Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

I

And if they have not this power, the Territory of Michigan was created without authority; for the ordinance of 1787 expressly authorizes a division of the Northwestern Territory into no more than "two districts;" and this express authority was exhausted by the act of the 7th of May, 1800, which divided the Northwestern Territory into two separate Governments. take it, therefore, for granted, that the general power | will not be disputed by the advocates of the claims of Michigan; and if it be not, why do they fix upon, as the boundary to which they have a permanent right, that assigned to the Territory, "for the purpose of a temporary Government," by the act of 11th January, 1805, instead of either of the other acts fixing other limits? That act is neither the first nor the last which gave a temporary Government to the inhabitants of the country included in that Territory. It first formed a part of the Government of the Northwestern Territory. It was next divided between that Territory and Indiana. It was, in the next place, attached wholly to Indiana, and made to form a part of it; next, it was formed into a separate Territory, "for the purpose of a temporary Government;" and, lastly, the whole residue of the Northwestern Territory was attached to it, and formed with it one Territory for a like purpose, and remains, and is part and parcel of it, at this day. How, then, can it be with reason contended that the limits of the local Government, to which the inhabitants of this tract of country owed allegiance, should, in its fourth modification, though never before, be holden fixed and immutable? There are no words in the law to countenance it, save what are also contained in the other laws fixing the boundaries of the several territorial Governments, which, by different names, were from time to time extended, in whole or in part, over this peninsula. On the whole, that law gives to the inhabitants of that part of the Territory of Michigan no vested right to come into the Union as a State with those particular boundaries assigned them; it therefore throws no obstacle in the way of extending, or adjusting and defining, the boundaries of the States of Ohio and Indiana north of the east and west line above referred to, even if we admit that line to have been once made the boundary of the Michigan Terri

ory.

I believe it has not been denied, by those who advocate the claims of Michigan, that Congress had a right to extend all or either of the three southern States north to the territorial line, according to their limits as set out in the first part of the 5th article of the ordinance; but they contend that Congress must include in each of those States all or none of the territory which lies within its limits north of that line; that they cannot include a part, and exclude another part; that an option is given them in fixing the boundaries of those States on the north, but no discretion beyond the mere choice of one of the two lines. In aid of the several arguments which I have advanced against this position, I will now adduce a series of acts of Congress showing a legislative construction of their own powers.

The east and west line named in the ordinance of 1787 has but a single call, "the most southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan;" it has no terminus to the east or the west; it of course passes across the whole territory; and if the position be correct that Congress could not extend any State beyond that line without including all the territory which lay beyond it and due north of such State, then Congress, in the formation of the State of Ohio, and the designation of its boundary, has violated the ordinance. In the act of April 30, 1802, under which Ohio was authorized to from a State Government, the line running due east from the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan is taken in part as the northern boundary of the contemplated State. Thus far it

[DEC. 21, 1835.

agrees with the line named in the ordinance; but it introduces another call, Lake Erie, or the territorial line; and thence, with the same, through Lake Erie, to the Pennsylvania line;" making a totally different northern boundary. The two lines run together until they touch Lake Erie, then diverge widely. The line named in the ordinance runs through the southern bend of Lake Erie, and, passing out of it, cats off a large extent of territory, with fifty or sixty thousand inhabitants, in the northeast corner of the State of Ohio, to which Michigan has the same right, by virtue of the ordinance, that she has to the country north of that line and south of the northern cape of the Miami bay. But Congress did not consider themselves bound by the ordinance to pursue that line, or they acted under a mistake as to the true position of Lake Michigan; the bearing of which error I will by and by consider.

In the formation of the State of Indiana, Congress disregarded this assumed restriction in the ordinance, or they had failed to discover it. That State is extended ten miles north of the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan; and Illinois, which was admitted a few years after, is extended north about thirty-five miles further than Indiana, and within a few miles of the line of latitude which, according to the old maps, (to which I shall by by more particularly refer,) cut through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan. The mistake which had been made in the position of the object of that call was substantially corrected in the case of Illinois.

