He wished

North as cordially as those of the South. the subject to lie over till Monday, and then to hear the opinions of those gentlemen after they had had time to consider and to confer together.

Mr. TYLER rose and stated that he should have somewhat preferred a different course. With the most profound respect for the Senator from South Carolina, and his general course, still he did not think that his proposition on this subject was one which fully met the case. The right to receive or reject a petition is exercised on ordinary occasions, (said Mr. T.,) and the grounds on which motions of this kind are justified are numerous. A mere motion to reject is not adapted to a case like this, and is not such as should come from Senators whose State has been so grossly and wantonly libelled. Would the rejection of these petitions be so satisfactory to the State which the honorable Senator represents, as some other course which may be pointed out? It may be inferred that they were rejected solely on account of the disrespectful character of the language employed. The motion is one which does not touch the question of the competency of Congress. I want to see something more emphatic, more pointed; a positive disclaimer, on the part of Congress, of all competence to act on the subject; and I think that, from the spirit which I see manifested around me, we may succeed in obtaining a positive and actual disclaimer. The Senator from Ohio has referred to the exclusive power of Congress over the District of Columbia. From this doctrine, which I now hear the Senator advocate, and for which I have never before heard him contend, I fear he will not be inclined to go the whole length of my proposition. The object of the Senator from South Carolina and mine are the same-to put an end to the disquietude and insecurity which prevail in the South; and the only difference between us is as to the mode in which this can most ef

fectually be done. What is the proposition which is made? Does it reach the subject? I think we ought to adopt a distinct and positive resolution, disclaiming any power in Congress to legislate on this subject. How is such a resolution to be obtained? In the usual manner in which resolutions are brought into this body. I would make no war with this petition, but would suffer it to go to the Committee for the District of Columbia, as others before it have gone. Not that, as chairman of that committee, I court the labor which it would impose; but because, from the construction of that committee, I believe a resolution would have been reported, declaring that the Senate had not the power to meddle with the subject. I believe the course we are taking is giving to these petitions too much consequence. Let them go to the lion's den, and there will be no footprints to show their return. The committee will meet them with a declaration that there is no power in Congress to do what the petitioners ask. I believe, also, that, with the exception of the Senator from Ohio, there would be no dissonance in the tone of the Senate on this subject. This, however, I only give as an opinion.

[SENATE.

commiseration of her sister States. All she asks of the North is, that her Senators will sustain the slaveholding States by adopting a resolution disclaiming any power in Congress to aid the views of wild and fanatic abolitionists, by interfering with the question of slavery. I feel that I am addressing men who are identified with our system of Government; and I frankly confess that I have no fear of this body. I verily believe that the Senate will be true to their oaths, and will be ready to defend every State of the Union If we shall find, notwithstanding, that I am mistaken in this belief, we can then stand on our rights. If I find any movement can be made, which may be satisfactory to the Southern States, and which will obtain the unanimous sanction of the North, I shall not be found to stand on any minor point which may create a division.

Mr. BROWN felt himself constrained, by a sense of duty to the State from which he came, deeply and vitally interested as she was in every thing connected with the agitating question which had unexpectedly been brought into discussion that morning, to present, in a few words, his views as to the proper direction which should be given to that and all other petitions relating to slavery in the District of Columbia. He felt himself more especially called on to do so from the aspect which the question had assumed, in consequence of the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] to refuse to receive the petition. He had believed from the first time he had reflected on this subject, and subsequent events had but strengthened that conviction, that the most proper disposition of all such petitions was to lay them on the table without printing. This course, while it indicated to the fanatics that Congress will yield no countenance to their designs, at the same time marks them with decided reprobation by a refusal to print. But, in his estimation, another reason gave to the motion to lay them on the table a decided preference over any other proceedings by which they should be met. The peculiar merit of this motion, as applicable to this question, is, that it precludes all debate, and would thus prevent the agitation of a subject in Congress which all should deprecate as fraught with mischief to every portion of this happy and flourishing confederacy.

