E 445 
 .V8 B3 
 Copy 1 
 
 J-/. 
 
 V^ViZ CVVLjJS^yvO (TJP YlsAAT J(nJ\ yUTkyv 
 
Qass 
 
 l4^5 
 
 Bonk 
 
 ,VsB,^ 
 
 
 
>^:-^^ 
 
 05 THE BILL TO PK£TZ?T 
 
 CITIZENS OF \EW YORK 
 
 CARRYING SLAYES OUT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 A.VD TO PRTTEVT THZ EiCAPE OF 
 
 PERSONS CHARGED WITH THE COMMISSION OF ANT CRIME, 
 
 AVD IS REPLT TO 
 
 MR. SCOTT OF FAUQUIER. 
 
 DELIVEBED 15 THE 
 
 HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF YIRGIMA. 
 
 On the 25th and 2Gth of February 1541. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MEMBER* OF THE SENATE AXD HOCSE OF DELEGATE?. 
 
 RICHMOND: 
 
 PRINTED BY SHEPHERD AN"D COLIX. 
 
.1/5 '82 
 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Me. BAYLY said: 
 
 I had hoped that this bill, which is desi^Ded to 
 protect the rights of the citizens of Virginia from unconstitutional invasion bv 
 the state of New York, would be permitted to pass without opposition. But 
 as this could not be the case, I rejoice that opposition to it has come from the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) for in that gentleman's opposition the 
 house has an assurance that every objection to it has been exposed. If. there- 
 fore, I successfiilly answer every position which he has assumed in his minute 
 and elaborate argnment, I may take it for granted that I have removed everv 
 ground of opposition to the bill. I congratulate myself that, in so important 
 a measure as the one now before the house, I am afforded, bv the argument 
 of the gentleman, such an ample opportunity of vindicating it. 
 
 Like the gentleman from Fauquier, I approach the discussion of this mea- 
 sure with great embarrassment — an embarrassment growing out of the im- 
 mense importance of the subject, and a knowledge of the hearv responsibilitv 
 that rests upon me as the chairman of the select committee which has had it 
 in charge. But, unlike the gentleman, I do not approach it without havincr 
 bestowed upon it much consideration. Sir, I have given the subject the ma- 
 turest reflection of which I am capable. I have viewed it in its every aspect. 
 I have pondered upon it again and again. I have given it a consideration 
 commensurate with its vast importance, and with the incalculable consequences 
 involved in it. In considering it, I have schooled my passion? — I have banish- 
 ed from my breast those feelings of anger and resentment which the wrongs 
 my country has suffered at the hands of a sister state were so well calculated 
 to excite. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, this subject has many important connexions, which, at the first 
 view, do not meet the eye. With the indulgence of the hoase. I wiU attempt 
 to bring before it ma^i of iheui : and if in doing so I shall be found to tax 
 severely its patience my apology must be found in the importance of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 I wish to trace briefly the history of abolition in England and this countrv 
 to prove that the feeling in favour of it has increased in the non-slaveholdino- 
 states, that it now prevails there to a fearful extent, and that it is still increa^ 
 ing. I desire to shew that governor Seward's course was taken, and the law 
 of New York of the 6th of May last, which is discussed in the report of the 
 select committee, was passed to carry out the plans of operation of the aboli- 
 tionists. I wish to expose, rather more in detail than is done in the report of 
 the committee, the dangerous and unconstitutional character of what now 
 seems to be the settled policy of the state of New York, in reference to the 
 subject of slavery : prove the necessity of our adopting an effectual measure to 
 counteract i^ and demonstrate that the bill before the house is such an one. 
 
 I shall only make a brief reference to the progress of abolition in England. 
 I only refer to it at all because it is the source of the great abolition moTe- 
 ment of the age. 
 
No nation has profited so much, or been so extensively engaged in the slave 
 trade as England. No nation, for a long time, adhered to it with such obsti- 
 nate pertinacity. She nol!^^ly would not prohibit it herself, but she would not 
 allow her colonies to do it. This is shewn by the history of Yircrinia, with 
 which the house is too familiar to justify me in doing more than referring to 
 the fact. The British slave trade had existed for near two centuries, when 
 David Hartley moved in the house of commons, in 1776, a resolution declarino- 
 " that the slave trade was contrary to the laws of God and the rights of man." 
 This resolution was promptly rejected. In 1183, a petition for the protection of 
 the trade was for the first time presented in the house of commons. Its conside- 
 ration icas refused. The Quakers, with whom these etforts originated, were 
 not discouraged. On the 7th of July of that year, six of them met in Lon- 
 don " to consider what steps they should take for the relief and liberation of 
 the negro slaves in the West Indies, and for the discouragement of the slave 
 trade on the coast of Africa." The six Quakers were soon joined by the same 
 number of philanthropists of other christian denominations. " The twelve" 
 held meetings in London to devise means of revolutionizing the sentiment of 
 an empire ! Agents were appointed, among whom was the celebrated Clark- 
 son, to rouse the public attention to the subject. The pulpit and the press 
 were enlisted. Books, pamphlets and newspapers tcere freely circulated. 
 Within a few years petitions to parliament were multiplied, insomuch that a 
 commissioner was at length appointed by the government to enquire into the 
 African slave trade; and finally, on the 9th of May 1788, the house of com- 
 mons voted that they would, at the next session, take the subject of that trade 
 into consideration. 
 
 Without pursuing the details further, suffice it to sav, that this movement, 
 originating in 1776 with one man, continued to gain force, until in 1807 par- 
 liament abolished the slave trade. This man was regarded at the time as a 
 madman, and his twelve followers were denounced " as hvpocrites and fana- 
 tics, and their project as visionary and delusive?'' Yet in a few years they 
 revolutionized an empire ! As soon as they abolished the slave trade, in the 
 spirit of fanaticism, which is never satisfied with one conquest, they com- 
 menced agitation in favour of the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. In 
 this undertaking they had great obstacles to contend with. In the first place, 
 there were powerful British interests involved in it. Besides, as slavery had 
 grown up under the sanction of law, it was thought to be repugnant to the 
 British constitution to abolish it without awarding compensation to the master, 
 and the English nation could not be easily induced to indulge its philanthropy 
 at the expense of its purse, particularly at a time when it was loaded with debt 
 contracted in its wars of defence or ambition. During these wars, the people 
 were too much absorbed with the excitements of them, to be interested in 
 such a subject as the abolition of slavery. It did not, for these reasons, be- 
 come a serious matter, until about the year 1824 ; and even then the West In- 
 dia planters were assured that their interests were in no danger. In that year, 
 Mr. Canning, who was a minister of the crown, said in parliament, " that if 
 he were asked which he would prefer, permanent slavery, or immediate aboli- 
 tion, he would answer that he would prefer things remaining as they were;'"' 
 and gave as a reason for preferring permanent slavery to immediate emancipa- 
 tion, the incapacitv of the negro to enjoy, from the want of mental and moral 
 cultivation, the sweets of liberty ; and " his duty to guard the interests of 
 those who, by no fault of their own — by inheritance — by accident — by encou- 
 ragement of repeated acts of the legislature, find their property invested in a 
 concern exposed to innumerable hazards and difficulties which do not belong 
 to property of another character — such as, if they had their option, as their 
 ancestors had, they doubtless would have preferred." 
 
At that time the doctrine of Mr. Canning was the doctrine of the English 
 natioQ. Bat how stands matters now ? [I am reading, Mr. Speaker, from an 
 essay, written by myself and published in the Rieteiond Whig, in September 
 1S33. At that early time of my life I had directed my attention to this subject, 
 and I have carefully noted its progress s'mce. In nine brief years, when the cir- 
 cumstances of the case stand unaltered — when the negro is the same degraded 
 and ignorant creature he was in 1S24 — his condition in no respect ameliorated, 
 how changed the scene ? What language do ministers now hold ? We hear 
 31r. Stanly (a minister of the crown,) saying " that the time had gone by 
 when parliament could decide the question whether slavery should or should 
 not be perpetual ; the question now to be decided was, what was the surest, the 
 speediest, and the most effectual mode of procuring its final and entire aboli- 
 tion."' Yes, in nine short years, this unheeded rant of infuriated fanatics has 
 bepn converted into "public opinion,' which pressing upon ministers with an 
 irresistible force, has compelled them to vield, as it did in the matter of Catho- 
 lic emancipation and parliamentary reform, and to consent to projects equiva- 
 lent to immediate abolition. We hear Mr. Stanly, as a minister, telling par- 
 liament that " a universal and extended expression of feeling pervaded the 
 country : and there never was a time when the determination of the public was 
 more absolutelv or more irresistiblv expressed, because it was founded on that 
 religious feeling — on that solernn conviction of principle which admitted of no 
 palliation or compromise, and which pronounced itself in a voice to which no 
 minister could be dea£" 
 
 Thus pressed upon bv a fanatical public sentiment which ministers dared 
 not to resist — by a sentiment which woidd brook no compromise — they con- 
 sented to projects of which none but madmen would have dreamed of ten 
 years before. Schemes which were so rapid in their operation that they re- 
 sulted, on the ist of August 1S3S, in the complete emancipation of more than 
 eigh: hundred thousand slaves in the British West India Islands I Yes, sir, 
 this institution, which had been growing up for more than a century under the 
 fostering care of government, was demolished in comparatively a day, by that 
 very government, forced into compliance by a band of reckless fanatics I 
 
 Mr. Speaker, a more striking instance of the rapid growth and the uncom- 
 promising chau-acter of fanaticism could not easily be produced, than the one 
 to which I have just alluded. One of the wisest and most practical govern- 
 ments on earth had encouraged and tostered an institution for more than a 
 ceniurv, until it became one of great national importance. Onx max com- 
 mences a war upon it. He enlists those great levers of the moral world, the 
 pulpit and the press. He strikes the most sensitive chords of the human 
 heart_ He appeals to man's love for freedom. He works upon his super- 
 stition. He tampers with his conscience. In the beginning he is not de- 
 nounced, but he is laughed at and derided. But by him and his followers the 
 effort is persevered in, until within the space of one mans life it is trium- 
 phanilv successful, and a great national institution falls before it.* A nation, 
 a large majority of whose people are the most miserable of slaves, ground to 
 the d~d5t bv exactions of every character, labouring five days in the week to 
 sustain an oopressive government, and but one to support themselves, are in- 
 duced even to ask for an increase of those burdens.^ already almost insup- 
 portable, to emancipate a race of beings in no respect in a worse condition 
 than themselves, as far as substantial comforts of life are concerned, simply 
 because being slaves they were not insulted with the mockery of being called 
 freemen I 
 
 * 3Ir. Clarkson, who was one of the first agitators in favour of abolition, was present 
 at the World's Convention in London, held in June 1540. 
 
 T The British parliament appropriated a verr large sum of money as compensation to 
 the West India planters for the etnancioated slaves. 
 
Let me not be told that I mistake the progress of freedom for the triumph 
 of fanaticism. Sir, it is a fact which cannot be denied, that British abolition 
 of West India slavery, was -an act of pure and unadulterated fanaticism. To 
 prove this I need not refer to the historical truth, that during her brightest 
 days she was the greatest slave dealer on earth, but I may rest upon the fact, 
 that she was, at the time of West India emancipation, the greatest slaveholder 
 in the world, and hired out her slaves for profit.* 
 
 The success of abolition in England gave a powerful impulse to it in this 
 country. I have shewn that the abolitionists triumphed in England about 1830. 
 Before that time the subject had been but little agitated here, except on one 
 memorable occasion by the citizens of the northern states. Before that time, 
 but few of the people of those states claimed the privilege of regulating our 
 domestic concerns for us. Until then, except on the occasion to which I have 
 referred, when the politicians attempted to convert it to their purposes, the 
 agitation of the subject of emancipation was confined to a few peaceful Qua- 
 kers. They occasionally petitioned congress upon the subject ; their petitions 
 were promptly rejected ; and nothing was heard of them thereafter. Their 
 rejection gave rise to no agitation. But after the success of abolition in Eng- 
 land, petitions from a different class of persons, began to pour into congress, 
 until in 1836, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina, in an ill-fated hour moved to 
 refer them to a select committee. Yielding to the fatal delusion that fanatics 
 are to be reasoned with, he undertook to argue with them in a congressional 
 report. His vain effort resulted as he ought to have anticipated. His rebuke 
 produced about as much effect upon the abolitionists, as did Canute's upon the 
 waves ; and the one had about as much excuse as the other for making the at- 
 tempt. 
 
 Mr. Pinckney made a very elaborate and able report ; but so far from its al- 
 laying excitement, as was predicted, it only added oil to the flame. Under his 
 resolution the petitions of thirty-seven thousand petitioners were laid upon the 
 table. In 1837 the petitions of one hundred and ten thousand petitioners 
 were laid upon the table under Patton's resolutions. And in 183'^ Jve Jnin- 
 flred thousand shared the same fate. I have not seen any computation of the 
 number since that time, but I presume they have increased. Here we have 
 
 * Extract from the Asiatic Journal for 1838, published in London, page 221. 
 
 " Government of Slaves in Malabar. — We know that there is not a servant of go- 
 vernment, in the south of India, who is not intimately acquainted with the alarming fact, 
 that hundreds of thousands of his fellow creatures are fettered down for life to the de- 
 graded destiny of slavery. We know that these unfortunate beings are not, as in other 
 countries, serfs of the soil, and incapable of being transferred, at the pleasure of their 
 owners, from one estate to another. No; they are daily sold like cattle, by one proprie- 
 tor to another ; the husband is separated from the wife, the parent from the child ; they 
 are loaded with every indignity ; the utmost quantity of labour is exacted from them 
 and the most meagre fare that human nature can possibly subsist on, is doled out to sup- 
 port them. The slave population is composed of a great variety of classes : The de- 
 scendants of those who have been taken prisoners in time of war ; persons who have 
 been kidnapped from the neighbouring states ; people who have been born under such 
 circumstances as that they are considered without the pale of the ordinary castes ; and 
 others who have been smuggled from the coast of Africa, torn from their country and 
 their kindred, and destined to a more wretched lot, and, as will be seen, to a more endu- 
 ring captivity than their brethren of the western world. IVUl it be believed that govern- 
 ment itself participates in this description of property; that it actually holds possession of 
 slaves, and lets them out for hire to the cultivators of the country, the rent of a whole family 
 being two f arums or half a rupee per annum ?" 
 
 But why dwell on these comparatively free slaves.' The whole of Hindostan, with 
 the adjac(mt possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more than one hun- 
 dred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in England, called the 
 East India company, whose power is far more unlimited and despotic than that of any 
 southern planter over his slaves — a power upheld by the sword and bayonet, exacting 
 more and leaving less of the product of their labour to the subject race than is left under 
 our own system, with much less regard to their comfort in sickness and age. 
 
seen that the number of petitioners had increased, in three short years, from 
 thirty-seven thousand to five hundred thousand. And this only includes the 
 number presented in the house of representatives ; those presented in the se- 
 nate not being taken into the estimate. 
 
