Mr. CLAY suggested to Mr. CRITTENDEN to with. draw his amendment, which was done; when Mr. C. offered an amendment making the appropriation for Indiana $250,000, and reducing the appropriation for Illinois to $150,000, so that the sum appropriated in the whole bill would be $600,000.

Mr. C. adverted to the amount of appropriations made in several preceding years, and stated that the largest amount appropriated to this road in any one year was $450,000, and the appropriation about to be made now was $150,000 more than that sum.

These amendments having been agreed to as in Committee of the Whole, the bill was reported to the Senate, and the question recurred in concurring with the amendments as agreed to in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BENTON observed that the State of Missouri was as deeply interested in the bill as the States of Ohio and Indiana. His State, he said, was much dissatisfied with the slow progress made in carrying this road to the Mississippi. He was much surprised at the manner in which gentlemen had agreed to the reduction of these appropriations. He meant to record his vote in opposition to the retardation of the road towards the Mississippi; and on that question he called for the yeas and

nays.

The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered. Mr. PORTER said that there was also considerable dissatisfaction among his constituents, but it was caused by very different views from those entertained by the constituents of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON.] They were in Louisiana against taking the public funds for this road, unless an appropriation was made in which all the States could participate. They of the Southwest were called upon to vote for an appropriation of $500,000 for a road in which they had an interest so weak as to be virtually no interest at all. The gentleman from Kentucky had said he would bring forward a motion to make the system of appropriation general throughout the United States. He was glad to hear it; and hoped he would do it now, as this was as good a time as any to do it. Voting upon the two per cent. fund was a mere delusion. He hoped the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] would oppose this bill now, unless it was made general.

Mr. CLAY said the question now before the Senate was only a question of reduction from a large to a smaller amount, and hoped the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. PORTER] Would not vote against that. But when the question came to be taken upon the bill itself, perhaps it would be well enough, if the gentleman continued of the same mind, to vote against it.

Mr. PORTER said he was not so well acquainted with the rules as the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] and had labored under a misapprehension; but if he had not confined himself to the question before the Senate, he had many illustrious examples before him.

[SENATE.

have felt themselves constrained to have pursued a similar course. It became apparent to every friend of this great national work, that this course would have ensured its certain defeat. Now, if the gentleman from Louisiana is anxious his constituents should enjoy a portion of the benefits of this road, all he has to do is to vote a continuance of this great highway through Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, on to the Gulf of Mexico, in the course of which route it is or will be much wanted for military purposes, on account of our proximity to the Mexicans and the vast hordes of Indians thrown along our borders by the policy of the general Government.

Mr. BENTON observed that the question was now to concur in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. He did not concur in them. He had been laboring for years to get the annual appropriation for this road increased, that its progress might be accelerated, so as to arrive at the Mississippi within the time of those now living. Heretofore the money was not in the treasury to be spared to a sufficient amount to accomplish the object in view; but now that the treasury was full, there was no earthly reason why this great and necessary work should be delayed. The people of Missouri were becoming impatient on the subject, and he and his colleague had for years been receiving petitions and memorials of citizens, and resolves of their Legislature, earnestly asking for the completion of the road. They had been endeavoring to act on them, so as to carry these views into effect; and now that they thought themselves safe, and nearly at a successful termination of their labors, they found the appropriations reduced, by some arrangement of which he knew nothing; if there had been no arrangement, he mistook the signs evinced, and would take back his words. The question was taken on concurring with the amendments offered by Mr. CLAY, and made in committee, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 29, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hill, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Naudain, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinsion, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Webster, White-29.

NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Hubbard, Linn, Morris, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Wall, Wright-11.

The question on concurring in the remaining amendments made in committee, was taken, and carried in the affirmative.

Mr. PORTER here submitted an amendment, in substance the same as the one withdrawn by Mr. CRITTENDEN, viz: striking out the words in the bill expressing that the appropriation was made out of the two per cent. fund reserved for making roads in the said States.

Mr. PORTER said he would, at all events, try the sense of the Senate by this motion. It had been admitted on all hands that this two per cent. fund had long ago been exhausted, and there seemed to imply an absurdity that the money was appropriated out of this fund.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that he had never admitit.

Mr. PORTER and Mr. KING made some remarks in opposition to each other in relation to the exhaustion of the two per cent. fund.

Hr. HENDRICKS contended that the two per cent. fund would go far beyond the amount expended on this road in the State of Indiana. And as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. KING] had said the road east of Wheeling was made more for Kentucky and Tennessee than for Indiana, he could not see the object of this amendment, unless it was to make the bill less acceptable to some gentlemen on the grounds of the compact.

