dangerous to the South as an abolition newspaper; and he thought if the State could suppress the one, it could suppress the other. He hoped that in time public sentiment would be such at the North as to put down all such societies; but he confessed he was incredulous as to the result. The Senator from Maine went so far as to cite the example of the Legislature of Maine, as worthy to be followed by certain Senators on that floor; meaning, he suppsed, himself for one. He thanked the Senator for his advice, and was, perhaps, so weak-minded as to require it; but he who offered this advice ought to have himself followed the example recommended by him to others. He would tell the Senator, that so long as his constituents sent here denunciations against the people he represented, terming them pirates, murderers, and villains, he should take the liberty to treat such denunciations with the scorn they deserved. He held it to be a solemn truth, that as long as they were compelled to discuss the subject of abolition on petitions received there, the abolitionists had gained all they wanted; and so long as they were permitted to come there he would take the liberty to speak of them in the terms they deserved. Mr. BROWN rose and said that he did not know in what spirit the resolutions which had been presented by the Senator from Maine, passed unanimously by both branches of the Legislature of that State, might be received by some gentlemen, but, in his capacity as one of the representatives from a southern State, he hailed them with feelings of gratification, and looked on them as a most favorable omen, among many others, of that peace and good will, among our brethren of the North, so important to the continuance of the confederacy. He did not know to what extent anti-slavery societies existed among the people of Maine, but when that party had been unable to return a single member to the Legislature of that State, the resolutions having, as appeared on the face of them, been passed without a dissenting voice, strongly condemnatory of the course of the abolitionists, he thought it would require a high degree of credulity to believe that they possessed either weight of character or strength of numbers. To expect a State to eradicate every folly or infatuation from the minds of all its citizens, was, and would be found, a very impracticable undertaking. Mr. B. said, in this, as in many others of the Legislatures of the northern States, the unanimity of sentiment on this subject was almost unprecedented. In some, he was confidently assured, there was not an abolitionist; in none, could that party make any exhibition of strength. |