Mr. B. said that honorable gentlemen who advocated this motion had disclaimed all intention to produce agitation on this question. He did not pretend to question the sincerity of their declarations, and, while willing to do every justice to their motives, he must be allowed to say that no method could be devised better calculated, in his judgment, to produce such a result.

He (Mr. B.) most sincerely believed that the best interests of the Southern States would be most consulted by pursuing such a course here as would harmonize the feelings of every section, and avoid opening for discussion so dangerous and delicate a question. He believed all the Senators who were present a few days since, when a petition of similar character had been presented by an honorable Senator, had, by their votes to lay it on the table, sanctioned the course which he now suggested.

[Mr. CALHOUN, in explanation, said that himself and his colleague were absent from the Senate on the occasion alluded to.]

Mr. B. resumed his remarks, and said that he had

bers of that body, but what he had said was, that a similar petition had been laid on the table without objection from any one, and consequently by a unanimous vote of the Senators present. Here, then, was a most emphatic declaration, by gentlemen representing the Northern States as well as those from other parts of the Union, by this vote, that they will entertain no attempt at legis

If

lation on the question of slavery in the District of Columbia. Why, then, asked Mr. B., should we now adopt a mode of proceeding calculated to disturb the harmonious action of the Senate, which had been produced by the former vote? Why (he would respectfully ask of honorable gentlemen who press the motion to refuse to receive the petition) and for what beneficial purpose do they press it? By persisting in such a course it would, beyond all doubt, open a wide range of discussion; it would not fail to call forth a great diversity of opinion in relation to the extent of the right to petition under the constitution. Nor would it be confined to that question alone, judging from an expression which bad fallen from an honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER] in the course of this debate. That gentleman had declared his preference for a direct negative vote by the Senate, as to the constitutional power of Congress to emancipate slaves in the District of Columbia. He, for one, protested, politically speaking, against opening this Pandora's box in the halls of Congress. For all beneficial and practical purposes, an overwhelming majority of the members representing the Northern States were, with the South, in opposition to any interference with slavery in the District of Columbia. there was half a dozen in both branches of Congress who did not stand in entire opposition to any interference with slavery, in this District or elsewhere, he had yet to learn it. Was it wise, was it prudent, was it manganimous, in gentlemen representing the Southern States, to urge this matter still further, and say to our Northern friends in Congress, "Gentlemen, we all agree in the general conclusion, that Congress should not interfere in this question, but we wish to know your reasons for arriving at this conclusion; we wish you to declare, by your votes, whether you arrive at this result because you think it unconstitutional or not?" Mr. B. said that he would yield to none in zeal in sustaining and supporting, to the extent of his ability, what he believed to be the true interest of the South; but he should take leave to say that, when the almost united will of both branches of Congress, for all practical purposes, was with us, against all interference on this subject, he should not hazard the peace and quiet of the country by going on a Quixotic expedition in pursuit of abstract constitutional questions. He would not quarrel with gentlemen so long as they continued in the determination not to interfere in this question, even if they did not come to that determination by precisely the same mode of reasoning with himself. Mr. B. said it appeared to him that the true course of those representing the South here was to occupy a defensive position, so long as others were disposed not to discuss it, and Congress refused to exert any legislative authority over the subject. When that attempt was made, if it ever should be, he should say the time for discussion had passed, and a period had arrived which called for other and more vigorous means of self-defence.

Another, and not the least weighty, reason had operated on his mind in bringing it to the conclusion that the motion to reject the petition was injudicious. If successful, nothing would perhaps be more agreeable to the fanatics (he thought they should be more properly called fiends in human shape, who would endeavor to Jay waste the happiness and liberties of this country) than the intelligence that they had received this mark of notice, and to them, of consequence, from the Congress of the United States. Mr. B. said, in his judg ment, that man was but little skilled in the passions of the human breast, who did not know that there was no error, however great, nor any heresy, however abominable, either in religion or politics, which might not be aided by the cry of persecution, however unfounded it might be in fact. Fanaticism would seize on it, to

[JAN. 7, 1836.