Mr. CLAY said, as there seemed to be some inaccuracy in the minds of the Senators on this subject, he would give a history of its origin and progress. He then went into a detailed estimate of the appropriations to the road and the two per cent. fund, for the purpose of showing that the fund was exhausted.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, said the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] had fallen into the common error of jumbling all the States immediately interested in this road together, in making his application of the two per cent. fund. Mr. E. advanced some reasons to show that there should be a distinction made, and that a sepa rate calculation should be made in reference to each State, which would show a very different result from that to which the Senator from Kentucky had arrived. Mr. PORTER'S amendment was then rejected by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Goldsborough, Hill, Hubbard, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Swift, Webster-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-22.

The question was then taken on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 27, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright--27.

NAYS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Hill, Hubbard, King of Georgia, Leigh, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Ruggles, Shepley, Swift, Walker, White-16. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Mr. LEIGH rose and said that, in pursuance of the promise which he yesterday made to the Senate to move to resume the consideration of the abolition petition at the earliest moment that he should have decided what course his duty required him to pursue in regard to the amendment which he yesterday offered to the motion for rejection, he now moved that the Senate take up that subject.

The motion having been agreed to,

Mr. LEIGH withdrew the amendment offered by him yesterday; and the question recurred on Mr. BUCHANAN'S motion that the prayer of the petition be rejected. [The following is a copy of the petition:

[MARCH 11, 1836.

We therefore earnestly desire that you will enact such laws as will secure the right of freedom to every human being residing within the constitutional jurisdiction of Congress, and prohibit every species of traffic in the persons of men, which is as inconsistent in principle and inhuman in practice as the foreign slave trade.

Signed by direction and on behalf of the aforesaid quarterly meeting, held in Lancaster county, Pennsyl vania, the 19th of 11th month, 1835. LINDLEY COATS, Clerks. ESTHER HAYES,

The yeas and nays were ordered on the question of rejection.

Mr. McKEAN moved to amend the motion by striking out all after the word "that," (namely, the words "the prayer of the petition be rejected,") and inserting "it is inexpedient at this time to legislate on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia."

On this question the yeas and nays were ordered, on his motion.

The question being taken, it was decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Hendricks, McKean-2.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-37.

Mr. McKEAN moved to amend the motion by inserting between the first word "that" and the words "the prayer of the petition be rejected," the words "it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, and that."

On this question he called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

The question was then taken, and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, McKean-3. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing, of Illinois, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Moore, Niles, Nicholas, Preston, Porter, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-36.

The question being on the original motion of Mr. Bu CHANAN, "that the prayer of the petition be rejected,' Mr. McKEAN said that, in offering the amendments which he had proposed, he had discharged his conscience of an imperative duty. It had pleased the Senate to reject these amendments, and, as he was thus deprived of the power of making the motion more pala.

States:

osition of his colleague.

Mr. CALHOUN rose and said that, as the question was about to be put, he felt himself constrained to make a few remarks explanatory of the course he intended to pursue. He could not vote in favor of the motion now before the Senate. If the question of the rejection of this petition had been presented without connexion with the one which had been previously raised and discussnot have existed; but it was impossible for him, after what had passed, to regard the present motion separately from the motion to receive. They in fact constituted but one question. It was avowed by the mover, while the question on receiving was pending, that he voted for the reception with the view of immediately moving the rejection. Regarding them, then, as constituting a single question, it was impossible for him, with the