I need not now advert to the unhappy consequences which would flow from holding the east and west line, named in the ordinance, as a fixed and immovable boundary: the question is too clear, by the very language of the ordinance itself, and the legislative constructions of it have been too frequent and unequivocal, to require this auxiliary aid in settling the principle; still it ought not to be forgotten that the establishment of the doctrine contended for by Michigan involves, as its consequence, the dismemberment of three States of this Union, and the bringing of a large number of their citzens under a Government which they did not help to form, and to which they have never yielded, and to which I believe they never will yield, their willing allegiance.

Having, as I trust, established the position, (if any arguments were necessary to establish it,) that Congress has power to pass this act, without violating the constitution or the compact, or any principle which ought to govern legislators, I will now proceed to offer some reasons why the proposed adjustment of boundary ought to be made.

First, then, it was the intent of the framers of the ordinance of 1787 that the northern line of each of the three southern States should extend north of the points over which that east and west line is, by actual observation and survey, found to pass. This intent is proved by the clearest evidence. At the time of the passage of that ordinance, we had no information of the country north and west of Lake Erie, save what we derived from observations made or collected under the colonial Government. A map of that country, published in 1755, and still familiarly known as Mitchell's map, was the first in authority in England and America, from the time of its publication until long after the date of the ordinance. It is said to have been the map referred to by the American and British commissioners at the treaty of peace in 1783. And in the particulars in which it bears upon the present question, it was copied, or very closely followed, in all the maps which appeared in our country from that time until after the close of the late war. That map, and indeed every contemporaneous map that I have seen, fixed the latitude of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan about 42° 20′ north, or about forty-five miles north of its actual position, and so

DEC. 21, 1835.]

Northern Boundary of Ohio.

[SENATE.

situated with regard to Lake Erie, that a line running due east through it would touch the lake near its head, or the Detroit river a little north of its entrance into the lake. I have laid upon your table, and on that of each of the Senators, a copy, on a reduced scale, of this map, as it is preserved in the State Department; by which may be seen, at a glance, the position of those lakes and of that line, as it was then believed and understood to exist. Congress had earnestly sought the power of fixing the limits of the proposed States according to natural boundaries, so that none of them should be improperly inter-marked out by those commissioners, and that he finds sected by rivers or lakes, and so that there should be secured to each such natural advantages of navigation as most properly pertained to it. They obtained that power, and intended to exert it for the benefit of each of the new States; and, in fixing that east and west, they obviously intended to prohibit any future Congress from bringing down the northern line of that State, which is now Ohio, south of a line which would touch Lake Erie near its head, or the Detroit river above the lake. Ought that intent to be defeated by a mistake, by misinformation as to the position of a natural object in a hostile country, remote from any part of the State whose boundary was to be fixed? We are of opinion that the intent of the framers of that ordinance ought to be carried into effect, so far as it is necessary for the well-being of the State that it should be so.

It can be shown that the same intent prevailed with the Congress who passed the act of 1802, under which Ohio framed her constitution, and came into the Union as a sovereign and independent State. The line designated as her northern boundary is the same as that before referred to, laid down on Mitchell's map. That map then hung, as I have been informed, in the committee-room of the committee of Congress who reported that law. That there was a mistake in the position of this line by the Congress which enacted the law of April 30th, 1802, is proved further by the fact that the boundary they affix to Ohio is an impossible boundary. The law provides that the northern line shall run due east through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, until it intersects Lake Erie or the territorial line; thence, with the same, through Lake Erie, to the Pennsylvania line. This boundary, therefore, is based on the assumption that that east and west line will touch the territorial line (which is the northern boundary line of the United States) in Lake Erie, or north of it; otherwise it could not, without changing its direction, run with it, through Lake Erie, to the Pennsylvania line.