enlist the sympathies of the weak and ignorant in their behalf. Wicked and fanatical men had done this, in all ages, and he doubted not but the malignant spirits who had been laboring in this detestable vocation would cunningly seek to avail themselves of any means to further their diabolical designs. Another, and, with him, equally decisive reason against any course calculated to throw the subject open to discussion here, was the almost universal manifestation at the North, during the past summer and fall, of that fraternal and patriotic feeling towards the South, which he trusted would continue to exert its happy effect in preserving, unimpaired, the bonds of the union of these States. He rejoiced at this strong development of feeling, not only because it had contributed to repress the movements of dangerous enemies to the peace and happiness of our country in that quarter, but because it had dispelled the insidious misrepresentations in regard to the sentiments of the great body of the Northern people, which certain presses had, as he believed, both in the North and South, most industriously used, for the most sinister purposes. What were the facts, as to the public opinion of the North, on this subject? But a short time had passed by since most of the active leaders of this fanatical band were contemptible fugitives, in different parts of the North, where they had attempted to exhibit, from the insulted and generous indignation of a patriotic people, who wished to preserve the peace of the country and their obligations to us as members of the same confederacy. That an active and daring band of these incendiaries existed none could doubt, but that they formed a very small portion of the great mass of the Northern people, we not only had the assurances of public meetings, which had assembled almost throughout that quarter, attended by the most respectable and distinguished citizens, but we had here, but a short time since, the declarations of many of the Senators from the non-slaveholding States, that this class of individuals was but small, and that they were countenanced by no respectable portion of those States. He had been assured, since his arrival here, by gentlemen representing the Northern States, that an abolition discourse could not be delivered among those whom they represented, without endangering the safety of the person attempting it. In addition to this, he would say, that the action of the federal Government, through the Post Office Department, was protective of the rights of the South against incendiary publications. If Postmasters to the North and South did their duty, as sanctioned by the head of that Department, these enemies of our Government and of the human race were cut off from circulating, through that medium, their firebrands of mischief. Under these circumstances, was this a time for us to throw open the door to discussion on this subject, and thus assist in exacerbating feelings which had already been enough excited. He thought it only necessary to contrast the proceedings of the Senate on the petition to which he had before alluded, and which had been laid on the table by the unanimous vote of the Senators present, with the proceedings of to-day, to show the decided wisdom of taking the same course in relation to the present and all similar petitions. The petition which had been quietly inurned by the motion to lay on the table, had scarcely been thought of or heard of since, consigned as it had been to the insignificance and contempt of mortifying neglect and want of notice. What was the fact, in relation to the proposed mode of pro- ceeding, as to the present petition? The Senate had already found itself engaged in a debate, which no one could foresee the direction of, thus producing agitation and dignifying with undeserved, and, no doubt, gratifying notoriety to the fanatics, a miserable effusion, which, but for this proceeding, would have fallen into obscurity

and contempt. He (Mr. B.) had nothing to ask from the North, as one of the representatives of a Southern State, more than we were entitled to under the compact with our sister States, and from that feeling of fraternal regard which, for many purposes, made us the same people. He, however, was disposed to act upon this, as upon all other occasions, in that spirit of conciliation in which our federal Government had originated, and without which it could not survive. He would not quarrel with gentlemen, so long as they took decided ground against any interference on this question, even if they should differ as to some abstract questions in relation to it. He believed, most sincerely, that the almost universal sentiment of the intelligent and respectable portion of the North was against any interference, either in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, on this delicate subject. In this feeling of confidence, he was in favor of clinging to the union of the States, as the great source of our safety, happiness, and liberty. He would not for a moment believe that either of the great sections of this country would so far forget its just obligations to the other, by such an outrage upon its constitutional rights as would end in the overthrow of a Government won by the united valor and patriotism of their ancestors.