How

A

what was it? A few persons, represented as humble but respectable individuals of the religious sect called Friends, had presented here their petition, in unobjectionable language, requesting Congress to inquire into the propriety of abolishing slavery-where? Yes, where? Not in the States of this Union; they have not invited a consideration of that matter, nor alluded to it; they have nowhere touched that disturbing topic, or claimed any right for this Government to interfere with it; but they ask you to turn your eyes upon this District of Columbia-this ten miles square-over which you exercise exclusive legislative power; and here, in this place, and in this place alone, to do two things: to abolish slavery, and to suppress the slave trade. This was all. And yet it seemed to him as if, through the whole debate, the subject had been argued and the petition treated as if it demanded the abolition of slavery in the several States, by an act of this Government. It was this, and this alone, which drew to it the all-absorbing interest which appeared to pervade some minds. had this petition, thus limited in its objects, been treated? The petitioners were met at the door with a proposition to shut it in their face, and to forbid their entrance. great and strenuous effort was made, and, I doubt not, with sincerity of purpose, believing it to be useful, to repel them, to send them away with a stern denial of their right to address this body. The debate had been long, ardent, and imposing, and, at its termination yesterday, a vote was taken which overruled the motion to reject, and the petition is now rightfully brought into the custody of the Senate. This vote seemed to decide that it contained matter suitable for this place, and proper to be here considered. The question then arose, what was to be done with it? The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] his worthy friend, had, in an early stage of the proceedings, intimated his purpose of moving to reject the prayer of the petition; in other words, that the Senate would not legislate upon the abolition of slavery, or the suppression or modification of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. He gave the honorable Senator all credit for the ability with which he had sustained the motion, for the purity of purpose which had induced him to offer it, and for sincerity, when he had repeatedly declared his object to be to restore peace and harmony, by discountenancing such petitions. If he concurred in that opinion, if he thought that would be the consequence, he would cheerfully give the measure his support. But, after considering the matter, with an anxious and sincere desire to co-operate with the mover, he was obliged, in the conscientious discharge of his duty, to separate from him; and he had risen to state his reasons for doing so, and it should be only a simple statement. The first motion was out of the usual course of legislation. It was a sudden, prompt denial of a right to appear, and seemed designed rather to deter than to conciliate the petitioners. The second was alike unusual; for, while it admitted the right to appear, it denied the right to a deliberate hearing, and differs more in form than in substance.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had just informed us that the slaveholders entertained the opinion that Congress had no constitutional power to touch slavery in the District of Columbia. It would be folly for him (Mr. D.) to attempt to disguise the fact that a vast majority of the people of the free States entertain exactly the opposite opinion. He did not remember to have heard this doctrine advanced before this debate, either here or elsewhere, although petitions had been sent here at every session, and sometimes debate had arisen upon them. What, he would ask, was the fair interpretation of the vote taken here yesterday, by which this petition was received by an overwhelming majority? Was it not declaring that it con

[MARCH 11, 1836.

tained matter fit for the consideration of Congress? Would not the petitioners and the public understand by that vote that slavery here and in the States, in the judgment of the Senate, stands on a different footing in regard to Congress? That the Senate had agreed to act on the subject by considering it, because it had constitutional power so to do? It was not a direct decision of that question, but it was so by implication.

In view of this state of public opinion as to constitutional power, and of this decision made here, he had endeavored to think, with the Senator from Pennsylva nia, that his motion was judicious, and would accomplish his purpose of tranquillizing public sentiment; but, when he saw this great and uniform current of public opinion on the question of right, he thought there should be some urgent emergency to justify a refusal to consider the subject, and to let it pass through the usual forms of deliberation. The measure was characterized here as it would be elsewhere. It had been said and reiterated on this floor, "let us receive the petition, and then treat it with the contempt it deserves, by an instant rejection of the prayer." What was he to understand by this? He made the inquiry in no invidious or reproachful sense, for he believed gentlemen uttered the sentiments in their minds, and gave to the measure the character which they conceived belonged to it. But what was he to understand? Just what the public would understand: that there was a purpose of rejection without deliberation; that, from this decision, petitioners might consider it hopeless to come here, because they would understand the determination of this body as inexorable, both in regard to abolition and the traffic in slaves in this District as a market.

He was not prepared to embrace this broad proposition, for it combined too many grave matters; nor did he like it in other respects, as it seemed to him to be designed only for extraordinary cases. It was like rejecting a bill on its second reading, which he had never known done but once, and then because it was deemed vexatious; and he at that time thought it a harsh, inexpedient measure, characterized rather by resentment than deliberation. Every thing had conspired to convince him that, if the Senate would give power and efficacy to their vote, if they would satisfy a reasoning public of their wisdom and prudence, they must do it by showing that public that they had treated the subject calmly, dispassionately, and with reference to the whole country. Why, he asked, do you have standing committees? Why a rule that all subjects-yes, all subjects-shall be referred to them? Why do you require these committees to examine and report upon the matters intrusted to them? Why have a rule which requires each and every bill to be read on three different days before it can be passed? It is to secure deliberation; it is that this body may be what it is called--a deliberative body, acting in the great matters confided to it with a calm consideration which ought to secure public confidence and respect. In his opinion, this subject, which had been wrought up into one of exciting magnitude, demanded cool, dispassionate consideration, and ought to have taken the usual course of other matters. He would have moved the commitment of the petition to the Committee for the District of Columbia, but there was little hope of carrying it, and he was, besides, unwilling to embarrass the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, which he seemed to have much at heart.