United States and Great Britain to mark the boundary between the two countries, under the treaty of Ghent. This duty was performed. This line was marked with great care through the western part of Lake Erie, and the map showing its position is among the archives of state. I hold in my hand a letter from Thomas P. Jones, keeper of the archives, directed to Mr. VINTON, of the Ohio delegation in the House of Representatives, dated January 7, 1835, in which he states that he has carefully examined the map of Lake Erie, as laid down and the latitude of the most southern point to be 41 deg. 39 min. 43 sec., as nearly as he can ascertain by the scale, but that the measurement may possibly vary a second or so from the truth. So that the east and west line would not touch the northern boundary line by about three miles. I understand, however, (for I have not yet seen the report,) that the Department has at last brought the two lines together. Lake Michigan, I believe, still holds its first position--its southern extremity would move no farther north; but the boundary line between the United States and Great Britain has been found more flexible, and has come about four miles south of the point at which it was fixed by the commissioners under the treaty of Ghent. This has, it is true, been an ex parte proceeding by the United States; but Great Britain cannot object to it, as it gives her (if the new position of the line be adhered to) jurisdiction over many miles of the surface of the lake, which was assigned by the joint commissioners to the United States. For the present, however, I am disposed to consider the line run by the commissioners of the United States and Great Britain, in pursuance of a treaty stipulation, as the true boundary between the two countries. Taking, then, the position of the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, as found by Captain Talcott, and the southern point of the northern boundary line of the United States in Lake Erie, as settled by the commissioners, and as measured on their map by the keeper of the public archives, it is clear that these lines do not close, and that one of them must be varied by legislative enactment or judicial construction, or the State of Ohio has no boundary. This state of things could not have been in accordance with the intent and purpose of the framers of the law of April 30, 1802.

The line, then, so far as it touches the boundary of Ohio, was intended, by the Congress of the United States, to be where it appears on Mitchell's map, and the other maps of the day. If this were the case of two individuals contracting for the transfer of land, who had been governed in their contract by a plat spread out before them, and if such contract had been made, and such map exhibited as showing the boundary between them; I ask every land lawyer here, if a reference in the deed to some remote object, as that from which one of the boundary lines should emanate, when the position of that object was proved to have been mistaken by the parties, would control the bounds of the grant? In equity would it? Would it between man and man, the facts be

But that line does not touch the northern boundary line of the United States at any point in Lake Erie. The act of the 14th July, 1832, directs the President "to cause to be ascertained (among other things) by accurate observation, the latitude and longitude of the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan." Also, "that he cause to be ascertained, with all practicable accuracy, the latitude and longitude of the most southerly part in the northern boundary line of the United States in Lake Erie." The performance of this duty was, as a matter of course, assigned by the President to the War Depart-ing fully made out? Would it be permitted to defeat ment. And among the executive documents of 1833-34, vol. 6, doc. 497, is found the report, in part, of the engineer employed to perform that service. He fixes the latitude of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan at 41 deg. 37 min. 7.9 sec. north. His observations as to the southern point of the northern boundary of the United States in Lake Erie do not lay claim to accuracy, but he supposes it to be in latitude 41 deg. 38 min. 38 sec., being north of the east and west line one mile one thousand four hundred and forty yards. But there was another and better mode of ascertaining the last-named fact than that adopted by the Department. It will be remembered that commissioners were appointed by the

the manifest intent and purpose of both parties? We know well it would not. We know that where the lines and bounds of a tract of land are shown by the vendor to the purchaser, either upon the grouud or on a plat, and the description in the deed does not cover it, no matter whether by accident or design, a court of equity will hold the conveyance to be according to the boundary shown, and so correct the deed. In the acts of Governments, there is no distinction between law and equity. The appeal to law, as it regards a nation, is an appeal to the national sense of justice; and an obligation much less strong than that which would move a court of equity, in the case of an individual, ought to be sufficient, especial

[blocks in formation]

ly in a case like this, to command the action of a just and generous nation.