Mr. LEIGH. As a motion had been made to postpone this discussion until Monday, I shall not now trouble the Senate with the remarks which I had intended to make; but whenever the question shall again come up, I shall consider it my duty to make some observations, that my views of the constitutional question may not be mistaken. I said the other day that I had never conversed with a single Northern gentleman whose opinions on this subject gave me any dissatisfaction. I then thought it my duty to make this declaration. Since I made that remark, a pamphlet has been sent to me, being a review of another pamphlet written by a Northern gentleman, for whose character and piety and talents I have ever felt the most unbounded respect and veneration; and there are, in the review which has been sent to me, extracts from the pamphlet of this gentleman, which are peculiarly fitted to operate on the feelings of the representatives of the State of Virginia on this floor. If these extracts be true--but I have not yet seen the original pamphlet--this reverend gentleman, who appears to have been for some time in Virginia, although now a resident of Massachusetts, received some impressions as to the moral condition of Virginia, which have poisoned his mind so completely | on this subject, that, if any of the intelligent persons who compose his congregation shall imbibe his opinions, I cannot but think we are approaching a very fearful

crisis.

When the gentleman from North Carolina speaks of contemptible fanatics, if by contemptible he means incapable of mischief, I must dissent from the correctness of the expression. In every sentiment of allegiance to this Government, allegiance of the heart as well as the understanding, I concur with that gentleman. I will say nothing more at present. But when the subject shall again come before the Senate, I shall feel myself bound to offer my views at large; and if there should be any thing in my language which may appear to have a tendency to cause agitation, or to wound the feelings of any individual, I must leave it to the result to justify the purity of my motives, and to show that the tendency of all I shall utter is to conciliation.

Mr. PRESTON. I was not in my seat, sir, when a petition similar to this was a few days since laid upon the table. Had I been, it would not have gone there sub silentio. Sir, I must express my astonishment at the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. Has this discussion been brought on by the Southern States? No, sir. Is discussion of any kind unnecessary?

[SENATE.

Is there nothing peculiar in the aspect of affairs; no extraordinary efforts making at the North; nothing unu sual in public sentiment and feeling to authorize this discussion? Sir, why has not North Carolina taken up this matter and in this way before?

Every Governor of every slaveholding State has called the attention of its Legislature to this subject; the whole public mind has been convulsed; all men of all parties are shaken and excited; and lo! the Senator from North Carolina exhorts us to be quiet. An enemy, savage, remorseless, and indignant, is thundering at our gates, and the gentleman tells us to fold our arms. Our hearths and altars are running with blood and in flames; be quiet, says the gentleman. The storm is bursting upon us that is to sweep away the bulwarks of our freedom and union, and fill the land with convulsion and anarchy; but sit still, says the honorable Senator. He sees no danger, no cause of alarm; no, not the slightest. Petitioners, the mad instruments for accomplishing this unhallowed work, are thronging here by thousands; incendiary pamphlets are circulated; incendiary meetings held; insult, threats, and denunciations, are heaped upon us; but we are not to lift a voice or raise a finger. no, sir; keep quiet; all around is a profound calm. Sir, whose lives and property are at stake, we who have every motive to move, are we alone to be quiet? It may be that there is some object in this. It may be that wicked and designing men have mixed up this matter with others foreign to it. I trust not, sir; I trust that all parties will act in harmony with each other on a point which so immediately affects the public weal. The South, sir, has not produced this excitement. She has not sought this discussion. It has been accomplished by other men and other means. By these selfish and morose fanatics-these wild disturbers, whose schemes will involve this country and the world in confusion and calamity. This is the child of agitation-of that agitation which drives our very women from the decencies and duties of their sex.

we

Oh!

Do we demand any thing here, sir, that we are not entitled to? There is not a Senator present, unless it is the gentleman from Ohio, that so believes. Sir, I feel, with the Senator from Missouri, the most profound respect for the talent and integrity, the ability, boldness, and zeal, of the leading men of the North during the last summer. I thank them for checking the excitement there as far as they were able. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania also, that he is found side by side with us in this crisis. That while the Senator from a slaveholding State sees no cause of unnecessary agitation-while he would have us be quiet, nor place our foot on the torch that is about to consume our dwellings, the Senator from the great and free State of Pennsylvania identifies himself with our feelings and interests, and sees, as we do, all around, the materials of discord, disunion, and destruction.