He had spoken of this petition as if it stood forth here like the other business before them, having supporters to press it forward; but this motion to reject was a vol. untary motion; yes, a voluntary motion. And what, he asked, do I mean by that? He meant that no one had risen here, or in the other House, to advocate the prayer of the petitioners; no one had asked for any legislative

measure tending to that effect. The utmost that had been done with any petition on the subject was to move its reference to the committee to which such papers have usually gone, and to desire its fair consideration. This fact had not passed unobserved in this debate of three months, for it had been often remarked on this floor, by those who had addressed the Senate, that but one opinion prevailed in Congress as to the expediency of attempting to legislate at this time, and but one opinion as to the rights secured to the States by the constitution. Not satisfied with this extraordinary unanimity, this high proof of forbearance and conciliation, this motion is pressed upon the Senate, to be sent forth as a kind of inexorable determination. In his judgment, it was voluntary, because uncalled for and unnecessary; indeed, it would fail to produce the harmony and secure the influence upon public sentiment which its friends appeared so anxiously to look for. Every man must, on questions here, be guided by his own judgment, his own sense of public duty, and obligation to the constitution and the people. He had considered this matter with anxious attention, and had observed what was passing here and elsewhere, and candor called on him to avow that he saw no where any cause for the great alarm and excite. ment which pervaded some minds in regard to the safety of the Union. In this he concurred with the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY.] Neither the petition on which the debate had arisen, nor any other that he had seen, proposed directly or indirectly to disturb the Union, unless the abolition of slavery in this District, or the suppression or regulation of the slave trade within it, would have that effect. For himself, Mr. D. believed no purpose could be further than this from the minds of the petitioners. He could not determine what thoughts or motives might be in the minds of men, but he judged by what was revealed; and he could not persuade himself that these petitioners were not attached to the Union, and that they had (as had been suggested) any ulterior purpose of making this District the headquarters of future operation-the strong-hold of antislavery-the stepping stone to an attack upon the constitutional rights of the South. He was obliged to repudiate these inferences as unjust, for he had seen no proof to sustain them in any of the petitions that had come here. The petitioners entertained opinions coincident with their fellow-citizens as to the power of Congress to legislate in regard to slavery in this District; and being desirous that slavery should cease here, if it could be abolished upon just principles; and, if not, that the traffic carried on here from other quarters should be suppressed or regulated, they came here to ask Congress to investigate the matter. This was all; and he could see no evidence in it of a clandestine purpose to gard the constitution or to disturb the Union.

[SENATE.

or interests of his constituents should at any time be carried, he felt that, in such a case, a severe responsibility would rest upon him. He should, therefore, give his vote in favor of the motion.

The question was then taken on the motion to reject the prayer of the petition, and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift, Webster-6.

So the prayer of the petition was rejected.

After this decision, Mr. WEBSTER gave notice that he had in his hand several similar petitions, which he had forborne to present till this from Pennsylvania should be disposed of, and that he should now, on an early occasion, present them, and move to dispose of them in the way in which it had been his opinion from the first that all such petitions should have been treated; that is, to refer them to the committee for inquiry and consideration.

On motion of Mr. CLAY, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; After which, the Senate adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, MARCH 14.

On the whole, he had determined to vote steadily against propositions hostile to a commitment of the petition, having indulged the hope that such a result might ossibly be attained, and believing, as he did, that its effect upon the public mind would be far more efficacious and salutary than a hasty rejection of the prayer as soon as the petition enters this chamber, as proposed by my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALKER stated that he had voted for the mo tion not to receive the petition; but as that motion, which was the strongest, had failed, he should feel himself bound to vote for that which was the next strongest proposition, which he considered to be the motion to reject the prayer of the petition. If he had felt it his duty to avoid a participation in the vote, as the Senator from South Carolina had done, he would have retired from the Senate altogether, and left it to those he rep resented to pass judgment upon his conduct. But if, by the absence of his vote, a measure hostile to the views

The question was taken, after some opposition from Mr. BENTON, and decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White, Wright--26.

The Senate then receded from their amendments to the bill to provide for the payment of the volunteer and militia corps in Florida.

Mr. PRENTISS offered the following resolution; which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Pensions be instructed to inquire into expediency of directing the Secretary of War to allow and pay to the heirs of Rich