 Besides this proof of the increase of abolitionists, I will refer to the increase 
 of the votes at each successive session against the resolutions providing for lay- 
 ing abolition petitions upon the table without debate. The vote against Pinck- 
 ney's resolutions ranged from 40 to 45. Against Patton's it was 60. Against 
 Johnson's, at the last congress, it was 70. 
 
 In addition to this, I will refer as proof of the increase of the abolitionists 
 to the rapidity of the increase of the number of their societies. In May 1835, 
 there were in the United States two hundred and twenty-five abolition societies. 
 In 1836 they numbered five hundred and twenty-seven. The number had ri- 
 sen in 1837 to one thousand and six. And in May 1838, they had run up to 
 one thousand three hundred and forty-six ! I have not seen a statement of 
 their increase since then ; but doubtless they have augmented in the same ratio. 
 These societies contained in 1838, one hundred and fifty thousand actual en- 
 rolled members. I derive these facts from the annual returns of the societies 
 themselves. 
 
 These facts, Mr. Speaker, will give you some idea of the rapidity with 
 which abolitionists are increasing, and of their present number; but there 
 are others not less important. In reply to the enquiry, " What proportion do 
 they (the abolitionists) bear in the population of the northern states? and 
 what in the middle non-slaveholding states?" Mr. Birney, the secretary of 
 the American anti-slavery society, and the best informed abolitionist in the 
 country, replied : 
 
 " Witliin the last ten months," (the letter from which I read is dated the 8th of March 
 1838, and is addressed to honourable F. H. Elmore of South Carolina,) "I have travel- 
 led extensively in both these geographical divisions. I have had whatever advantage 
 this, assisted by a strong interest in the general cause, and abundant conversations with 
 her best informed abolitionists, would give, for making a fair estimate of their numbers. 
 In the northern states, I should say there were one in ten. In New York, New Jersey 
 and Pennsylvania, one in ticenty of the whole adult population. That the abolitionists 
 have multiplied, and that they are still multiplying, no one acquainted with the small- 
 ness of their numbers, at their first organization a few years ago, and who has kept his 
 eyes about him since need ask." 
 
 In the letter, he goes into details to prove these statements. In speaking 
 of Massachusetts he says : 
 
 " The recording secretary of the Massachusetts society, stated a few weeks ago, that 
 the abolitionists in the various minor societies of that state were one in thirty of the 2chole 
 population. The proportion of abolitioni«te to tho whole population is greater in Massa- 
 chueotts tliun in any slate except Vermont." 
 
 Of Ohio, where, a few years since, a law was passed to facilitate the reco- 
 very of runaway slaves, he says : 
 
 "Her supreme court is intelligent and firm. It has lately decided virtually against 
 the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, made, in effect, to favour southern sla- 
 very by the persecution of the coloured people within her bounds. She has already abo- 
 litionists enough to turn the scale in her elections, and an abundance of excellent mate- 
 rial for augmenting the number." 
 
 A few years since, as I have already said, a law was passed in this state pro- 
 viding for carrying into effect the provision of the constitution of the United 
 States, in relation to fugitives from service. This law was passed in aid of 
 the law of congress upon the subject and is a faithful fulfilment of that state's 
 constitutional obligation. But this law has given rise to great excitement in 
 the state. It formed an important item in the late elections. Its repeal is 
 most vociferously demanded. It is denounced as the " Black Act." And, 
 should it be repealed, doubtless its advocates will go to another extreme and 
 pass a law similar to the law of New York. 
 
I will next call the attention of the house to the rapidity with which the 
 pecuniary means of these societies have augmented. I quote from their trea- 
 surer's report. The house will bear in mind that I give an account of the re- 
 sources of only one society — the society of the city of New York : 
 
 " The annual income of the societies at large it would be impossible to ascertain. The 
 total receipts of this society for the year ending 9th of May 1835, leaving out odd num- 
 bers, was - - - - - - $10,000 
 
 For the year ending 9th of May 1836, - - - 25,000 
 
 " " " 1837, - - - 38,000 
 
 " " " 1838, - - - 44,000 
 
 » » " 1839, . - - 47,700 
 
 And for " " 1840, - - - 47,900." 
 
 They account for the fact, that their increase was no greater the last year, 
 by the hardness of the times ; and they congratulate themselves that though 
 their increased receipts have not been great, yet that the number of contribu- 
 tors had greatly increased — the contributions from a few members not being 
 so large as before. These sums are independent of what is raised by state 
 and auxiliary societies. Also of sums paid for the subscription to newspa- 
 pers, for periodicals, pamphlets and essays, which are printed for sale. And 
 the society boasts, that 
 
 " The sums of money contributed to it is greater than is paid into the treasury of any 
 one of the benevolent societies of the country." 
 
 Here let me pause for a moment to call the attention of the house to the 
 use which is made of these funds. The society itself tells us that these funds 
 are used 
 
 " In paying lecturers and agents of various kinds — in upholding the press — in printing 
 books, pamphlets, tracts, «.tc. containing expositions of our principles, accounts of our 
 progress, refutations of objections, and disquisitions on points, scriptural, constitutional, 
 political, legal, economical, as they chance to occur and laecome important. In this office 
 (New York anti-slavery,) three secretaries are employed in different departments of duty ;. 
 one editor ; one publisliing agent with an assistant ; and two or three young men and boys 
 for folding, directing and dispatching papers. The business of the society has increased 
 so much of late, as to make it necessary, in order to ensure the proper dispatch of it, to 
 employ additional clerks for the particular exigency. Last year the society had in its 
 service about sixty permanent agents." 
 
 What a spectacle is here presented ? This parent abolition society of New 
 York, to say nothing about its auxiliaries, has in its constant employment more 
 officers than we have in this capitol to transact the business of this great com- 
 monwealth ! 
 
 Besides this use of the funds of the society, they are employed in distribu- 
 ting their various publicfitions, an account of some of which I will read to the 
 house. I read from Birney's letter before referred to, written in March 1838 : 
 
 "The ' Emancipator' and ' Human Rights' are the organs of the executive committee. 
 The first is a large sheet, and is published weekly. The 'Slave's Friend,' a small 
 monthly tract of neat appearance, intended principally for children and young persons, 
 has been issued for several years. It is replete with facts relating to slavery, and with 
 accounts of hair-breadth escapes of slaves from their masters and pursuers, that rarely fail 
 to impart the most thrilling interest to their little readers. Besides these, there is ' The 
 Anti-slavery Examiner.' * * * By turning to page 32 of our 4th Report, you will find that in 
 
 9 
 
 are" the issues of the American anti-slavery society from their ofliice in this city. Other 
 publications of a similar character are issued by state societies and individuals. The ' Li- 
 berator,' in Boston; ' The Herald of Freedom' in Concord, N. H., ' Zion's Watchman,' 
 and ' The Coloured American,' in this city, (New York.) The latter is conducted in its 
 editorial and other departments by coloured citizens. * * * Then there is the ' Friend of 
 Man,' in Utica. Tlie ' National Enquirer,' in Philadelphia. The ' Christian Witness,' in 
 Pittsburg, and ' The Philanthropist,' in Cincinnati. * * * * Many of the religious jour- 
 nals that do not make emancipation their main object, have adopted the sentiments of 
 abolitionists, and aid in promoting them. **«*«*«**** A large and fast increas- 
 
ing number of the political }ourna.\s of the country have become, within two years if not 
 the avowed supporters of our cause, well inclined to it. Formerly, it was a common thing 
 for most of the leading party papers, especially in the large cities, to speak of the abo- 
 litionists in terms signally disrespectful and offensive. Except in rare instances, and 
 these, it is thought, only where they are largely subsidized by southern patronao-e, it is 
 not so now. The desertions that are taking place from their ranks, will in a short time 
 render their position undesirable for any who aspire to gain influence or reputation in the 
 north." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, is there one individual within the sound of my voice whose at- 
 tention is not arrested by these facts ? Is there one, who, in the face of them, 
 can say that a strong feeling of hostility to our domestic institutions does not 
 pervade the northern states? Is there one who doubts that a most active and 
 insidious warfare is carried on against those institutions? A most malignant 
 fanaticism must prevail in those states. How else, in these days of universal 
 pecuniary pressure, do the abolitionists command such ample funds? If the 
 people were not deeply excited, such large contributions of money, in such 
 times, would not be made. If the subject was not one in which they took the 
 deepest interest, so many publications could not be sold or read. The subject 
 of slavery is one with which these people have no lawful authority to interfere. 
 Therefore they are not responsible for its existence. It is a matter with which 
 they have no concern of any sort; and yet we see the most flourishing socie- 
 ties in the country — the most powerful in numbers and means — ramified into 
 every portion of an entire section of this confederacy, devoting themselves with 
 zealots' perseverance to its discussion. We see them bringing to bear upon 
 us every means of attack. Openly assailing us, even through legislative enact- 
 ments, when that mode of warfare promises to be effectual ; and silently and 
 secretly, and insidiously sapping and undermining our institutions, when that 
 system is more likely to be successful. Every means is resorted to, in order 
 to excite the passions of the vicious, and to tamper with and pervert the con- 
 sciences of the good. Even the child is not to escape their arts. Publications 
 especially designed for him, are gotten up — in \yhich are inculcated, not the 
 lessons of virtue and patriotism, but of intolerance and faction. Publications 
 in which they are taught not to feel a patriot's attachment for every portion of 
 their country, but to hate the fairest section of it. In the spirit of the father 
 of his country, they do not teach their children that the union of these states is 
 the palladium of our liberties; that it was ordained to establish justice and in- 
 sure domestic tranquillity; that it originated in feelings of brotherly love, per- 
 vading every section of the country, which had been strengthened by the com- 
 mon dangers and common triumphs, in the war of the revolution; and that 
 the Union itself cannot survive the feelings in which it originated. But they 
 teach them to regard the mhabitants of one of the most patriotic divisions of 
 it, as monsters in human shape, inflicting every sort of injury and oppression 
 on their fellow man. Upon their tender minds are engrafted sentiments and 
 feelings incompatible with the Union. Sentiments which cause them to re- 
 gard us as unfit national associates for them ; and which renders them danger- 
 ous associates for us. And all this is done in the name of patriotism, virtue 
 and religion ! 
 
 What will be the bitter fruits of these efforts with the rising generation 
 time alone can definitely determine ; but what they will be, may be conjectured 
 from the effects which kindred efforts have produced upon the present. When 
 adult intellects were to be dealt with, we have seen with what facility they have 
 been prevented and poisoned. Look to the composition of most of the legis- 
 latures of the northern states for the last few years. There is scarcely one 
 of them which has not been under the control of abolitionists. I know of 
 but one, New Hampshire, she stands gloriously alone. Massachusetts and 
 Vermont outstrip all others. Scarcely a session of their legislatures passes 
 without their doing something offensive to us in relation to this subject, over 
 2 
 
10 
 
 which they have no control. But why refer to other instances, when the course 
 of the state of New York is before us ? The proceedings of her authorities 
 for the last two years establish one of two things : either that the state is in 
 the hands of abolitionists, or what is just as bad, if not worse, in the hands of 
 those who are willing to injure and insult us, and trample upon the constitu- 
 tion and laws to conciliate them. If the abolitionists were powerless, as is 
 alleged, the governor and legislature of the largest state in the Union would 
 not trample in the dust the obligations of the national compact, and their 
 oaths to sustain it, to propitiate them. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I put it to the candor of this house to say, if I have not es- 
 tablished the proposition with which I set out, that the feeling in favour of 
 abolitionism has increased in the non-slaveholding states; that it prevails there 
 to a fearful extent, and that it is still increasing. But, sir, I should do very 
 inadequate justice to the subject were I to stop here. The world seems at 
 this time to be labouring under a monomania upon this subject, with which 
 our country is only suffering in common with others. To establish this, and 
 to bring before the house other evidence of the activity and art of the aboli- 
 tionists, I ask its attention to the proceedings of The World's Convention, 
 as it is ambitiously called. This convention assembled in London in June 
 1840. There were 493 delegates present. They were from every part of the 
 United Kingdom, France, Spain, the United States, Hayti, the British West 
 Indies, the Mauritius, Sierra Leone and other parts of the world. Distin- 
 guished members of the British parliament and of the French chamber of de- 
 puties took the lead in this convention. In reply to the question how English- 
 men could affect slavery in the southern states of this Union, they were told 
 "That the abolitionists of the United States demanded the aid of public 
 opinion of the religious and literary influence of England." How this lite- 
 rary influence is to be brought to bear I need not inform the house. Under 
 the operation of our copy right laws, the trash of the English press is circula- 
 ted throughout the country to the exclusion of every thing else. And I am 
 not left by the convention to conjecture how the religious influence of Eng- 
 land is to operate. I quote from a minute account of the proceedings of the 
 convention : 
 
 " The Rev. John Angell James brought up from one of the committees a series of re- 
 solutions on church discipline as connected with slavery. These resolutions which were 
 unanimously adopted, after an animated debate, are grounded on the recognition of the 
 'essential sinfulness if slavery.' 'They declare that it is the incumbent duty of chris- 
 tian communities to separate slaveholders from their communion; and that christians 
 ought to have no fellowship with slaveholders.' 'This bow,' they say, 'is not drawn at 
 a venture, but with sure aim at the very heart of the monster. Drive out American 
 slavery from the presence of the sanctuary, and its doom is sealed." 
 
 This, Mr. Speaker, is a part of the plan of operation. The slaveholder is 
 to be put under the ban of the church, and excommunication is to be his doom. 
 What influence these efforts are to produce, those can answer who know the 
 control which the church has exerted, in every country, over the consciences 
 and actions of its members. Its authority knows no rebuke, and it inculcates 
 doctrines which admits, in the language of Mr. Stanly, " of no palliation or 
 compromise." 
 
 Besides these facts, the proceedings of the World's Convention disclose 
 others of a most important character. Facts which establish what I have as- 
 serted, that this abolition fanaticism pervades almost every nation of the earth. 
 After encouraging and profiting by it for centuries, all of a sudden they seem 
 to be awakened to its sinfulness. With an inconsistency, which could cha- 
 racterize fanatics alone, they grind to the dust their own subjects, and at the 
 same time preach up crusades against African slavery. France, we are told, 
 is pledged to emancipation. " The only question is the time and the mode." 
 Denmark has already commenced the work. Holland and Sweden have but 
 
11 
 
 few slaves, and they will be carried along by the influences operating around 
 them. Spain must follow — she is Catholic. The pope has lately come out 
 against slavery. No one at all acquainted with history need be told of the su- 
 perstitious influence which the Church of Rome exerts over her devotees. 
 While these states were colonies, the King of England refused to sanction 
 laws prohibiting the slave trade. Now the Queen's husband presides at an 
 abolition meeting ! 
 