Sir, I invoke him, and all who think with him, to extinguish the fire which will wrap this country in flames. The Southern country is filled with alarm and discontent: let us, by the rejection of this petition, remove instead of increasing it. Let us check this wild crusade while yet we may; and, for God's sake, let us meet with no political opposition in so doing. Adopt some measure by which we can obtain the security we are entitled to. Reject this petition. Public good and abstract right both call upon you to do so. Prevent this swollen and turbid torrent of fanaticism from overwhelming these halls. One pigmy rill has found its way here-let it be the last. I, at least, sir, will not aid in undermining our institutions; I will not fan the flame of fanaticism, and aid that fanaticism in producing the worst of consequences. Should I do so, I should prove recreant to my trust.

Mr. BROWN begged leave to say one word more before the question was taken. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] had asked, in a very emphatic manner, if, when the burning torch was thrown into the House, he, as a Southern man, would not be ready to extinguish it. He would answer that he was ready, but he would also say that he was not ready to pour oil on the torch and increase the flame into a conflagration which might destroy the Union. The honorable gentleman had said he would not have discharged his duty to the South had he not exposed and proclaimed the danger, and seemed to think him not vigilant enough because he did not take the same course. He was, perhaps, not gifted with the keen perspicacity of the gentleman from South Carolina; he admitted that he was unable to discover the benefit that would result to the South, or any other portion of the country, from pursuing a course which would lead to the discussion and agitation of this subject here. Sir, the time has been when the high-minded members from the Southern States assumed an attitude highly honorable on this subject. What was it? Why, they declared that it was a subject on which they would not tolerate the slightest discussion. That was once the course of honorable gen. tlemen from the South on that floor. But that time had gone by; it appeared that new lights had sprung up, new discoveries had been made, and gentlemen were ready to go into the discussion of a subject that once was not permitted to be discussed at all. He, as one of the representatives of the Southern States, objected to any discussion which went to call in question the rights of the South. He was ready to go with Southern gentlemen in any measure that would prevent such discussion. He would go further. Whenever, said Mr. B., our Northern friends shall attempt in the slightest degree to interfere, by legislative action, with the rights of the South, (and he could with pleasure say that they had shown every disposition to repress such interferences,) let us, said he, depart from them-depart peaceably. The gentleman had asked, why should they in the Senate not express their opinions on this subject, when the Governors and Legislatures of the Southern States had done so? It was true that the Executives of the Southern States had recommended this subject to the consideration of their respective Legislatures. This it was their right and their duty to do; but he denied the right of Congress to discuss, or in any manner to interfere with, the subject. The gentleman from South Carolina would at once perceive the distinction between any action on this subject by the Legislatures of the States specially interested in it, and a discussion by Congress which had nothing to do with it. That was his answer to the gentleman.

Mr. WEBSTER said it could not have been expected by the Senate that a question of such deep interest would come up for discussion to-day. As a motion had been made to postpone the further discussion until Monday, and as it was now late, a motion to adjourn would have the effect of postponing the subject until Monday, assuming that the Senate would adjourn over to Monday. He would therefore ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to make the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CALHOUN said that he could have no objection to the motion to postpone, as he was desirous that every Senator should have ample time to deliberate before he was called on to record his vote; but as the opinion of some of the Senators might be more or less influenced by the course which he might think proper to pursue in relation to the question, he deemed it proper to declare that no consideration could induce him to withdraw the demand which he had made for the question on the reception of the petition. He had made it on full deliberation, and it was impossible that he could be induced to

[JAN. 7, 1836.

change his opinion. He desired the question to be put to the vote; and were there no other reason, there is one, to him imperious, why he should not forego this desirethe insolent, the false, and calumnious language which the petitions held towards the slaveholding States and every slaveholder in the Union. This body (said Mr. C.) presented to him a portentous, an amazing spectacle. Here are assembled the representatives of twenty four confederated States, to deliberate on their common interest and prosperity, seriously discussing the question, whether they shall or shall not receive petitions which basely calumniate the institutions of eleven of those States, which denounce their citizens as pirates, kidnappers, and dealers in human flesh! That a single individual from the States thus slandered should avow a determination to vote to receive so base a libel on the State he represents, as well as the entire South, was to him truly wonderful; and yet more wonderful, if possible, were the arguments he advanced in support of his intention. But more of this in its proper place.