But Congress not only intended to give a boundary which included the mouth of the Miami of the Lake and its bay, but the people of Ohio, in convention, asked and expected to receive it. They believed the line included the Miami bay, and a doubt was for the first time thrown upon it by information received from a trapper, who returned from the shores of Lake Michigan while the convention was in session, which caused the insertion of the proviso in the 6th section of the 7th article of the constitution. This constitution was accepted by Congress without a syllable, yea or nay, on the subject of the proviso. It was accepted all together, the proviso forming a part of it. No objection was urged to it by Congress, or by the committee of Congress which reported on the constitution. And when we consider that this proviso was fully and entirely in accordance with the end and aim of the resolution of Congress of the 7th of July, 1786, which asks of Virginia, a modification of her deed of cession, with a view to regard natural bounda ries and the commercial relations of the contemplated States; that it accorded with the views of the Legislature of Virginia, who changed their deed of cession for that express and declared purpose; that it accords with the views of the framers of the ordinance of 1787, as appears by the map of their day, showing their opinion of the line which should bound the contemplated States; that it accords, also, with the opinion of the Congress who passed the law under which Ohio formed her constitution and State Government; that this proviso, the solemn act of the people of Ohio, met in convention, declares that as a part of their constitution they ask and claim of Congress that boundary; and, finally, when it is considered that the whole constitution was accepted without a dissent to that proviso, I think a strong case of equitable if not legal right is presented on the part of Ohio, for the definitive sanction of the boundary which she claims; and that it is an irresistible appeal to the sense of justice of the nation. And I, for one, care not whether this act be passed on the ground that Ohio is entitled to the boundary claimed by law, by equity, or on principles of political justice and expediency; but sure I am that the people of that State feel strongly that the concession is due them, and that dissatisfaction will be general and deep if it be withheld.

But it is said that the rights of Michigan are implicated in the adjustment proposed by this bill, and that it cannot pass without doing injustice to that Territory; but, for myself, I can discover nothing solid in this objection. I have already shown that that Territory has no right to any particular boundary, either by virtue of the ordinance of 1787, or any of the acts of Congress. If I have succeeded in establishing this, what is left of her claim on those general principles of political justice and expediency, to which I have appealed in behalf of Ohio? Michigan is a temporary territorial Government, extending over about 177,000 square miles of territory, equal in extent to three of the largest States in the Union. It was called into existence by an act of Congress; and, so long as it continues a Territory, it is subject to be changed and modified, as to boundary and extent, at the pleasure of the same power. The inhabitants have their rights as American citizens secured under the ordinance of 1787, and various acts of Congress; but they have no territorial rights; and Michigan, as such, has none against the will of Congress. question of expediency, only, then occurs in behalf of a State that is to be hereafter formed north of Ohio and Indiana; and I ask, is it expedient that that State should hold the mouth of the Miami, which has its whole navigable course in Ohio and Indiana, and control its entrance? Those two States are constructing a

The

[DEC. 21, 1835.

canal connecting the Miami bay with the Wabash river; and that grand work is now delayed, awaiting the decision of this question. I ask, is it expedient that a State, which you are to form hereafter north of these two States, should hold this outlet of the vast region which is intersected by this canal?-that the new State should have delivered to her the key, and be the sole keeper, of the entrance to the noble edifice erected by the industry and enterprise of her neighbors? It is not right. And the pride of those States must be wounded, and their sense of justice outraged, by such a determination. But again: what policy is there in giving the new State, when it shall be created, the jurisdiction over this disputed territory? Is the territory of that State, without it, likely to be too small, or does it want for navigable communication? Neither. One hundred and seventy-seven square miles, an extent equal to three of the largest States in the Union, must be formed into no more than two States; and its eastern portion has advantages of navigation equalled by few States on the Atlantic seaboard.

Then, with respect to those who belong to the unclaimed part of the territory-who profess to be contending for their rights, and who accuse Ohio of ambition, and usurpation, and injustice-what is their claim, and for what do they contend? Not the right of selfgovernment, or the right to choose their own rulers, or the jurisdiction to which they shall be attached; for nothing of this is sought to be wrested from them; but they claim to govern their neighbors, who deny them allegiance; or, if not to govern them, they wish to force into their fellowship and fraternity those who turn from them with fear and aversion, and who seek protection from Ohio, whom they think more regardful of their feelings and more friendly to their interests. who, in the plenitude of their chivalry, wish to protect the weak against the strong, would do well to think of extending that protection over this people, who, if attached to Michigan, will feel themselves delivered over to a kind of political bondage, and into the hands of those whom they look upon as their adversaries and rivals.