 Mr. Speaker, 1 do not wish to play the alarmist. Were I to attempt it, I 
 should meet with any thing but sympathy from the members of this house or 
 their constituents. But, sir, the people of the southern states of this confe- 
 deracy ought not to be inattentive to what is passing around them. These 
 facts must arrest their attention, if they do not excite their vigilance. 
 
 Before I dismiss the reference to the facts disclosed by the proceedings of 
 this World's Convention, allow me to call the attention of the house to one of 
 an important character. The account to which I have already referred states : 
 " From a census, expressly taken for the use of the convention, of the fugi- 
 tives from American slavery, they are found to amount to 15,000, and these 
 numbers are daily augmenting." O'Connell proposes that these shall be 
 placed by the British government " on the footing of political refugees." Those 
 who know O'Connell's influence in the British government, and are ac- 
 quainted with the fact that Prince Albert presides at abolition meetings, can 
 form some idea of the chance of success of this scheme. 
 
 I have thus, Mr. Speaker, given the house an imperfect and I fear tedious 
 account of the present extent of abolitionism. I will now ask its attention for 
 a moment, to the plan of operation of the abolitionists in this country. I do this 
 to trace governor Seward's course, and the action of the legislature of New 
 York, directly to their influence, if not to their dictation. This I am prepared 
 to do, with a certainty which will defy doubt or refutation. 
 
 When the abolitionist is asked what he expects to gain by the discussion 
 against slavery at the north, where it does not exist, and amongst people who 
 have no legal control over the matter ? When he is asked what hope he has 
 of convincing southern men, if that be his object, of the sinfulness of slavery, 
 when they will not let him approach them? He answers, (I quote from the 
 annual report of the New York abolition society for 1838, page 108) : 
 
 " Such objections have been numerous from the outset. But they misapprehend the 
 scope and power of our plan. It is true, that the conviction of the mass of slaveholders 
 by reason and argument, directly and exclusively applied to them, is a task utterly hope- 
 less. So intelligent abolitionists have ever regarded it. To apply arguments to the mass 
 of slaveholders, with any prospect of success, certain obstacles and shields must be re- 
 moved out of the way — there must be a regeneration of opinion in the rest of the icorld. 
 All this is embraced in the plan of our society. The main application of truth first to be 
 made was to the minds of those least interested against it. Action upon the south was 
 rather intended to draw forth facts in relation to slavery which sliould produce results 
 elsewhere. The seed sown there was not e.\pected to vegetate till the surrounding at- 
 mosphere should be made sufficiently warm. The great work lay and still lies at the north. 
 What has thus far been achieved is a demonstration that free states can be, and probably 
 soon will be, abolitionized — that a majority of the people of all sects and parties will hold 
 and avow the sentiments professed by the anti-slavery societies. The practical question 
 which now arises is — What effect will such a state of things hare upon the slavery of the 
 south"" 
 
 This question is answered at great length, and with great minuteness in the 
 report from which I am reading. The position that abolitionism at the north 
 will only confirm the south in its present attitude, is first argued against. They 
 insist that as soon as the north is completely abolitionized, the south will 
 follow : 
 
 "Men," they say, "often cordially and sincerely embrace an opinion in its preva- 
 lence which, in the infancy of its power, they utterly opposed and defied." 
 
12 
 
 The report then goes into a specification to shew how the north is to ope- 
 rate upon the south : 
 
 "Bring up sufficient counter-interest to those which now drive them to oppose aboli- 
 tionism." 
 
 " The first great interest which the abolitionized north will bring to bear upon the south 
 is that which belongs to the power and patronage of the federal government. The north 
 has a majorit}- of the people, a majority of seats in the house of representatives, and she 
 can have a casting vote in the senate, for she is absolutely able to appoint both the president 
 and vice-president. This power she ought, and icill tvield, in all constitutional icays, against 
 the common foe of our country. Here a motive of immense power will be presented to 
 the politicians of the south, and she is singularly prolific of politicians. Whatever may 
 be said of the insufliciency of this power when exerted alone, it cannot but be efficient in 
 conne.xion with others. Let it not be said that the controversy will thus become a merely 
 sectional one — tlie whole north against the whole south. It should not be forgotten that 
 a great portion of the people of the south, in some states a majority, were for abolition- 
 ists, irhen they even, huvc stares. These people never go to tlie polls, and perhaps never 
 will, but the moment government begins to sympathize with them, they will have their 
 representatives in congress. Tlie^r will then form too important an object in the politi- 
 cal horoscope to be neglected.' 
 
 The argument is then presented that the present high price of slaves is the 
 great obstacle to emancipation. Destroy their value, say the abolitionists, and 
 you dispose the south to abolition : 
 
 " The ascendancy of abolitionism at the north will, for numerous reasons, decrease the 
 value of the slave. To keep up the value of them, it is necessary that employment 
 should be found for them, increasing in the ratio as the slaves themselves; and to give 
 this employment, far more capital is required, than to employ free labour. Where is this 
 capital to come from.'' From the free states.' But will it go from the free states after 
 slavery is put upon the footing with piracy? Who will then accumulate a fortune by 
 slavery, with a view of spending it at the north.' They will as soon think of doing it 
 in another and not worse species of piracy. Who will then invest his capital in southern 
 lands and slaves .' The great stream of enterprize and capital which has heretofore set 
 from the north to the south, giving value to slaves, will be cut off". Should this not re- 
 sult from the aroused conscientiousness of the capitalists, it will from their apprehensions. 
 Who will buy an estate, tliC title to which is generally considered worthless." 
 
 But I dismiss minor points and come at once to the main one. The discus- 
 sion of the subject of abolition at the north and in congress, they say, will de- 
 crease the value of the slaves, by 
 
 "The interest which they themselves will take in the discussion. In spite of all pre- 
 cautions, the slaves will become acquainted with what so deeply interests them; and so 
 far as they do, s(>lf-respect will be regenerated — an excellent and profitable sentiment for 
 a free lahovrer, but ruinous to the slare. It was the testimony of the planters of Jamaica 
 before the British parliament that their slaves became acquainted with all that passed in 
 respect to them in the mother country, and were thereby too much excited to fill the 
 places of slaves with slavish obedience." 
 
 The knowledge of the slave, that a portion of the whites are exerting them- 
 selves for his emancipation, upon the ground that he is illegally held in bon- 
 dage, will make him, they say, impatient in his servitude. It will make him 
 sullen and moody. It will incite him to indulge dreams of freedom in another 
 land which he can never enjoy in his own. He will be reduced to a condition 
 in which his master cannot rely upon his labour. He will be disposed to run 
 away; and at a time when his services can be least spared. The master will 
 be subjected to constant and heavy expense to recapture him. He u'ill thus 
 become to his owner a source of vexation rather than comfort, of trouble and 
 expense rather than profit. To establish these facts there is copied in the re- 
 port the following extract of a letter from a man at the south to whose sister a 
 gentleman of New York had sent two abolition pamphlets : — " Do you remem- 
 ber the two books you sent out to my sister by me? My two black boys, Wil- 
 liam and Jim, who lived better and easier than I did, read them, and in conse- 
 quence run off", and after eleven days riding, and $267 cost, I got them, and 
 nov/ their place is wretched by their own conduct, as I sold them at a loss of 
 $ 900 to a trader." The report then goes on to urge that to increase the de- 
 
13 
 
 sire and disposition of the slave to run away to the greatest possible pitch it 
 is necessary that the northern states should adopt such a course of policy as 
 to render his recaption impossible after he has escaped there. The effect 
 which such a course of policy would produce, in decreasing the value of 
 slaves is then minutely exemplified. The report then urges upon the northern 
 states to pass laws, providing such a mode of trial in the case of fugitives 
 from labor, as will enable them to raise the question of the legality of 'the 
 bondage in which lie is held. It is true that in the proceeding authorized by 
 the constitution of the United States, the question of the right of the slave to 
 freedom does not arise. It is true that the master is only required to shew 
 that the slave was held to service in the state from which he fled, without 
 shewing that he was legally held to service — that question could only be tried 
 in the state from which he fled. It is true that the master is only required to 
 produce jwr//H« facie proof of ownership, w'ithout being put to a formal asser- 
 tion of his rights by a suit at the common law.* But these abolitionists say 
 that one man cannot be the property of another, and that he can only be held 
 to service or labour hy a contract freely entered into by him. And they insist 
 that such laws shall be enacted as will enable the courts to pass upon the ques- 
 tion of the legality of slavery. What care they that such a law would be re- 
 pugnant to the constitution. They insist that the law of congress is unconsti- 
 tutional, and they rely upon the opinion of Chancellor Walworth of New York 
 in the case of Jack rmf^ Martin, 14 Wendell, and of Chief Justice Hornblower, 
 in the case of Nathan Himesley vs. Maywood, as authority. They further 
 urge the passage of such a law by the northern states, upon the ground that 
 the laws of some of the southern states permitting slavery are unconstitution- 
 al, and that the slave ought to have an opportunity to test them whenever he 
 escapes to the north. They say that " the citizens of Virginia and Maryland 
 have no right by their own constitutions to hold slaves in their own territory, 
 much less to recover them from other states." They, by the followino- reason- 
 ing, undertake to establish this proposition : 
 
 " In tlie constitution of Virginia there exists a decfaration of rights of equal force 
 with that contained in the constitution of Massachusetts. We give them side by side : 
 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 " All men are by nature equally freo and 
 independent, and have certain inherent 
 rights, of which, when they enter into a 
 state of society, they cannot, by any com- 
 pact, deprive or divest their posterity, 
 namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, 
 witli the means of acquiring and possessing 
 property, and pursuing and obtaining hap- 
 piness and safety." 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 " All men are born free and equal, and 
 have certain natural, essential and unalien- 
 able rights ; among which may be reckoned 
 the right of enjoying and defending their 
 lives and liberties, that of acquiring, pos- 
 sessing and protecting property ; in fine 
 that of seeking and obtaining their safety 
 and happiness." 
 
 , «^ Now, the constitution of Massachusetts, by virtue of th(5 above cited article, was held 
 by its courts to have abolished slavery, and since 1780 it has not existed in that common- 
 wealth. Hence, if the doctrine of Massachusetts was sound, slavery is at this moment 
 unconstitutional in Virginia. But an unconstitutional law is no law. When a person 
 is claimed before an upright magistrate, who believes in the Massachusetts doctrine, as a 
 slave of a citizen of Virginia, he must necessarily be released. The claimant can brino- 
 no law of Virginia which will not be set aside by its own supreme law. The citizens ol" 
 Virginia and Maryland have no right by their own constitutions to hold slaves in their 
 own territory, much less to recover them from other states. So much for the two prin- 
 cipal border states." 
 
 I do not doubt but that the courts of New York will carry out these views 
 if the law of that state of the 6th of May last is permitted to remain upon her 
 statute book. Acting under that law, they would be sustained by high judi- 
 
 * Story on the Constitution, vol. 3, p. 676. 
 
14 
 
 cial authority in doing it. The decision of the district court of the United 
 States for Connecticut in the Amistad case, would sustain them in doing what 
 the constitution and the law of congress does not authorize, in goino- behind 
 the fact that the fugitive was held to service in the state from which he fled 
 and in investigating the legality of the claim to that service. And the deci- 
 sions of the highest judicial tribunals of Massachusetts, would authorize them 
 to pronounce slavery in Virginia unconstitutional and illegal. 
 
 The decision in the Amistad case was procured by the abolitionists. The 
 facts of that case are briefly these : Two Spanish subjects had purchased a 
 large number of slaves in Havana, and under a permit of the authorities of 
 Spain, in which each slave was named, they started with them in the schooner 
 Amistad from that place to another port in Cuba. After they were out a few , 
 days, the negroes rose upon the white persons on board. The captain, his 
 slave and two seamen were killed. The negroes got possession of the vessel, 
 and compelled two Spaniards who were wounded to navigate her. By altering 
 the steering at night, they contrived to bring her on the coast of the United 
 States, instead of carrying her to Africa, as required by the negroes. She 
 was captured by the brig Washington and carried into New London. The 
 Spanish minister demanded that the vessel, negroes, &c. should be surren- 
 dered to their owners, under our treaty with Spain. That treaty provides that 
 '' all ships and merchandize of what nature soever, which shall be rescued out 
 of the hands of pirates or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into 
 some port of either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the oflicers 
 of that port, in order to be taken care of and restored entire to the true pro- 
 prietor." 
 
 The abolitionists immediately took the case in hand, and all their sym- 
 pathies were at once excited in favour of these negroes. It is true their hands 
 were wreaking with the blood of white men. It is true they stood before the 
 court as murderers and assassins. But they were black and their victims were 
 white. Thfit was enough to excite the sympathy of the abolitionist. Sub- 
 scriptions were gotten up for their defence. An advertisement for this purpose 
 was inserted in a New York paper, and in these times of pecuniary pressure, 
 twelve thousand dollars were subscribed in a few hours ! The abolitionists 
 insisted before the court that these negroes were not legally held in bondage 
 in Cuba, because they had been imported since the prohibition of the slave 
 trade. The Spanish minister insisted that the courts of the United States had 
 no right to inquire into the validity of the Spaniard's title to these negroes un- 
 der the laws of Spain ; if they were held there as property that was suflicient 
 for the court; and the validity of their title, under the Spanish laws, could 
 only be tried by Spanish tribunals. But the court decided otherwise ; held 
 that they were illegally held as slaves in Cuba; and the judge disgraced him- 
 self by falling into the cant of the abolitionists in his judicial decision, and 
 declaring that " although they might be stained w^ith crime, yet they should 
 not sigh in vain for Africa." 
 
 I have shevv^n that the law of New York of May last, which is discussed in 
 the report of the committee, is just such a law as tlie abolitionists desired ; 
 and it will also be seen for what purpose they desired that it should be enacted. 
 