Why, said Mr. C., should there be any hesitation to reject these petitions in any quarter? Is it from a feeling of delicacy to the petitioners? If such be the feelings of regard on the part of the Senators from the non-slaveholding States towards these mischievous agitators, what ought to be our feelings, to behold the entire South, by whose confidence we have been selected and placed here to guard their interest and honor, basely vilified in the face of the world? Is the hesitation because there are feelings diffused throughout the non-slaveholding States in relation to the subject of these petitions, so strong and so general, that, for political reasons, it is not thought desirable to disturb them? Are the two great parties who divide those States afraid to come into conflict with those opinions? If so, it is a decided reason why we of the South should insist on taking the question. It is important to our constituents that the fact should be known. He, said Mr. C., wished to be perfectly explicit on a point where our interest is so deeply concerned. He, with others, felt, as ought to be felt, for the open, manly, and decided course of a large portion of our Northern brethren during the last summer, against the criminal conduct of the fanatics; but he feared it has not checked the disease. He feared the true reason why there should be the least hesitation in rejecting these vile and libellous attacks on nearly half of the members of this Union was, that both parties are afraid to incur the displeasure of a party so strong as the incendiaries. He could not doubt but all who heard him reprobated the language of these petitions; and with such feelings he could not discover any other reason that was even plausible, but the one he apprehended. There were other reasons which induced him to fear the motive to which he referred was the true one. He had received, a few days since, a printed copy of a protest, signed by Arthur Tappan and several of his associates, remonstrating against the language used in the President's message against the fanatics, in which it is stated, boastingly, that, so far from being repressed by the proceedings against them to the North during the last summer, the number of their societies had increased from (if my memory be accurate) 250 to 350. addition to this, he regarded the fact to which the Senator from Virginia [Mr. LEIGH] referred as proof but too strong that the fanatical spirit at the North was strong and increasing. He had not seen Dr. Channing's book; but that a divine of his eminence, and one of the most eloquent and polished writers of the country, should publish such a book at this time, was a matter for serious reflection to those he represented, as well as all who had similar interests. If he might judge of the whole from some of its extracts, it might be well compared with the incendiary publications of Garrison him

In

self. It is a sad omen of the times, that he should lend the aid of his talents and character to criminal designs, the direct tendency of which is to work asunder the Union and subvert the constitution. But, said Mr. C., though the false and slanderous language of these petitions are to him imperious reasons for their rejection, there were others of a character not less decisive. The parties, as he stated when he was first up, call on Congress to abolish slavery in this District. He again repeated that Congress had no such power, no more than it has to abolish slavery in the States.

The fifth amendment of the constitution offers an insuperable barrier, which provides, among other things, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public uses without just compensation." Are not slaves property? and if so, how can Congress any more take away the property of a master in his slave, in this District, than it could his life and lib. erty? They stand on the same ground. The one, in the eye of the constitution, is as sacred as the other. He would pass over the latter part of the sentence cited, on which his colleague had touched, and conclusively show that the proviso which it contained also opposed impassable barriers to emancipation by Congress in this District.

He, said Mr. C., felt the profoundest gratitude and respect to those watchful and jealous patriots who, at the time of the adoption of the constitution, would not agree to its ratification without proposing these amended articles, which were subsequently agreed to, and which contain those great limitations on power, of the importance of which he daily became more sensible. But it is said that Congress has, by the constitution, the exclusive right of legislation in this District. Grant it; and what then? Does the constitution mean that it has absolute power of legislation here? Certainly not. There are many important limitations on its powers in the District as well as in the States. Congress cannot, in the District, abridge the liberty of the press; it cannot establish a religion by law; it cannot abolish jury trial. In granting exclusive right of legislation, the constitution only intended to exclude all other legislative authority within the District, and not to create an absolute and despotic power in Congress over the lives and property of its citizens. Nor was the opinion less erroneous that Congress has the same unlimited power here that the States had within their respective limits. The two powers are wholly different. The latter was original, inherent, and sovereign; while the former was a derivative and delegated trust-power, given by the States for special purposes, and subject to be altered and rescinded at their pleasure.