Those

Something is surely due to the opinions and feelings of these people of the disputed territory. If joined to Michigan, they cannot and they will not be content with their condition. They contend against it now, like men who are struggling for all that they hold dear and sacred, and against whatever is deemed most calamitous. They think (but I cannot answer for the correctness of their opinion) that, instead of enjoying the privileges of freemen, instead of being placed in the hands of a fostering and paternal Government, which would watch over and protect their interests, and aid in the improvement of their natural advantages, and in the development of their resources, they would be delivered over to a bitter adversary, and a determined and inveterate rival.

Mr. President, I ask, in behalf of Ohio, and I most earnestly ask, an early decision of this question. It has been for years past the victim of procrastination. For more than thirty years has Ohio presented herself, year after year, at the bar of Congress, as a pètitioner for what she deems her right-what this body, whenever it has spoken, has declared to be hers, either on principles of justice or of national policy; but she has been delayed, postponed, and the measure for her redress lost in the other House, without a hearing had or an opinion elicited. I trust and hope that it now approaches a termination, and that its result will be such as to satisfy the pulic mind, and calm the dissatisfaction of our people.

NOTES.

Letter to the honorable Samuel F. Vinton. WASHINGTON, January 14, 1835. DEAR SIR: Agreeably to your request, I have care

DEC. 21, 1835.]

President's Message, &c.—Incendiary Publications.

fully examined the map of Lake Erie, as laid down and marked out by the commissioners to settle the boundary line under the treaty of Ghent, and find the latitude of the most southern point to be 41 deg. 39 min. 43 sec., as nearly I can ascertain by the scale; but the measurement may possibly vary a second or so from the truth. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, THOS. P. JONES,

Office of Archives, Dept. of State. Extract from Captain Talcott's report of January 7, 1834, (Executive Documents 1833-'54, volume 6, document 497.)

"The fourth station was at the most southern bend of Lake Michigan, on the beach of the lake, at high-water mark, and about the middle of a reach of the lake which lies east and west, and is about two miles in extent. The observations at this place were more numerous than at any of the other stations, and give for its latitude 41 deg. 37 min. 7.9 sec. north."

[The following is a copy of the bill introduced by Mr. EWING:

A BILL to settle and establish the northern boundary

line of the State of Ohio.

Be it enacted, &c., That the northern boundary of the State of Ohio shall be established by, and extend to, a direct line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami bay; thence, northeast, to the northern boundary line of the United States; thence, with said line, to the Pennsylvania line.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the boundary line surveyed, marked, and designated, agreeably to "An act to authorize the President of the United States to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of the State of Indiana," approved March the second, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, shall be deemed and taken as the east and west line mentioned in the constitution of the State of Indiana, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, and shall be and for ever remain the northern boundary of said State.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the northern boundary line ascertained, surveyed, and marked, agreeably to a law of Congress, entitled "An act to ascertain and mark the line between the State of Alabama and the Territory of Florida, and the northern boundary of the State of Illinois, and for other purposes," approved March second, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, shall be deemed and taken as the line west from the middle of Lake Michigan, in north latitude forty-two degrees thirty minutes, to the middle of the Mississippi river, as defined in the act of Congress entitled "An act to enable the people of Illinois Territory to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States," approved eighteentli of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, and shall be and for ever remain the northern boundary line of said State.] When Mr. EWING had concluded,

Mr. MORRIS objected to the second reading of the bill, and said that, as there was some difference between his colleague and himself, in relation to some of the principles involved in the bill just read, of an important character, he would submit a resolution, as presenting his views on the subject.