 But before I proceed further, and while I have the report of the abolition 
 society in my hands, I will refer to a portion of it which contradicts an asser- 
 tion which we constantly hear made. We constantly hear it said that the abo- 
 litionists do not desire to incite the slaves to insurrection. In noticing the ar- 
 gument that the efibrts of the abolitionists would encourage insurrection, the 
 report says : 
 
 " If a ray of hopo penetrates their gloom, though the chink througli whicli it passes he 
 never so small, it will banish all thought of insurrection while it shines. Though while 
 hope of relief from some quarter holds out, the slave will abstain from rebellion, it is not 
 
15 
 
 to be expected that they will continue to do so if this hope shall fade away. Once let 
 them come to an understanding of their rights, and the master will be forced to the alter- 
 native of giving them, or of suifering them to be taken. Though our business is with 
 the master — though it is for him and his political equals we print and lecture — yet we 
 have now pledo-ed ourselves to present, what, it is impossible should be prevented^ the 
 slaves from getting knowledge that we are printing and lecturing. After our operations 
 have, for a fair probationary space, displaced all thoughts of insurrection by a better hope 
 of deliverance, if the masters disappoint that hope, the consequences must be upon their 
 own heads," 
 
 The report from which I have been readmg was made in the city of New 
 York, in May 1838. In it the abolitionists shew that it is a matter of the ut- 
 most importance for the success of their plans that the northern states shall 
 be made a refuge for fugitive slaves. To make them so, it was necessary that 
 laws should be enacted rendering the recapture of fugitive slaves impossible, 
 and that the executive of the state should take such a course in reference to 
 fugitives from justice, as would offer impunity to such persons as should en- 
 courage and aid their flight. To accomplish these purposes it was necessary 
 that they should get control of the executive and legislative departments of 
 the government. Hence, in states where slavery did not exist, we have wit- 
 nessed, what, until now, was unintelligible, that the sentiments of candidates 
 for even state offices, in regard to abolition, was made a test in their elec- 
 tions. The condition, bitterness and blindness of party politics has enabled 
 them to get confrol of the government of most of the northern states. The 
 abolitionists are powerful in numbers, as I have shewn, and they are still more 
 powerful in position. The two great political parties in the country are nearly 
 equally balanced; and the abolition faction hanging between them is enabled 
 to give the proponderance to which ever party it may join. It was necessary 
 to conciliate abolitionists to gain power, and being gained it could only be re- 
 tained by absolute subserviency to them. 
 
 I have thus shewn how it is, that the abolitionists have got control of the 
 government of New York; and having control of it, that the public func- 
 tionaries have implicitly entered up their edicts, though in defiance of the con- 
 stitution. Gov. Seward in furtherance of their plan of warf\u-e upon our 
 rights and property, declares that the person who entices our slaves from us 
 commits no offence ; and that if he escape to New York no punishment shall 
 await him. And the legislature of the state passes a law which makes the re- 
 capture of the slave himself impossible. Thus, has the action of the gover- 
 nor of New York, and of the legislature of that state, been traced directly to 
 the influence of the abolitionists. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I designed to point out the most mischievous consequences 
 which would be most likely to result from the course of the governor 
 of New York ; and also to examine, somewhat more in detail than is done in 
 the report of the select committee, the provisions of the law of New York 
 which is discussed in it. But I forbear to do so. I have already extended my 
 remarks to a length which I did not wish; and I have yet a- good deal of 
 (rround to go over. I earnestly entreat such members of the house as have not 
 read that report, to give it a careful perusal, particularly that part of it which 
 discusses the law of New York of the 6th of May last. And I also beg them 
 to read the report which I had the honor of making from the select committee 
 of last winter. It is to be found in the acts of assembly of 1840, page 155. 
 In this latter report, the fallacy and dangerous tendency of the course of go- 
 vernor Seward is discussed. 
 
 Important, therefore, as this branch of the subject is, I must content myself 
 with the summary which is made of it in the reports of last winter and this. 
 In the report of last winter it is said : 
 
 " The positions of the governor of New York, when carried to their legitimate results, lead 
 to consequences of a most frightful character, and which, as it seems to your committee, 
 
16 
 
 could not have been duly weighed by him. The governor of New York says, it is no offence 
 to steal a slave, because one man cannot be the property of another, and cannot therefore 
 be the subject of tiieft If, for these reasons, it be no ofience to steal a slave and carry him 
 to New York, it would be none to steal him and carry him to Louisiana. Surely, in such a 
 case, it would make no difference whether the thief steered north or south after commit- 
 ting his robbery. — The consequence is, if a citizen of New York were to come into this 
 state, inveigle a cargo of our slaves on board his vessel, under the pretext that he meant to 
 take them to some ' land of liberty,' and should carry them to Louisiana and sell them in 
 the New Orleans market, and should tliereafter take refuge in New York, he would be free 
 from arrest, and could not be made to expiate his crime. And without wishing to make any 
 unjustifiable attack upon the citizens of any state of this Union, your committee would be 
 wanting in candour, if they exi)ressed a doubt that such a case, if "the course of the governor 
 of New York should be persevered in, would be of probable and frequent occurrence^ Thera 
 are bad men in every country who will commit offences when they can profit by it, and do it 
 with impunity. But what is still more probable, (if the cour.se of the governor of New York 
 be acquiesced in,) is, that those deluded enlhusiasts at the north, who, in pursuit of some- 
 thing they know not what, are spending thousands and thousands in efforts which they must 
 see, if they be not blinder than any one, except a fanatic, ever yet was, can never accom- 
 plish their object, will attempt to make those efforts practically efficient, by coming into our 
 state and making it a labour of virtue to steal our slaves and convey them to a more galling 
 bondage than they now suffer, in the northern states. 
 
 " Suppose one of those northern fanatics, who believing that the shedding of the blood of 
 the wives and children of soutiiern slaveholders, would be but an acceptable ofterino- in the 
 eyes of God, should come among us, and after inciting our slaves to insurrection, and aid- 
 ing and abetting them in it, should escape into New York, consistency would compel the go- 
 vernor of New York to refuse to deliver him up for trial and punishment. He would say 
 one man cannot be the property of another. These negroes, theretcire, wtre held in illeo-al 
 bondage, and the person who aided them in their effort to throw it off, only performed a meri- 
 torious action." 
 
 There are other consequences which might be pointed out. Suppose a mas- 
 ter should attempt to correct his slave, and the slave should resist, and carry 
 his resistance to violence. Under the doctrine of governor Seward, he would 
 not be guilty of any offence. If he be not the property of the master, he has 
 no right to correct him, and were he to do it, the common law right of self- 
 defence would justify resistance and violence. 
 
 I must again entreat the house to refer to the report of the select committee 
 for the provisions and the character of the law of New York of May last, 
 for I cannot do more here than read the summary of it from that report : 
 
 " In its first seiition it provides ' that the claim to the service of the alleged fugitive' shall 
 be tried by a jury. Take this provision of the law in conne.xion with the doclrine avowed 
 by the governor of the state, and sanctioned by the state, ' that one man cannot be tlie pro- 
 perty of another,' and what prospect would a master have of getting a verdict in his favour 
 under any ciicumstances. Can it be believed that a jury could ever be impannelled, upon 
 which the active abolitionists of New York could not get one man to act upon a principle de- 
 liberately avowed by the executive, and sanctioned by the state.' In that continirency, a ver- 
 dict in favour of the claimant would be impossible. The Cth- section makes the finding of the 
 jury conclusive, gives an appeal to the slave as a matter of right, and denies it, under any 
 circumstances, to the master. But if by mere possibility a verdict should be rendered in fa- 
 vour of the claimant, the 7th section provides a pretext for the rescue of the slave, by declar- 
 ing that without any unnecessary delay, he shall be removed out of the state ' o/i t/te direct 
 route to the stale from which he fled. The 8th section provides, tliat if the verdict is in fa- 
 vour of the slave, that he shall never thereafter be molested ; and that if any person shall re- 
 move him out of the state, ^ under any processor proceeding tchat ever,' he shall be deemed 
 guilty of kidnapping, and upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state pris(m for a term 
 not exceeding ten years. This provision is obviously designed to deter the master from ap- 
 plying to the federal judiciary, and punish him if he take the slave out of the state, even 
 by virtue of its process. The 9th section secures the slave every advantage of legal de- 
 fence at tl-,e cost of the state; the Kith makes the claimant liable for the costs of the trial, 
 should he be unsuccessful, as he could not but be ; and the 11th makes him responsible for a 
 large portion of then) in any event. The ]2lh requires the complainant, before he commen- 
 ces his proceedings, to give bond in the penalty of one thousand dollars, with two securities, 
 * inhabitants and freeholders of the state,' conditioned to pay all costs and expenses, to pay 
 two dollars a week for the keeping of the slave during the proceedings ; and in the event that 
 the verdict of the jury is again.-5t the claimant, that he shall pay all costs and expenses, the 
 fugitive's as well as his own, and in addition pay the fugitive one hundred dollars and all 
 damages, which he may sustain ! Which damages might be assessed by a jury, composed of 
 abolitionists. The 15th ensures interminable delays, by authorizing the slave at any time to 
 take out commissions to examine witnesses in other states j while the same privilege is de- 
 
17 
 
 nied t. the master. The IGth section is designed to annul that clause of the act of congress 
 which authorizes any state magistrate to issue a warrant for removing a fugitive slave to the 
 state from winch he fled. The 17th punishes with a heavy fine and imprisonment in the pe- 
 nitenliarj, any person who shall attempt to remove a slave from New York by any such war- 
 rant; and inflicts like penalties on anyone who shall exercise his ritrht of recapturinff his 
 slave wherever found; or seize him under the law of congress." "^ 
 
 The provisions of this law speaks for itself; but to shew the hostile feeling 
 in which it was adopted, I refer to the circumstances attending its passage : 
 
 " After the proceedings of the general assembly of Virginia were communicated to the le- 
 gislature of New York, Mr. Mann, a distinguished member of the house of assembly of that 
 state, introduced the following resolution, viz : 
 
 " ' Resolved, That the legislature has seen with deep regret, and decidedly disapproves and 
 condemns the eff'orts of many misguided individuals in the northern states to interfere, with- 
 out right, and in violation of the principles on which the constitution of the United States 
 was established, with the domestic institutions of our sister states at the south : thereby dis- 
 turbing the domestic peace of the states, weakening the bonds of our Union, and sowing the 
 seeds of its dissolution.' 
 
 " Another member having the floor, made a most violent speech against the resolution ; and 
 t'l cut ofl:' reply, demanded the previous question, which was sustained by his party. Under 
 this gag, tlie resolution was voted down : by 40 yeas, to 57 nays; but the abolition majority 
 did not stop here. Subsequently, they introduced and passed the law which I am discussing. 
 This act wiis originally introduced into the house of representatives. Mr. Roosevelt moved 
 to amend it, so as to provide ' that so far as respects the penalty of imprisonment in the state 
 prison, it shall not be construed to extend to any claimant of a fugitive slave who shall have 
 obtained the certificate of a judge or other officer, authorizing the removal of such slave, pur- 
 suant to the act of the congress of the United States, in such cases made and provided.' 'This 
 amendment was adopted by a vote of 47 to 37. 
 
 " The bill then went to the senate. The section exempting southern men from ten years 
 confinement in the penitentiary, for proceeding, according to the act of congress, to recapture 
 their runaway slaves, did not suit the spirit of abolition. So the senate slr°uck out the pro- 
 vision added upon Mr. Roosevelt's motion in the house; and more effectually to enforce 
 what that section was designed to prevent, there were added the 10th and 17th sections 
 of the bill. For the character of these sections, I refer to the report of the special com- 
 mittee." 
 
 Thus amended, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 15 to 4 ; and was 
 concurred in by the house, by a vote of 42 to 31. 
 
 Having said thus much in relation to the wrong which we are sufferino- at 
 the hands of New York, and of the origin of her measures, I beg leave now 
 to call the attention of the house to the character of the remedy proposed. In 
 discussing it, I shall adopt the order of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. 
 Scott) and follow him step by step through his argument. 
 
 What we complain of is, that the policy of New York endangers our slave 
 property, by oflering impunity to those who entice away and carry off our 
 slaves, and by encouraging the slave himself to run away, by making his re- 
 capture impossible. The remedy proposed meets the mischief by providing 
 against their running away, and against their being stolen from us. I will not 
 go into a minute analysis of the bill. It is in the hands of members, and its 
 provisions are simple and plain. It provides that no New York vessel shall 
 depart from our waters until she is inspected, to see that no slaves are con- 
 cealed on board. It requires the captain or owner, or some person for them, 
 of all vessels owned in New York, to give bond with security, that they will 
 not take any slaves out of the state, without the authority of the master. And 
 it offers standing rewards to all pilots and other persons who shall detect any 
 such vessel in carrying or attempting to carry any slaves out of the state. All 
 of the expenses of the in.spection &c. to be borne by the master or owner of 
 the vessel. 
 
 The direct effect of the law will be to prevent the escape of slaves in ves- 
 sels, and that is their principal avenue of escape. The captain and owner of 
 all New York vessels, having given a heavy bond not to take any slaves out of 
 the commonwealth, will not attempt it for fear of detection, (though it may 
 not be very probable,) by which he will forfeit his bond. He will know that 
 3 
 
18 
 
 a high reward is offered to any person, even one of his own crew, who shall 
 detect him in any such attempt ; and that all pilots, under a strong pecuniary 
 stimulus to vigilance, are made centinels to guard our property ; and the 
 standing reward will make every man in society a watch upon him. The in- 
 direct effect of the law will not be less beneficial. It will have a tendency 
 to create in New York a counter party to the abolitionists. The commer- 
 cial portion of the community will see that they are subjected to harassing and 
 expensive regulations in consequence of measures adopted by their state au- 
 thorities to conciliate them ; they will insist that their interests shall not be 
 injured, that the abolitionists may be indulged in relation to a matter with 
 which they have nothing to do, and over which they can assert no rightful 
 control. I have already shewn that the great source of strength of the aboli- 
 tionists is their position. Their support being necessary to party success, the 
 politicians have not been fastidious as to the means of securing it. They were 
 willing to do anything to please them, as long as it did not offend any of their con- 
 stituents, even though in doing it they violated the constitution of the U. States. 
 But as soon as they find that they cannot indulge the abolitionists without of- 
 fending another and more worthy class of society, they will pause in their ag- 
 gression. Nay they will be forced to repair those they have already made. 
 When the commercial men find that the burdensome regulations of this bill 
 will be repealed as soon as those measures of New York which have made them 
 necessary are abandoned, they will require that justice shall be done us. They 
 will see that we are right in protecting ourselves against unconstitutional ag- 
 gressions, and they will not complain of those measures of protection, but of 
 those acts which made them necessary. But if the influence of the bill will 
 not be sufficient to cause New York to retrace her steps, and it shall be car- 
 ried into effect, it will encourage our own coasting trade. And as soon as the 
 trade is thrown into the hands of our own people, our property will be com- 
 paratively safe, for we are in no danger of their carrying it off. 
 
 Having thus shewn the principal features and recommendations of the bill, 
 I will turn to tlie objections made to it by the gentleman from Fauquier. 
 And I cannot withhold the expression of my regret, that in his long argu- 
 ment, I heard so little to approve, and so much to which I must attempt a 
 reply. 
 