But it is said that it would be a violation of the constitution not to receive these petitions. He denied that there was any provision in that instrument that made it their duty to receive them. He had again and again read the constitution, and could find none such, nor any thing like it. It is true that there is a provision that "Congress should pass no law to abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Is a refusal to receive these slanderous petitions a passage of a law for the purpose forbidden in the constitution? Is there any man of sense, who has for a moment reflected on the subject, who can have the assurance to say so? How, then, can the refusal to receive be construed into a violation of the constitution?

He, said Mr. C., could not but be struck with one remarkable fact. When the question is as to the right of these fanatics to attack the character and property of the slaveholding States, there are Senators on this floor who give a latitude to the constitution wider than the VOL. XII.--7

[SENATE.

words can possibly mean; but when the object is to defend the rights and property of these States, they give the most rigid and narrow construction to the instru

ment.

But (said Mr. C.) the Senator from North Carolina objects to a refusal to receive these slanderous and abusive petitions, for fear it should cause excitement and agitation. To avoid this, he recommends that they should be received and laid on the table, there to slumber quietly. He (said Mr. C.) well knew that there were two modes to prevent agitation, which, according to the difference of temperament and character, were resorted to: the one to receive and quietly pocket the insult, and the other by repelling it promptly and decisively. Now, he would ask the Senator whether, if one should petition him, and pronounce him in his petition to be a robber, kidnapper, pirate, with all the other abusive terms used in these petitions, to which of the two modes would he resort? Would he quietly take the petition and put it in his pocket, (lay it on the table,) or would he knock the scoundrel down? I am sure I need not wait an answer. Will, then, he, representing a sovereign State, whose confidence has placed him here to guard her honor and interest, agree to receive a paper, and place it, by his vote, on the permanent records of the Senate, which he would indignantly repel, if offered to himself personally? Is he prepared to show himself less jealous of the honor of his State than his own? As vigilant as we may be to guard our honor and interest, let us be still more watchful in guarding the honor and interest of those we represent. To meet these studied attacks, which come here in the shape of petitions, in that spirit, is the mode, and only safe and effectual mode, to put down agitation-the only mode to preserve our peace and security at home, and the union and institutions of the country generally. Show these fanatics, by a decided refusal, by shutting the door in their face, that they have nothing to hope by agitation, and they will soon cease to agitate.

An objection of a different character is made (said Mr. C.) by the Senator from Virginia near me, [Mr. TYLER.] He objects that, to refuse to receive the petitions is not strong enough; is not, to use his expression, up to the occasion; and thinks that the proper course is to refer them to the Committee for the District of Columbia, which, he assures us, would be united in denying to Congress any constitutional power to touch He also the question of emancipation in this District. expressed his conviction that the Senate would unanimously sustain the committee, with, perhaps, the exception of the Senator who presented these petitions. He was (said Mr. C.) at a loss to see how the course he had adopted fell short of the occasion. What was the occasion? Petitions basely slandering the States, which he and all the other Senators from the same section represented, were presented by the Senator from Ohio. This was the occasion. By the parliamentary rules, the question is, shall they be received? Shall we who represent the States, thus openly and in our own presence insulted, pocket the insult? or shall we indignantly repel it? Did he fall short of the occasion in demanding the question on the reception, and in calling on the Senate to join him in repelling the indignity?

But (said Mr. C.) I am rejoiced to learn from the Senator that he is in favor of stronger measures; in favor of a direct declaration by the Senate, denying the right to touch the question of emancipation in the Dis trict; doubly rejoiced that the Committee for the District was unanimous on this important point; and trebly so to hear from the Senator that there were just grounds to expect almost perfect unanimity in the Senate itself. I trust he is not mistaken, and I am happy to inform him that there is not the slightest incompatibility be