The CHAIR stated that, as the resolution was in the form of a joint one, it must be introduced after giving one day's previous notice.

Mr. MORRIS gave notice accordingly that he would introduce the resolution to-morrow.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, &c.

[SENATE.

[blocks in formation]

INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS.

Mr. CALHOUN moved that so much of the President's message as relates to the transmission of incendiary publications by the United States mail be referred to a special committee.

Mr. C. said that this was a subject of such importance as, in his opinion, to require the appointment of a special committee. It was one which involved questions of a complicated character, and such as did not properly come within the duties of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, touching as they did on the constitutional powers of the Government. Another reason for the appointment of a special committee was to be found in the fact that, in the construction of the standing committees, there was only a single gentleman from that section of the country which was most deeply interested in the proper disposition of this very important subject. He did not anticipate any opposition to the motion, and hoped it would be at once adopted.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, expressed his hope that, in this instance, there would be no departure from the customary practice of the Senate, as he had no apprehension that the regular standing committee had the least desire to take any course which would interfere with any right which belonged to any State of the Union. Without looking particularly at the construction of that committee, he felt a confident belief that there was no disposition in any of its members to have the public mails prostituted to the purposes of a set of fanatics. He did not wish to see the subject taken out of the regular course, as he considered that it would be giving to it a greater degree of importance than was necessary. He was of the opinion that the only mode in which Congress could interfere was through the reglations of the Post Office. Beyond that, he believed they had no right to go. Thus believing, notwithstand. ing the situation of peculiar delicacy which he personally occupied, he could not consent to give to the subject more consequence than it deserved, by taking it out of the hands of the regular Post Office Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the Senator from South Carolina would take a different course, and wait to see what was done by that committee before he advised the appointment of a special committee. If he should find that the standing committee did not properly discharge their trust, then it would be time enough to see what other mode could be devised by which a restraint might be constitutionally imposed on the circulation of these mischievous publications. He hoped the subject would not be sent to a special committee.

Mr. CALHOUN replied that the Senator from Alabama had mistaken his object, which was not to produce any unnecessary excitement, but to adopt such a course as would secure a committee which would calmly and dispassionately go into an examination of the whole subject; which would investigate the character of those publications, to ascertain if they were incendiary or not, and, if so, on that ground to put a check in their transmission through the country. He could not but express his astonishment at the objection which had been taken to his motion, for he knew that the Senator from Alabama felt that deep interest in the subject which pervaded the feelings of every man in the South

SENATE.]

Incendiary Publications.

[DEC. 21, 1835.

ern section of the country. He believed that the Post himself a traitor to his section of the country if he could Office Committee would be fully occupied with the reg-suffer any consideration as to the presidential election ular business which would be brought before them, and it was this consideration, and no party feeling, which had induced this motion. Whatever was to be done, whatever feeling to be expressed, it was earnestly to be desired that it should come from a committee, a majority of whom were of those who were most deeply interested in the matter; and he hoped this sentiment would be responded to by a general acquiescence on the part of the Senate.

Mr. GRUNDY said that his situation was such that he ought not, perhaps, to take any part in this discussion, but that his silence might be misrepresented. In reference to the objection that the members of the standing committee were from a different part of the country, he would reply that, such being the case, if the same sentiments favorable to the opinions of the Senator from South Carolina were entertained by the majority of them, their report would go forth to the public so much the stronger, as it would show that there existed a similarity of feeling in every part of the country, as to the power of the Government to act efficiently on this subject. He did not intend even to give a full opinion; it was not the time for it; but he would say that the gen eral Government could do very little, except it should be through the regulation of the Post Office, and by aiding to give efficiency to the operation of the State laws. Perhaps more might be done, but he did not desire to see any power exercised which could have the least tendency to interfere with the sovereignty of the States. He would only add, that the standing committee he had intended to call together to-morrow, chiefly for the purpose of deliberating on this subject, but, hearing that some motion of this kind might be made, he had delayed his intention. He neither wished for the labor of examining this subject in the regular committee, nor did he desire to avoid any responsibility. It was not improbable that there would have been unanimity of sentiment.