 The gentleman, very early in his remarks, with a view I presume of giving 
 weight to them, said that his constituents had as large an interest in this ques- 
 tion as the constituents of any other member upon this floor ; and com- 
 plained that though they were thus interested, the bill afforded them no pro- 
 tection. I take issue with him. I know his county is a large slaveholding 
 county ; but its geographical position secures it from most of the mischiefs 
 emanating from the course of New York. His county not only does not lie 
 upon any water course, but there are populous counties between him and na- 
 vigation. Though the negroes in his county may run away, they do not fre- 
 quently, I presume, escape to New York ; and if they do, it must be by getting 
 to the rivers and escaping in vessels. They can, from his county, much more 
 easily get to other non-slaveholding states. It is different with us who are 
 near the sea, the bay and navigable rivers, which are swarming with New 
 York craft. We are directly exposed to all the mischiefs resulting from the 
 course of that state. 
 
 But does the bill afford the county of the gentleman and others similarly 
 situated, no protection? It certainly tends to prevent the escape of slaves to 
 New York in vessels. This is admitted. Will they ever go there in any 
 other manner ? They cannot get there, except in vessels, without going 
 through non-slaveholding states; and after getting to Pennsylvania, for in- 
 stance, as those from the gentleman's county would do, or to Ohio, there 
 would be no motive to go to New York. If they feared pursuit, they would 
 
19 
 
 sooner go to Canada. They could do it as easily, and there they would be 
 more secure from re-caption. Besides, if the effect of the bill will be, as I 
 contend it will, to open the eyes of the people of New York, and cause her 
 authorities to retrace their steps, will not his constituents, equally with mine 
 reap the advantage of it ? 
 
 I think that this bill will afford protection to every section of the com- 
 monwealth — a protection which will be in the ratio of their exposure. It 
 is the best measure which has suggested itself to me, and I have anxiously 
 pondered upon the subject. Nevertheless, I am not wedded to it. My only 
 wish is, to adopt the most efficient and least objectionable remedy. If, there- 
 fore, the gentleman will propose a better plan, one which shall afford greater 
 protection to his people, I pledge myself to go for it, and with zeal too. He 
 will not find in me an opponent prepared "to find or forge a fault;" but an 
 active and zealous coadjutor. 
 
 Sir, I will give up my own bantling with pleasure, if the gentleman will 
 present me with one more comely. But I put it to him, if it is not unphilo- 
 sophical and unstatesmanlike, to object to one measure, when some action is 
 necessary, until he is prepared to offer a better ? 
 
 But he seems to think that no action is necessary or proper for us at this 
 time; and in reply to a remark of mine, made in a former stage of this de- 
 bate, that we were pledged by the resolutions of last winter to efficient action, 
 he said that he did not consider that we were so pledged, and that he cer- 
 tainly was not. 
 
 I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the gentleman considers himself 
 pledged or not to action. At the last session, he made a speech against the 
 2d resolution, which, in my estimation, does pledge us to efficient action, and 
 then voted for it. Now, I do not know which he regards as most obligatory 
 upon him, his speech or his vote. But, as no other member is in his^situa- 
 tion, and as the resolution, in its very terms, contains what I esteem a pledge, 
 I think I may still insist that we are pledged to some action. The 2d resolu- 
 tion adopted by the legislature is in these words : 
 
 " Resolved, That the course pursued by the executive of New York, cannot be acqui- 
 esced in ; and if sanctioned by that state, and persisted in, it will become the solemn duty 
 of Virginia to adopt the most decisive and efficient measures for the protection of the pro- 
 perty of her citizens, and the maintenance of rights, which she cannot and will not, un- 
 der any circumstances, surrender or abandon." 
 
 Can language be clearer or more explicit? I put it to the house if this re- 
 solution is not as direct a committal to adopt efficient measures for the pro- 
 tection of the property of the citizens of this state, in the event that New 
 York should persist in her course, as a legislative body could make? Has the 
 state of New York sanctioned the course of her governor, and is that 
 course persisted in ? I have but little to add to what is said in the report of 
 the select committee upon this point. The reasoning there advanced, if I may so 
 speak of my own production, seems to me to be conclusive. But since that re- 
 port was drawn, other facts have transpired to fortify the conclusion arrived at 
 in it. The demand for the surrender of these three fugitives from justice was 
 made by the executive of Virginia in July 1839. Governor Seward refused to 
 deliver them for the reasons heretofore adverted to. We remonstrate against 
 his course. We express the conviction that it is unconstitutional, and a dan- 
 gerous invasion of our rights. We declare that we will not submit to it ; but 
 being unwilling to regard the course of the executive as indicative of the'poli- 
 cy of the state, we desire him to bring the subject to the attention of its legis- 
 lature. He does so; and the legislature at its last session sustain him in Ihe 
 most unqualified terms. A committee is discharged from the consideration of 
 the subject upon the ground that " the positions of the governor were sound 
 and judicious." But they do not stop here. We demand a redress of griev- 
 
22 
 
 upon the executive of this state that they should be surrendered to an agent appointed 
 for that purpose, in order that they might be taken back to Virginia to be tried for the 
 offence charged upon them, according to the laws of that state. The. governor of the 
 state of New York is at first disposed to dispute the legality of the manner or form in 
 which the charge against these alleged fugitives was presented to him. But he immedi- 
 ately concludes to waive all the defects therein, and refuses to make the required surren- 
 der, upon the ground that ' the offence is not within the meaning of the constitution of 
 the United States.' And here let me correct an error into which the gentleman from 
 Tompkins (Mr. L. Hubbell) has fallen in regard to the commencement of this constitu- 
 tional passage at arms between the executives of the states of Virginia and New York. 
 The gentleman observed, (in his speech as reported in the Evening Journal of January 
 21,) ' I charge upon her (Virginia) that in the absence of all necessity, in defiance of all 
 danger, and in disregard of her own and our invaluable interests, she has raised a consti- 
 tutional fiction, simply to force the executive of this state, against his judgment and his 
 conscience, to recognize its existence.' 
 
 "Sir, is the gentleman correct in this statement.' Did Virginia raise this 'constitu- 
 tional fiction,' as he is pleased to pronounce it, or the executive of our own state.? Did 
 not the governor of New York voluntarily, and as I tliink unnecessaril_y, waive the in- 
 formality of the charge, and place his refusal expressly upon a constitutional prohibition .' 
 If a 'constitutional fiction' was raised, the executive of New York and not Virginia is 
 entitled to the credit of raising it. The gentleman from Tompkins will observe, on re- 
 ference to the correspondence, that though a matter of but little consequence, yet he has 
 allowed himself to fall into an error in this particular. 
 
 " It is denied by the gentleman from Albany (Mr. Wheaton,) that there was a waiver 
 made by the governor of New York. I refer the gentleman in the first place for proof 
 of a waiver to the language of the governor of this state, in page 44, of the published 
 correspondence upon this subject. He observes, ' I beg leave, therefore, to state most 
 respectfully, that admitting the affidavit to he sufficient in form and substance to charge 
 the defendants with the crime of stealing a negro slave from his master in the state of 
 Virginia, defined by the laws of that state, yet in my opinion, the offence is not within 
 the meaning of the constitution of the United States.' If language is entitled to the cre- 
 dit of having a meaning at all, it seems that the above indisputably proves the fact of a 
 waiver on the part of the governor of this state, of all defects in the affidavit upon which 
 the charge was based ; placing the refusal to make the surrender upon other and entirely 
 different grounds. But in the second place, what construction does the governor of Vir- 
 ginia put upon this language. The latter observes in reply to the governor of New York, 
 in page 47 of the correspondence : ' Had you placed your refusal to make the surrender 
 upon the ground of the (supposed) defective affidavit upon wliich the demand was made, 
 however widely I might and should have differed in opinion with you upon that subject, 
 I would have preferred and should probably have adopted the easier plan of removing 
 your difiiculties by having it put in an unexceptionable form. But you have rendered it 
 unnecessary for me to pursue that course or to urge any arguments in favour of the suf- 
 ficiency of the affidavit. You close the door of informality by declaring, that admitting 
 the affidavit to be suffcient inform arid substance to charge the defendants icith the crime of 
 stealing a slave,' &c., (quoting the governor of New York's language as given above,) — 
 and this construction of the governor of Virginia, is certainly a reasonable and correct 
 one, and not attempted to be denied or controverted by the governor of New York in his 
 future correspondence. If the executive of Virginia had drawn a wrong inference from 
 his lancruage, it would have been natural and proper that he should have taken pains to 
 set himself right upon the subject. But he impliedly admits the construction to be the 
 correct one by allowing it to pass uncontradicted." 
 
 When the clerk had finished reading, Mr. Bayly resumed : 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I may safely leave the gentleman from Fauquier in the hands 
 of this member of the legislature of New York. I am sure it is unnecessary 
 for me to add any thing to what he has said ; for if his argument is not satis- 
 factory, a simple reference to the correspondence between the two executives, 
 which is in the members' possession, will remove every doubt, and shew con- 
 clusively that governor Seward went out of his way to take the ground he has 
 assumed. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier also complained that in the report of the se- 
 lect committee, and in the bill, I have connected with our controversy with 
 New York, a law of that state which has no connexion with the subject. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I again take issue with the gentleman. I not only insist that 
 this law is most intimately connected with our controversy with New York, 
 but so much so that it is impossible to keep it out of view without losing sight 
 
23 
 
 of more than half of our grievance. The connexion which the law of New 
 York had with the subject of our controversy in its passage through the assem- 
 bly of that state, is already explained in the report of the committee. Its 
 connexion in subject matter with that controversy, is also shewn in the same 
 report ; I adverted to it too, in some detail, in my reply to the gentleman from 
 Albemarle (Mr. Coles) a few days since; and I have made some, thouah not 
 very circumstantial, reference to it in my remarks to-day. For what was that 
 law passed ? To extend the right of trial by jury to fugitive slaves ? That was 
 not the object, for there was already on the statute book of New York a law 
 doing that. For what then was it passed, if not to make the injury inflicted 
 upon us by the governor complete, and to play back upon us, as I shewed in 
 my reply to the gentleman from Albemarle (Mr. Coles) our principles assumed 
 in this contest ? This view of the subject is so important that I would go over 
 it again, were it not for the ftict that I have already extended my remarks to a 
 very great length, and that I am speaking, as the house must see, in very great 
 pain. I will therefore content myself with a reference to what is said in the 
 report of the committee, and to the views taken by me on the occasion to which 
 I have referred. 
 
 It seems to me that the gentleman loses sight of the gist of the controversy 
 when he says that the jury law of New Yo7k of May last has no connexion 
 with It. Of what are we complaining? Is it that the governor of New York 
 refuses to deliver up three free negroes for trial ? By no means. The punish- 
 ment of these felons is a small matter. It has frequently occurred, that de- 
 mands for the surrender of fugitives from justice have not been complied with 
 and we have never made a serious matter of it. But we complain that the go- 
 vernor of New York has put his refusal upon grounds which offers impunity 
 to persons enticing and carrying our slaves out of the state; that he thereby 
 encourages the offence, and consequently puts our slave property in jeopardv. 
 We remonstrate against his course upon this ground, and bring the subject 
 before the legislature of his state. They not only sustain the governor in this 
 aggression— they not only refuse to control him in a course, by which impuni- 
 ty IS offered to those who may entice our slaves from us, but they pass a law, 
 in the teeth of our remonstrance, and seemingly in answer to it, by which 
 the recapture of the slave thus enticed away is made impossible'. But, for 
 the reasons I have given, I must avoid further detail upon this point. 
 
 The gentleman insists that the bill before the house is a measure of retalia- 
 tion. He refers to the last section, which postpones its operation for some 
 time as proof that it is so; and he asks if such a course is likely to brino-New 
 York to her senses. ° 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there is nothing of retaliation in the bill ; and of all the 
 clauses of it, which strip it of that character, the last is most conspicuous 
 The bill is entirely protective in its provisions. There is not one feature of it 
 framed with a view of injuring New York ; there is not one which that state 
 by her own conduct, has not made necessary for our protection. If the bill 
 were to go into effect at once, there would be nothing of the ''lex talianis," in 
 it. There would be nothing evincing a disposition to inflict one injury to 
 avenge another. But the last section postponing its operation for some time 
 to come, shews, not a disposition to do wrong for wrong, but a spirit of the 
 utmost forbearance. Notwithstanding the governor of New York has delibe- 
 rately taken his course, and pertinaciously adhered to it, in spite of our re- 
 monstrance ; notwithstanding he has been sustained in it by two successive 
 legislatures, under the most offensive circumstances, yet we in a spirit of mo- 
 deration, because the measure will be burdensome to New York, delay the 
 operation of our protective measure until the governor has had ample time to 
 retrace his steps ; and until another legislature has had an opportunity of act- 
 ing. New York has it in her power at any time to suspend the operation of 
 
24 
 
 our law, simply by complying with her constitutional duties; and the gentle- 
 man insists that the clause of the bill conferring upon her this privilege, proves 
 it to be a measure of retaliation. We pass the bill because New York has 
 made it necessary for our protection, and we allow her, in effect, to repeal it 
 whenever she removes the necessity for it. And this is retaliation. This is 
 acting harshly. 
 
 Is this bill calculated to bring New York to her senses ? Eminently so, in 
 my opinion. Until we do something to make this subject a practical one, the 
 citizens of New York will take no interest in it. Until then, they will regard 
 the whole controversy as a war of words about abstractions. Do we not see 
 that the press of that state already takes this view of the question ? And have 
 we not seen them strengthened in it, by a repetition of it in a leading press of 
 this state? The people of New York are eminently a practical people, and 
 you never will be able to bring them to a serious consideration of any question 
 which does not involve practical results. As soon as they see that we regard 
 the course of their functionaries of so dangerous a character as to compel us 
 to adopt measures harassing to them, they will enquire into the matter. And 
 can any one doubt what will be their conclusion ? Unless every feelino- is ex- 
 tinct which ought to characterize the people of every portion of this union, 
 justice will be done us. A very large portion of the people of that state have 
 already expressed their conviction that their functionaries are wrong. Their 
 wisest jurists express this opinion. Chancellor Kent, so distinguished for his 
 learning, and a friend of governor Seward's, does not hesitate to express this 
 opinion, as he has done in the last edition of his Commentaries. Under these 
 circumstances, do gentlemen believe that the people of New York will allow 
 their authorities to persevere in a course equally at war with her duty and her 
 interest, simply because we now take a mild and forbearing measure of protec- 
 tion? This would shew a state of feeling in New York which I am not wil- 
 ling to believe exists there. The gentleman seems to expect that we are to 
 treat New York as a spoiled child, who is not to be checked in its mischief, 
 lest, forsooth, you may make her pout and fret. 
 
 The gentleman contends that this law is to operate upon the people of New 
 York ; he enquires what they have done, and asks if we are prepared to pun- 
 ish the innocent for the guilty. He insists that the legislature has not acted, 
 and he enquires of me, if I am prepared to assert, that the re-election of go- 
 vernor Seward, after he had taken his stand against us, shews that the people 
 coincide with him ; and is a sanction by them of all his absurd notions. 
 
 I have never known the ground taken, but upon two occasions, that the suc- 
 cess of a candidate in an election, in which is involved many issues, shews 
 that the people agree with him in all of them. The friends of Gen. Jackson 
 insisted, that his re-election in 1832, was a verdict of the people against the 
 recharter of a national bank ; and Mr. Clay has lately taken the ground in the 
 United States senate that the election of Gen. Harrison was a decree of the 
 people against the divorce of bank and state. It so happens that I did not 
 acquiesce in these views on either occasion. Together with the gentleman,! 
 repudiated the idea in Jackson's time. Did he agree with me in repudiating 
 it on the latter occasion? As I dissented from the position on the only two 
 occasions, when I have known it seriously taken, it is unnecessary for me to 
 say that I do not agree in it now. 
 
 But though I am not prepared to say that the re-election of a public officer 
 is a sanction by the people of all of his acts, yet I am prepared to say that 
 there is no way by which the sentiments of a state can be made known in a 
 case like this, except through her public functionaries. We cannot know the 
 state of New York in a contest like this, except through her public authorities. 
 How else is the will of a state to be ascertained? Would the gentleman have 
 the people of the state polled upon the subject? Will nothing short of this 
 
25 
 
 satisfy him? If so, he had better give up the contest at once. If the public 
 functionaries who hold and wield the power of the state, do it in a manner to 
 injure us, it is of no moment that the people disapprove unless they will inter- 
 fere in the matter. 
 
 The gentleman urged with great zeal that he saw in this bill "the edtre of 
 the weapon which was to rend this Union." He said that it squinted at dis- 
 union — it had an awful squinting at disunion. He stated that he supposed I 
 thought I was recommending the bill when I informed the house that I had 
 assurances from private sources, that the measure would be followed up by 
 the other southern states intere.sted : but that so far from its producino- that 
 effect with him, it excited his suspicions. The avidity with which it was 
 clutched at by certain politicians made him distrust its wisdom. 
 
 Mr. Speaker — The weapon, the edge of which the gentleman sees in this 
 bill, is like the dagger of Macbeth, it has no existence except in his own dis- 
 tempered imagination. Sir, I am a friend to the Union, so lonw as it conti- 
 nues what our fathers made it. There is no member of this house who is 
 more so. This sentiment is not only founded in feeling, which is as strono- 
 as any other member's, but in interest. If gentlemen will but look at the po"^ 
 sition of my county on the map, he will see that there is no section which 
 would suffer more in the event of a violent rupture. We are Virginians every 
 inch of us, in feeling ; but we are separated from our brothers by the Medi- 
 terranean of this continent. Let the strife come when it may, we will be in 
 the hottest of it. In any event, whether we should be thrown with the north 
 or the south, we would be a border county and suffer all of the scourges inci- 
 dent to that condition. But, I am an ardent friend of the Union, as a means 
 not as an end. I am friendly to the Union as long as it shall continue to be 
 the palladium of our liberties ; but I shall become its deadly enemy when it 
 shall be converted into an engine of oppression. As long as it is a Union 
 founded in affection, I will cherish it ; but when it shall be only maintained 
 by force, I would strike it to the dust. I am a friend of the Union, but I am 
 the enemy of consolidation. And if I should ever be forced, which Heaven 
 forfend, to choose between disunion and consolidation, I would prefer the for- 
 mer. I would rather that the temple of liberty should be scattered in ruins, 
 than become the abode of tyrants. I would rather take ray chance for liberty 
 'midst anarchy, than quietly lie down in the chains of despotism. It might 
 survive the one, it could not survive the other. I would rather be hunted as 
 a beast of the forest, and die with the consciousness that I died free, than to 
 live in peace as an abject subject of a usurper. 
 
 I am a friend of the Union, but because I am so, I am not to be frightened from 
 protecting myself from aggression, and the constitution itself from violence, by 
 the chimera of a dissolution of it. The gentleman says there is a class of 'po- 
 liticians who are too fond of calculating the value of the Union. Sir, there is 
 another class who are forever conjuring up visions of a dissolution, whenever 
 the states propose to do any thing for their own protection. Let a doctrine of 
 state rights be advanced. Let a gentleman intimate that he thinks the states 
 have anij rights, worthy of being called such, and at once the wolf cry of 
 disunion is raised. There are set phrases always ready for such occasions. 
 In mock heroicks, we are asked, " Who shall calculate the value of the 
 Union! Learn to calculate the value of liberty, and then you may talk about 
 calculating the value of the Union." 
 
 There are two standing themes with such politicians, " a dissolution of the 
 Union," and " vague abstractions, " which, like patent medicines, are used 
 on all occasions, and not in very varied doses. We must be mistaken for 
 children or timid women, else it would not be supposed that we could be 
 frightened l>om our propriety by this " raw head and bloody bones" of a dis- 
 
26 
 
 solution of the Union, which is so often conjured up and stalked across this 
 hall. 
 
 But it seems I let out a most terrible plot of treason, when I informed the 
 house that I was assured from private sources, that if we took our stand on 
 the provisions of this bill, we would be promptly sustained by the other 
 southern states. 
 
 The 4th resolution, which was passed at the last session of the general as- 
 sembly is in these words : 
 
 " Resolved, That the g^overnor of Virginia be requested to open a correspondence with 
 the executive of each of the slaveholding states, requesting their co-operation in any neces- 
 sari/ and proper measure of redress ivhich Virginia maij be forced to adopt." 
 
 In obedience to our request, governor Gilmer opened this correspondence; 
 and from some of the states replies have been received from their public func- 
 tionaries, but not from all. I inform the house that I am assured from private 
 sources, that the request of the general assembly, that the slaveholding states 
 will co-operate with us, will be promptly complied with, as soon as we have 
 adopted our measure of redress; and behold ! I am told that I have communi- 
 cated most frightful information. 
 
 The gentleman argues that the bill will be inefficacious; and to prove it to 
 be so, he relies upon what is said upon this point in the report of last winter. 
 He quotes this sentence from that document : " Besides, it would be difficult 
 to enforce it (an inspection law,) in an effectual manner. A vessel might be 
 inspected one hour, and the next take a slave on board and be off. This would 
 be the case particularly in the navigation of our long rivers." Mr. Speaker, 
 I admit the difficulty. I do not contend that the law will afford us perfect 
 protection. Like every other law which was ever framed by any human 
 tribunal, it is not perfect. I do not believe that it, or any other law can be 
 made so. The question is not whether the bill is perfect, but whether a bet- 
 ter one can be proposed. I insist that the gentleman is precluded from op- 
 posing this bill, upon the ground that it will be difficult to enforce it in an ef- 
 fectual manner, until he can offer one less objectionable. 
 
 That the house may not attach too much weight to what is said in the re- 
 port of last winter upon this point, I beg leave to state under what circum- 
 stances it was drawn. As soon as this subject was referred to a select com- 
 mittee at the last session, as the chairman of it, I immediately busied myself 
 in feeling the pulse of the house, to see what would be done. I soon found 
 that a majority was opposed to any decisive action at that time. The members 
 regarded the course of governor Seward as so outrageous, that they were dis- 
 posed to believe that he would not adhere to it; and if he did, he would be 
 controlled by the legislature of his state. It is known to this house that T did 
 not concur in these views. It is known that I predicted, standing in this place, 
 that that would occur which has occurred. Nevertheless, finding that I could 
 not do all I desired, I was determined to accomplish all I could. Hence I re- 
 commended the course adopted at our last session. 
 
 When I sat down to draw the report of that session, I did it with the un- 
 derstanding that we were to content ourselves with making an appeal to New 
 York to do us justice. To enable us to make this appeal with any force, I 
 thought unanimity was necessary. To procure this, it was necessary to recon- 
 cile those who urged decisive action at once, and those who were unwilling to 
 go further than a remonstrance. Drawing the report with a view to accom- 
 plish this purpose, I confess I did not scan the different measures proposed 
 with very great minuteness. But it is evident from the report itself, that a law 
 similar to this was then my favourite remedy. Nevertheless, I did not then 
 think that an inspection law could be framed which would be so well guarded 
 as the one now under discussion. I did not set down to draw the bill without 
 
27 
 
 much reflection ; and I flatter myself I have been enabled to make it an efli- 
 cient remedy. At the last session, the bond feature of the bill did not sug- 
 gest itself to me. I regard that as its most important feature, for the reasons 
 1 have given. Nor did it occur to me, that the pilots could be made, with so 
 much elficiency, guards and watchmen for us. 
 
 [At this point Mr. Bayly was about to commence his reply to the argument 
 of Mr. Scott against the constitutionality of the bill ; but he was interrupted 
 by Mr. Chapman, who said that it was evident that the gentleman was very 
 much exhausted, and as he was approaching a very important part of his argu- 
 ment, with his permission he would move an adjournment. Mr. Bayly gave 
 way and the house adjourned. On the next day Mr. Bayly continued his 
 speech as follows :] 
 
 Mr. Speaker, on recurring to ray notes, I find that I omitted to notice on 
 yesterday, several points made by the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 Most of them are immaterial, and I will not detain the house to refer to but a 
 few of them. The gentleman said thai the bill was crudely drawn, and in- 
 sisted that if a ship of war, commanded by a resident of New York, were to 
 arrive within our waters after its passage, our inspector would be required to 
 take possession of her, provided the captain did not give the bond ; and he 
 undertook to draw the ridiculous figure which our inspector would cut in tak- 
 ing possession of a line of battle ship, and muzzling her "dogs of war." 
 
 In the first place, I contend that the gentleman's construction is not cor- 
 rect. Every law must be construed with an eye to the object of it ; and a 
 ship of war would not come within the provisions of this bill. But suppose I 
 am wrong in this, and the gentleman is right, it is no objection to the bill, 
 for it is now open to amendment, and four words inserted in it would remove 
 the difficulty. This is a conclusive answer to this and all similar objections. 
 I will take no farther notice of them than to say that the gentleman from 
 Fauquier is the last man who ought to start them, for he it was who moved to 
 come out of the committee of the whole, where there existed the greatest lati- 
 tude of amendment. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, without noticing minor difficulties started by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, I will proceed at once to the constitutional objecdon ; and 
 to this part of the discussion I beg the earnest attention of the house. If the 
 constitutional objection be well founded, it is fatal to the bill. If we cannot 
 protect ourselves without violating the constitution, I for one am opposed to 
 doing it in that way ; I would prefer at once to throw oft' its shackles, rather 
 than, living under it, violate its provisions. 
 
 The states of this Union are sovereign and independent, united by the con- 
 stitution of the United States, which is a compact between them, and are pos- 
 sessed of all powers which belong to such states, excepting those, the exercise 
 of which is delegated to the general government. This is a proposition which it 
 is not necessary to establish by argument in this legislature. If any moral 
 proposition can be settled, this one is not open for controversy here. The 
 compact itself provides that all powers not delegated nor prohibited to the 
 states, are reserved to the states or the people. 
 
 It is not denied that we may pass this bill, unless we be prohibited from do- 
 ing so by the constitution of Virginia, or the constitution of the United States. 
 The gentleman has not taken the ground that it is prohibited by the Viro-inia 
 constitution ; but as I have heard the idea expressed in private by members of 
 the house, that it was in conflict with our bill of rights, I will make a few re- 
 marks upon that point. The section of the bill of rights which is supposed 
 to contain the prohibition, is in these words : " That general warrants where- 
 by any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places, 
 without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not 
 named, or whose offence is not particularly described, and supported by evi- 
 
2S 
 
 deuce, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted." The lan- 
 guage of the section itself, as well as its history, shews that it is not desio-ned 
 to apply to a case like this ; and that it is meant as a restraint upon the execu- 
 tive and judiciary, rather than upon the legislature. This clause of our bill 
 of rights, and a similar one in the constitution of the United States, have a 
 common origin. They are little more than the affirmance of a great consti- 
 tutional doctrine of the common law. And their introduction into our con- 
 stitution, was doubtless occasioned by the strong sensibility excited both in 
 England and America, upon the subject of general warrants almost up to the 
 eve of the American revolution. Although special warrants upon complaints 
 under oath, stating the crime and the party by name, against whom the accu- 
 sation is made, are the only legal warrants upon which an arrest can be made, 
 according to the law of England, yet a practice had obtained in the secre- 
 tary's office ever since the restoration, of issuing general warrants to take up 
 without naming any person in particular, the authors, printers and publishers 
 of such obscene or seditious libels as were particularly specified in the war- 
 rant. When these acts expired in 1674, the same practice had continued in 
 every reign, and under every administration, except the four last years of Queen 
 Ann's reign, down to the year 1763. The general warrants so issued, in ge- 
 neral terms, authorized officers to apprehend all persons suspected without 
 naming or describing any person in particular.* 
 
 It is evident, therefore, from the history of the provision, as well as the lan- 
 guage of it, that it is meant only as a restraint upon officers, and not for a case 
 like this. The next provision is in similar terms: — " In controversies respect- 
 ing property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is 
 preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." Yet it has never been 
 doubted, that the legislature may constitute chancery courts. 
 
 The provision in the constitution of the United States, though similar, is in 
 stronger terms, yet it has never been construed to prevent such searches and 
 seizures as are authorized by the custom-house laws — some of which go a 
 great deal further in this respect than the bill before the house. 
 
 The bill not being in conflict with the constitution of Virginia, the next 
 question which arises is, whether it is in conflict with the constitution of the 
 United States. The gentleman from Fauquier contends that the power to pass 
 this bill is granted to congress, in exclusion of the states, in the clause autho- 
 rizing congress to regulate commerce; and that it is prohibited to them by 
 the second clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the constitution. 
 And to sustain him in the opinion that it is unconstitutional, he refers to the 
 report of the committee of last winter — particularly the sentence in which it 
 is said — "To bring it (an inspection law,) perhaps within the constitution it 
 would have to be general." That sentence is not meant to assert positively 
 that to bring an inspection law within the constitution, it would have to be 
 general. At the time it was written, I entertained no such opinion. But I 
 have already adverted to the circumstances under which the report was drawn. 
 On this point there were then, as now, two sets of opinions in this house. 
 Some supposed that unless the law was made general in its operation, that it 
 would be unconstitutional ; others entertained a different opinion. I could 
 not, therefore, assert or deny the proposition without provoking the opposition 
 of the one class or the other. Therefore it was that I introduced in that part 
 of the report, and in the subsequent paragraph of it the word "perhaps.'^ 
 And that it was wisely introduced in the last instance was proved by the fact 
 that the gentleman himself was scarcely restrained, as I well remember, from 
 making war upon that part of the report by its introduction. 
 
 * Story's Commentaries, vol. 3, page 748. 
 