Mr. PRESTON made a few remarks, the commencement of which was inaudible, from the low tone in which it was delivered. It had been said that the evil was to be cured through the regulation of the Post Office. Had the Government any power to regulate that way? If so, to what extent? What surveillance could it exercise over the Post Office? If there can be any efficient action in this mode to protect the rights and harmony of the South, then to what extent do we want protection? He believed the importance of the subject, involving, as it did, the interests of a large portion of the country, required that it should be submitted to a special committee. There was great anxiety on the subject pervading the South, but no excitement was likely to grow out of it. If there should be any, it would not be as to the question of slavery, but the power which might be exercised by the Government.

Mr. CALHOUN stated that, if this subject had been within the ordinary duties of the Committee on the Post Office, he would not have objected to their taking charge of it; but every one must see that it involved considerations of a peculiar character, separate and distinct from the ordinary duties of that committee. He had no desire to bring into debate the important question of slavery, but merely the powers of the Government. The peculiar question of power now presented was a new one, and required to be examined with the utmost caution. In all free States, the most dangerous precedents had been founded on questions of this character. Great principles might be overlooked, and dangerous innovations adopted, from which the worst consequences would flow. He looked to the constitution only. This was a great constitutional question, and he should deem

to be brought to bear upon it. It was a question of infinitely higher moment. His desire was to allay every excited feeling; to look calmly, not only at the main question, but at all the collateral. He looked only to the importance of the subject, as a new one, which was now to settle a great principle. He did not desire to assume any responsibility which the crisis did not demand, but he would not shrink from any necessary labor. The Southern people were deeply interested; they deemed that principles were involved in this subject which affected their rights, and on the right decision of which the peace and harmony of the nation depended. On these grounds he had desired a special committee. Mr. LEIGH said he should vote for a reference of the subject to a special committee, not from any distrust of the standing Committee on the Post Office, on account of the quarter of the Union from which the members composing the committee came, but because he did not think that the subject belonged to the province of the standing committee. He understood that committee to be charged with matters relating to the general arrangements of the Post Office, and not to take cognizance of any thing with which was mingled up constitutional questions of such delicacy. He would take occasion to say now, that, from the conversations he had had with intelligent individuals from the non-slaveholding States, there existed no essential difference of opinion between them and himself. All of them were deeply impressed with the wickedness of these incendiary publications, and were ready to go with him in a common effort to suppress them. There was therefore no fear to be entertained as to the course of the intelligent part of the North. But there was a fear lest this question should become involved in party considerations; and he should have no fear of this if the subject were sent to a special committee. So sure as it becomes entangled with party views, every thing like wise and efficient concert of action will be prevented.

Mr. BUCHANAN expressed his gratification to hear the gentleman from Virginia express the result of his conversations with the gentlemen of the North; and he was sure the honorable Senator spoke the sentiments of every intelligent man north of the slaveholding States, when he says he would suppress any incendiary publications which disturb the tranquillity of that section of the Union. I have yet to find that man of intelligence in the North who is of the opinion that the general Government has any right to interfere in the question of domestic slavery in the South; and all are disposed to go as far as they can constitutionally go, to suppress the transportation of incendiary publications through the mail. The reason why he was opposed to a special committee was, because by adopting the ordinary course party spirit would be effectually put down. He had no fear of creating any party spirit on the subject in this body; but abroad the question might be asked, for what purpose was this referred to a special committee? Is the subject so far out of the reach of law that it cannot otherwise be taken hold of? Are there any two individuals who differ as to the propriety of doing all that can be done to prevent the circulation of incendiary publications in the South? The only question is the constitutional one, how far can we go? I undertake to say that we are all disposed to go as far as we can; and when we have raised a standing committee, conversant with the business of the Post Office and post roads, shall we take the subject out of their hands, and give it to a special committee? Abroad this may be considered a party movement. Mr. B. concluded with saying he should vote to send the subject to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

« AnteriorContinuar »