29 
 
 But the report of last winter asserts the constitutionality of the measure po- 
 sitively. 3d. The proposition to appoint inspectors. This has much to re- 
 commend it. In the first place, the remedy is specific to the wrong. It is 
 clear of all constitutional clijjiculty. The principle upon which such a law 
 would be founded has been frequently recognized. In point of time, first in 
 the recognition of the validity of quarantine regulations, and last in the law 
 prohibiting the transmission of incendiary publications by mail." 
 
 Is the bill prohibited by the 2d section of tlie 4th article of the constitution 
 of the United States? That section is in these words: — "The citizens of 
 each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
 several states." Speaking of this provision in the constitution in his Commen- 
 taries, judge Story says : — " It is plaiu and simple in its language, and its ob- 
 ject is not easily to be mistaken. Connected with the exclusive power of na- 
 turalization in the national government, it puts at rest many of the dithculties 
 which effected the construction of the article of the confederation. It is ob- 
 vious, that if the citizens of each state were to be deemed aliens to each other, 
 that they could not take or hold real estate or other privileges, except as 
 aliens. The intention of this clause was to confer on them, if one may so 
 speak, a general citizenship." 
 
 The difficulty of the gentleman seems to me to originate in a misreadino- of 
 the clause of the constitution. The clause is not, as I understood the gentle- 
 man to read it : " The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges 
 and immunities of the citizens in the several states." Were that the clause, 
 it might with more plausibility be contended that this bill is in conflict with 
 it. The provision as it exists in the constitution was designed to give to the 
 citizens of the several states the " rights of citizenship,'' and not to put all 
 of the citizens of the United States upon the same level, and confer on them 
 equal rights. This w.)uld be wholly destructive of state governments. The 
 question is not, therefore, whether the bill makes a discrimination between 
 the citizens of the several states ; but whether it infringes any right of citi- 
 zenship — any right which a man as a member of civil society, cannot be de- 
 prived. This view is obviously correct ; and it has been sustained by repeated 
 judicial decisions. In the case of Morris & Campbell, 3 Harris & M'Henry, 
 p. 553, which arose under the statute of Maryland, authorizing attachments 
 against the property of non-residents, and which could not be sued out against 
 residents. Judge Chase in deciding the law to be constitutional, said : 
 
 " Privilege and immunity are synonymous or nearly so. Privilege signifies a peculiar 
 advantage, e.xemption, immunity ; immunity signifies exemption, privileo-e. 
 
 " Tlie peculiar advantages and exemptions contemplated under this part of the consti- 
 tution, may be ascertained, if not with precision and accuracy, yet satisfactorily. 
 
 " By taking a retrospective view of our situation antecedent to the formation of the 
 first general government, or the confederation in which the same clause is inserted one 
 of the great objects must occur to every person, which was the enabling the citizens of 
 the several states to acquire and hold real property in an}' of the states, and deemed ne- 
 cessary as each state was a sovereign and independent state, and the states had confede- 
 rated only for the purpose of general defence and security, and to promote the general 
 welfare. 
 
 " It seems agreed, from the manner of expounding or defining the words immunities 
 and privileges, by the counsel on both sides, that a particular and limited operation is to 
 be given to these words, and not a full and comprehensive one. It is agreed it does not 
 mean the right of election ; the right of being elected, the right of holding oflice. The 
 court are of opinion it means, that the citizens of all the states shall have the peculiar 
 advantage of acquiring and holding real as well as personal property, and that such pro- 
 perty shall be protected and secured by the laws of the state in the same manner as the 
 property of the citizens of the state is protected."' 
 
 Judge Washington, in the circuit court held the same doctrine, in deciding 
 the case of CorficLl and Coryell, which arose under a law of New Jersey, in 
 which the constitutionality of the following provision came in question : 
 
30 
 
 "That it shall not be lawful for any person, who is not at the time an actual inhabitant 
 and resident in this state, to rake or gather clanis, oysters, or shells in any of the rivers, 
 bays or waters in this state, on board of any canal, flat, scow, boat or other vessel, not 
 wholly owned by some person, inhabitant of, and actually residing in this state ; and 
 every person offending herein, shall forfeit and pay .f 10, to be recovered, &c., and shall 
 also forfeit the canoe, flat, &c., employed in the commission of such offence, with all the 
 clams, oysters, shells, rakes, tongs, tackle, furniture and apparel in and belongino- to the 
 same. 
 
 "The seventh section makes it the duty of all sheriffs and constables, and permits any 
 other person to seize and secure any such canoe, flat, &c., and immediately to give infor- 
 mation thereof to two justices of the peace of the county where such seizure shall have 
 been made, who are required to meet at such time and place as they should appoint for 
 the trial thereof, and to hear and determine the same, and in case the same sliould be 
 condemned, it should be sold by and under the order and direction of the said justices, 
 who, after deducting the costs and charges, should pay one half the proceeds to the col- 
 lector of the county in which such offence was committed, and the other half to the per- 
 sons who seized and prosecuted the same." 
 
 In deciding this case the learned JLidge first answered the objection that it 
 was an unconstitutional regulation of commerce, and then the objection, that 
 it conflicted with the 2d section of the 4th article of the constitution. On 
 this point he said : 
 
 " The next question is, whether this act infringes that section of the con.-^titution which 
 declares that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens in the several states .-'' 
 
 " The enquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 states ? We feel no hesitation in confining this expression to those privileges and immu- 
 nities which are, in their nature, fundmiUntal ; which belong, of right, to the citizens of 
 all free governments ; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the 
 several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, indepen- 
 dent and sovereign. What these fundamental princij)les are, it would perhaps be more 
 tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the 
 following general heads : protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liber- 
 ty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain 
 happiness and safety ; subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may 
 justly prescribe for the general good of the whole." 
 
 " But we cannot accede to the proposition which was insisted on by the counsel, that 
 under this provision of the constitution, the citizens of the several states are permitted 
 to participate in all tltc rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other parti- 
 cular state, merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citizens ; much less, 
 that in regulating the use of the common property of tlie citizens of sucli state, the legis- 
 lature is bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are 
 secured to other citizens." 
 
 These authorities sustain me, I think, in the position which I have taken. 
 The question is not, whether this bill imposes restrictions upon the citizens of 
 New York, which are not imposed upon the citizens of Virginia; but it is, 
 whether we impose restrictions in it upon the citizens of that state which we 
 have not the right to impose upon the citizens of this. In a word, whether 
 the bill deprives citizens of New York of privileges of which a man in a free 
 government cannot be deprived. 
 
 We could not suspend the writ of habeas corpus as to citizens of New York ; 
 we could not say they should not hold real estate in this commonwealth. 
 These are rights of citizenship of which we cannot deprive our own citizens, 
 and of which we could not, therefore, deprive the citizens of New York. For 
 the same reason we could not say they should not sue in our courts, though 
 we may say, as in fact we do say, that they shall not do so without giving se- 
 curity for costs, even though we do not require it in similar cases from our 
 own citizens. 
 
 We may discriminate between our own citizens and citizens of other states, 
 provided, in making that discrimination we do not deprive them of any privi- 
 lege of which a citizen cannot be deprived. In fact, our civil code is full of 
 laws discriminating, not only between non-residents and citizens, but between 
 different classes of our own citizens. 
 
31 
 
 There is a discrimination, Mr. Speaker, in ftivour of the profession to which 
 you belong. No one but a licensed attorney can bring a suit or plead in court 
 except in his own cause. We never grant an act of incorporation in which we 
 do not make discriminations. One set of individuals, who may be invested 
 with banking privileges, issues a currency which circulates as money, when 
 all others are prohibited from doing so under heavy penalties. But I will only 
 refer to one more instance, because it is the most striking of all — the elec- 
 tive franchise. That privilege is the most inestimable of all others. In fact 
 it includes all others. The privilege of selecting those who are to make the 
 laws under which we live is the greatest privilege of a freeman. Yet, in re- 
 gulating the right of suffrage, we do discriminate between different classes of 
 society ; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the propriety 
 of doing it, there can be none as to the power. The fact that this discrimina- 
 tion is made in the state constitution can make no difference. It was adopted 
 since the federal compact was ordained, and we have no more right to make 
 an unconstitutional discrimination in a constitution than we have in a law. 
 But the right of suffrage, before the adoption of our state constitution, was 
 regulated by statute, and in it even a greater discrimination was made. 
 
 We make discriminations between different classes of our own citizens, and 
 we make still greater ones between them and non-residents. Attachments 
 may be issued against non-residents, and their property sold, under circum- 
 stances in which similar proceedings cannot be had against residents. We re- 
 quire security for costs of non-residents, when we make no such requirement 
 of our own people. In passing ferries tolls are often demanded of non-resi- 
 dents, when no such demand is made upon residents. All of these are dis- 
 criminations. But I will content myself on this head as I did on the last, and 
 for the same reason, with referring to the instance of the elective franchise. 
 We deny, and so do most, if not all, of the states, to non-residents the right 
 of voting in our elections. We thus deprive them of the greatest of all privi- 
 leges. They may have every other qualification; but if they do not have thai 
 of residence we exclude them from the polls. Our right to do this, notwith- 
 standing the provision of the constitution which I am considering, has been 
 solemnly tested in Virginia. Mr. Custis of Arlington, having the property 
 qualification in Virginia, claimed the right to vote in her elections ; and he re- 
 lied upon this very clause of the constitution of the United States, as prevent- 
 ing Virginia from excluding him from it. The case came to the court of ap- 
 peals ; and the constitutionality of the discrimination was solemnly affirmed. 
 
 But I will not press this view of the subject farther. Concede the doctrine 
 contended, that we cannot discriminate betweert -our own citizens and those of 
 other states, and you obliterate state boundaries ; melt them down into one 
 mass ; and make separate state sovereignty an ideal existence. 
 
 This bill so far from depriving the citizens of New York of any privilege 
 or immunity, of which we cannot deprive our own citizens, only puts the citi- 
 zens of the two states upon an equal footing. If a citizen of Virginia takes 
 a slave out of the state, he is responsible for so doing in his person and his 
 property. Double the value of the slave can be recovered from such offender, 
 for the payment of which not only all of his own property is liable, but if he 
 be a master of a vessel, the liability attaches to her too, although he may not 
 own a timber of her. Our citizens cannot violate our laws and escape with 
 impunity ; and this bill is designed to place citizens of New York, as far as 
 practicable, in the :-ame condition. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier contends that the bill is a regulation of com- 
 merce ; and that the power to do that is exclusively vested in congress. 
 
 Admit it to be a regulation of commerce, which I only admit for the sake 
 of the argument, and still I insist that we have the power to pass it. 
 
'62 
 
 As I liiivc already said, these states are sovcreifrii, and tliey jjossesss all 
 power which is not exclusively delefrated to coiifrress by the constitution of 
 the United States or prohibited to the states. This is dfxiared in the lOth 
 amendment to the constitution itself. Wh<'never a ])rj\ver not in its nature 
 exclusive, is frraritcd to the general {rovernment, ami not prcdubited to tlu; 
 states, it is concurrent in congress and the state legislature. This position 
 will not be denied. If it should, I might refer to the -i'Zd No. of the l''ederal- 
 ist, or, indeed, any other work on the constitution, as authority to sustain it. 
 The power to regulate commerce is delegated. Js it delegated to the general 
 government exclusively? The terms of the grant are not (;x(^lusiv<;. They 
 are not more so than in othrir grants, where the [)ovver is admitted to be con- 
 current. The language of the constitution is, congress shall have; power "to 
 regidate commerces with foreign nations, and among tlur several statci, and 
 with the Indian tribes." There is nothing in the terms of this grant more 
 exclusive than in the one empowering congress, "To provide for organizing, 
 arming and disciplining the militia?" \(:l this latt(;r power has always been 
 held to be concurrent. Nor is the power exclusive in its nature. 'I'here are 
 but few powers of the general government wliich are in their nature exclu- 
 sive. Such powers as have their origin in the constitution, are of that class, 
 for instance, the power of exclusive legislation for the District of (Jolumbia, 
 and the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Perhaps 
 there are others, such as those which have an extent and operation when ex- 
 ercised by a state beyond its territorial limits; as in the ca.se of naturaliza- 
 tion. And even in this case, it would not be lield to be exclusive, but for 
 the clause of the constitution securing to citizens of each state all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens in the several states, notwithstanding the 
 terms " uniform rule" are employed. 
 
 The powers which are exclusively vested in congress are few, those which 
 are concurrent are numerous. To enumerate them would not be dillicult, 
 though, perhaps, useless. The power to lay and collect taxes, call forth the 
 militia, &c. are of that character. All powers which are granted to the na- 
 tional government, should be construed to be held by it concurrently with the 
 states, except in those cases where they are prohibited to the states in express 
 terms, or by inevitable implication. In the spirit of this rule, it has been con- 
 ceded, that though congress is authorized to establish uniform laws on the sub- 
 ject of bankruptcy, the j>ower over that subject would be a concurrent power, 
 and that the states might pass bankrupt laws if they did not imj)air the obligation 
 of contracts. And it has been decided even, that they may pass a law discharging 
 the contract if it be entered into subsequent to its enactment. A stronger 
 case than this could not be instanced, — for it might here be urged witli much 
 force that the power granted to congress to establish uniform laws of bankrupt- 
 cy, would be frustrated, if a concurrent power was conceded to tlie states. 
 Surely the terms of the grant in this instance are much stronger than in tfie 
 grant of the power to regulate commerce. 
 
 If the grant of the power to regulate commerce to the general government 
 is not in its nature exclusive, the argument is at an end, for it will not be con- 
 tended that it is prohibited to the states in express terms. The only restrif> 
 tion upon the states in this particular is contained in the prohibition upon 
 them, that they shall not enter into any treaty or compact with e.lch otlier, or 
 with a foreign power, nor lay any duty on tonnage, or on imports or export.^. 
 
 The very fact that these restrictions are made, proves, that but for them, the 
 states might exercise the power in the instances prohibited, and it al.so prove.s 
 that in all cases to which the prohibition does not extend, the power exists. 
 For authority on these points, I might refer to the case of Livingston w.s-. Van 
 Ingen, 9th Johnson's Reports, in which Chancellor Kent decides that the 
 power to regulate commerce is a concurrent one. 
 
83 
 
 If th<? \H/vr<',r U> r<if(t}\'4Un'yfrtituHit<^ \ni (;^>ricurrcnt, the next question is, does 
 iji«; bill \p"Sorh th<; houw*; c/tufWKi with arjy xu/mxtinif oon}frft«»ional rc^ujalion 
 of vAJuiui*ti'j-,. If th<rr<j h<; no »uch rc'/nlntton in (txinUmi-M at thi« time, th*;r*; 
 ix ttoiitui'^ ^onMrHui our mAtfjrt. 'I'im fact that ';ont(r<;i'>, rnay pa«« one hereaf- 
 t/^r, ca//f(ot produce that eff'^Jt. in the lanj^uage of ^Jhancellor Kent: 
 
 Unn'',tu',y <A' » i^>lU»ioii, if/r ntc w<; by <;i«l/arraiM» tftirnfAv;* in iUn ariticif/atiori of ihfJtrfti'i- 
 <5»l «l»<fic<iJtk'i», tJwH whi/;Ji wiiU'iuui f^/uUi iii n'lwrAl \x'. iw/rn i'n.\\iu;\<)ti%. V>tu;\i a dwlrinc 
 y»iin\i\ '' 'ininntly U; tAxiHjf '/ur m-nn/Aiy Ut Mr<; wh';t}»'rr tJi/j kw iinnjti tuA <;'/nlrav<-ii'; 
 »'»r/#'r fulof; ritffiilntioii of tjiiniwr'-^: or icnr*/; iit)itu:yj\ <tr ui'ihUxry oj>«rratio;) of th/; ViiiU:d 
 Htat>-* <J<jr /«'/»t tdinftU: ;«iif((';ij/i».i |>rovi»iort would \n; *iidij-MA with tiiiYnii-nf^, for f-nr 
 W" intjihi involv, oiir»';ly»;«, oor ';(tiz<-/>» «i«'l our ty/n»f:i';in'jtn ui tfy»/i<; c****; '/f' ipdirjiation- 
 Our «*fir r«|/r '//' r^/ti»Uu'Aion ««'! of a/;liofi )» thiw, that if any ^iv^jfi ptiwur wan original- 
 ly v<'«t<r'J in Ui»f» »iU</?, if it Imw» not >x;<;« nx'Ann'ivuly *-auU-A i/t i-Atimri-.m, or if th<; ax^-.n-Am 
 </f it ha« n'/l h<,'«;n \iro\n\ttii'A to the nU,U'«, w<j may tfi<;n jfo on in lli'j ex'-rcijc; of tit/; pow- 
 ff rintil it conu-n (;ra/;ti';a)ly in coHinion with '/<« nMmd i:xt^r<;i*"- of tiftiu". <-^iri(ri<:%inona.\ 
 |/o w<;r," 
 
 Khouh) the hiJI \n'Aon'. the houw; \n'j'/)uut a iaw, will it tJtu^'uA with any ex- 
 ixtifij^ law of »%intiir*:nn ? I need n'/t enquire whether it will interfere f-irnply 
 with ff^nie K<>niJ!rt',m't'>u-i\ re^tjlation ; for it mij^ht int^frfere, and yet the law 
 Ntand, The «jin',»tion wliich mmjmI yield in the cane of a colliwion between two 
 law* [>a*»ed und<'-r a concurrerd j>ower, doen not arine, until the conflict iH found 
 to U; of »»uch a characU;r that the two lawH cannot «tarid togetlier. This in 
 the view of the be»t vjnmtwAiinUirn upon the f>'>n«titution. 
 
 In the 'VZt\ No, of the Federalist, it iv «aid ; 
 
 " 'J'h<' powr tfrant/r<l t** Ih'; Union i» «;x';liji»iv«r wh'-nj t)i'; i:xmii:tK;t-. of a mtii'ilitr powttr 
 in the #!»«/•« woii)«i h'f aliMtdulidij iind tolallij r.miJruAixU/nj an<J r<rj<ij((nant." — "Or wiuin: 
 H, jttwtr i» !(rtiuU-il Ut ih'r Utiion with wiiii-.ii a niiiitlitr aulfiority in th" «t;itf? v/onhl b'? »/<- 
 /f';//// i.nnrmi>ali,lih;," — *' It iit f(»<l a ni"r«r i,iu:inirj;nii:iu;e, in lh«r <?i(''rc)-4<,' of a pow«rr, hut an 
 imriw.di.alj; i:iinnl.diU,i,onji,l, Tf.itv.ifUjH.nr.if that can, hy implication, ali'-nat/' an<l f %\axi^u\*\i a 
 
 (irtt'tfXinUiiK rij^ht of n/zviTcijAnty, — "'Jhc «r«<'rci)»<r of a conciirrcnt juri^Jiclion ininUi 
 )t', inoiiifAiv" of ociMMijtwd i,nl,''/rj'f,r<:nxi', iti tiin policy of any branch of (wJniiniHlration, hat 
 wo«hl not iiniily tmy direct contra/Jictton or rcj*U({nancy in point of conKtitutional autho- 
 rity," 
 
 No law of contjreNK ha« heen or (;an he |;roduced, willi vvlii(;li tlif; hill he- 
 fore the hou«e in uHirhf matmpaUhlc. 
 
 Hut I take hij^ln-r j/round an«l call for the j^roduction of th't cAmgrii^ 
 ffional rej^ulation widi which tlii« law woiild «',ven inlirfrri'.. 'I'he induMtry of 
 the j(entleman I'ro/n Fauquier han not enal>h'.<l him to produce kucJi an one ; for 
 I am «ure, upon a r<><;xamination, he will admit td.it the Hection of the law in 
 relatio/i to coajitin;/, vew«<;lH v/.vm li;tve /lo applicati'^n to thiw case. 
 
 There are two cJawweH of veH«el« known to our law«, IhoHe enf^a^red in foreij.ai 
 coffifncrc.*;, arid tlione (ai^^aj^ed in tli<; coantinji; trade. There are <liHtinct rej^ii- 
 \:i\\imy, apjdicahle to each clawM, I will not detain tlir; l)ou«e ot» tliJM j>oint far- 
 ther thafi »o nat/ie one in«lanc,«; of tlii« «ort. A vcMKel in the forr.ij/n trade i« 
 corn(<elled to v.WMr t'.vi'.ry voyii^i; ; a coaHtin^j ve«Mel only clearn one,*; a year. 
 The ar,t from which (lie j/enthtmari read, fir«t dividen the c,otjntry into thrf;e 
 yr<'at diflri'-tw v/ith whi<^l) tlie coanfinf^ tradr; may hr; carried on. 'I'lie lirht in- 
 clude« all the di^frict on the fi-n coawt, A/-c. between the eaMfern limits of tlnj 
 IJnited Ktateiumd the ><outhern litnit« of tieor^na; tlie'M, all the diHtrictMon the; 
 >»ett CAtnni, ^,c, between tb<! river Ferdido an»l the wewtern limit« of th«; Unite.d 
 Htale>«; nnd the :Jd, all portM, harbf>rM, ^,(;. between the Houthern limitM of 
 <^ieortfia and the river I'crdido. A(t.<r ;(i;il(inf.^ tliJH rlivinion of tbr: dihtrictH, 
 »lie law j^oe^ on to n:iy : 
 
 " llvry v<'««<'l, of the \iurtli<ii of twenty ton» or upwards, JiccnMed l/» trudf hclwccn 
 (he 'liflVn-nt diwlrictn of th- IJni(,<'(l Htati'K, tniiy <;)i.rry on Nuch trade hctwcn th" diwtrictH 
 inclodcd wi(hi»i the fAfcfit district:*, n-wpccti vly, imkI hi-fw'cn a Htitb- in one, ;ind ntt iid- 
 ynniiiir »)i(ic Ml iiiio(h<r yfiii, diwtnct, in niiutwr, luirl miUyuA. only to the ref^ijIitlionM that 
 tin i„,v/ l.y law M-rpnred to !;<• ol»;i'TV(<| \,y ,(ij<:li ve«Hel«, in tnidini/ fr')in oiie didtrict to 
 
 n 
 
34 
 
 anotlier in the same state, or from a district in one state to a district in tlie next adjoining 
 state, any thing in any law to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 This is the section relied upon to shew that the bill before the house cannot 
 be carried into effect without conflicting with a law of cono-ress. 
 
 But it is obvious that it is only designed to provide that such vessel is only 
 to be subjected to coasting regulations in contradistinction to such as apply to 
 a different class of vessels ; and is not meant to prohibit the states from ma- 
 king such police regulations as their safety may require. Besides those con- 
 tained in this act, there are many other regulations superseded by the states. 
 The port charges, the quarantine regulations, &c. might be instanced ; apd 
 their constitutionality is not questioned. 
 
 If the power to regulate commerce is concurrent and may be exercised by 
 both congress and the states, this argument is at an end, for it is not and can- 
 not be shewn that the bill interferes even with any congressional regulation of 
 commerce, much less that it conflicts with any such regulation. 
 
 The argument thus far, is conducted upon the supposition, that this bill is 
 a regulation of commerce: and that the power to pass it can only be derived 
 from the power to regulate commerce. This position has only been conceded 
 for the sake of the argument. 1 utterly deny both propositions contained 
 in it. 
 
 In the first place this bill is not a regulation of conmierce. It does not in- 
 terfere in any way with commerce. What is commerce ? It is defined to be 
 the "exchange of one thing for another; the interchange of commodities, 
 trade or trafhc." This bill does not affect commerce, but 7iavigation. And 
 the power of congress over that subject is only incidental. No direct power 
 is given to congress over navigation, and it only possesses such power as is in- 
 cidental to the power to regulate commerce. There can be no doubt that the 
 states possess a concurrent power over navigation — a power which is only re- 
 stricted so far as they are prohibited by the constitution of the United States 
 from laying any duty on tonnage. This restriction implies that but for it the 
 states would possess even the right to lay tonnage duties; and that in all other 
 instances the power exists in the states in full force. It is the power of the 
 states over navigation which has enabled them to pass pilot laws. The con- 
 stitutionality of these laws, not only have not been questioned, but it has 
 been admitted by congress in the adoption of them. The adoption of them 
 by congress presupposes their constitutionality. 
 
 It surely will not be contended that the states cannot enact any laws which 
 may interfere with laws of congress passed under incidental powers. Such a 
 doctrine would deprive the states of all power of legislation. The laws of 
 congress passed to carry into effect the incidental powers of the general go- 
 vernment are exceedingly numerous. They cover nearly the whole field of 
 legislation. This proposition is too clear to need or admit of illustration. 
 
 So far from its being true that the states cannot pass any law interfering 
 with laws of congress, enacted under incidental powers, the reverse of the 
 proposition is true. A law of congress, passed under an incidental power, 
 which should conflict with a statute of any state, which was necessary for the 
 protection of the property of its citizens, would itself be unconstitutional. 
 Congress has power to pass such laws, to carry into effect its granted powers, 
 as are ''necessary and proper'' for that purpose; and it can pass none others 
 than such as are both necessary and proper. Now, I hold that no law of con- 
 gress passed to carry into effect one of its powers, would be a proper law, which 
 would conflict with a state law that was necessary for the protection of the 
 property of its citizens. If congress could carry into effect its power, in any 
 other way, it would be bound to do it. 
 
 I have shewn that this bill is not a regulation of commerce. It does not 
 affect commerce. It does to some extent affect its incident navigation ; but it 
 
35 
 
 does not conflict with any existing law of congress upon that subject. We are 
 not to anticipate, for the reasons given, that any law of congress will in future 
 be passed conflicting with it. 
 
 Admit, for the sake of the argument, that congress possesses the exclusive 
 power to regulate commerce ; that the states can enact no such regulation ; 
 and that this bill does interfere with commerce. Yet I contend that all this does 
 not prove the bill to be unconstitutional. It is not proved to be so, until it is 
 shewn that the power to pass it can only be derived from the power to regu- 
 late commerce. If the power may be derived from another source within 
 state authority, we may pass the bill although it may affect commerce very 
 considerably. It is no new idea that lav^s passed under different powers, may 
 interfere with each other, and yet be constitutional. In our complex system 
 cases of the sort will be of frequent occurrence. In the case of Gibbons ^ 
 Ogden, Judge Marshall said : 
 
 " The idea that the same measure might, according to circumstances, be arranged with 
 different classes of powers, was no novelty to the framers of our constitution. If a state, 
 in passing laws on subjects acknowledged to be within its control, and with a view to 
 those subjects, shall adopt a measure of the same character with one which congress may 
 adopt, it does not derive its authority from the particular power which has been granted, 
 but from some other, which remains with the state, and may be executed by the same 
 means. All experience shews, that the same measures, or measures scarcely distinguish- 
 able from each other, may flow from distinct powers; but this does not prove that the 
 powers themselves are identical. Although the means used in their execution may some- 
 times approach each other so nearly as to be confounded, there are other situations in 
 which they are sufficiently distinct to establisii their individuality." 
 
 '' But the inspection laws are said to be regulations of commerce, and are certainly re- 
 cognized in the constitution, as being passed in the exercise of a power remaining \v\i\\ 
 the states. 
 
 "That inspection laws may have a remote and considerable influence on commerce, will 
 riot be denied ; but that a power to regulate commerce is the source from which the right 
 to pass them is derived, cannot be admitted. 
 
 " Tlie^'^ form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces every thing 
 within the territory of a state, not surrendered to the general government; all which can 
 be most advantageously exercised by the states themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine 
 laws, health laws of every description, as well as all laws for regulating the internal 
 commerce of a state, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, iSic, are component 
 parts of this mass." 
 
 It will be seen that the learned judge admits that inspection laws have a 
 considerable influence upon commerce, and are recognized in the constitution 
 itself ds being passed in the exercise of a power remaining to the states. 
 The language of the constitution is, 
 
 " No state shall lay any imposts or duties upon imports or exports, except what may be 
 absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." 
 
 The power to pass inspection laws is not given, but recognized to exist al- 
 ready. 
 
 This bill is not passed with a view to regulate commerce ; and the autho- 
 rity to pass it is not derived from the commercial power. It is enacted to pro- 
 tect the property of the citizens of this commonwealth, and the power to pass 
 it is derived from the state power to enact all laws which are necessary for 
 that purpose. The bill is enacted for a purpose not within the jurisdiction of 
 congress. 
 
 There are a variety of laws which affect commerce more directly than the 
 measure before the house, the constitutionality of which are admitted. By 
 our pilot laws, all vessels of a particular size are forbidden to depart from the 
 state without taking a pilot on board, or paying his fees. But it may be said 
 that congress has adopted the pilot laws, and hence it is that they are valid. 
 So far from this being the case, the adoption of them by congress presupposes 
 their constitutionality. Congress only possesses delegated powers, and it can- 
 
L^ 
 
 36 
 
 not exercise them by adopting, in general terms, the laws of another govern 
 ment. But the law of congress not only adopts the state laws already' in 
 existence relating to pilots, but it adopts prospectively such as may thereafter 
 be made. Surely this act is predicated upon the concession that the states 
 have the constitutional power to pass these laws. An act of congress cannot 
 confer a power of legislation upon the states which they would have had with- 
 out it. 
 
 The same may be said of quarantine laws. They are passed under the 
 power of the states to protect the health of its citizens ; and they are admitted 
 to be constitutional by those who deny the states the power to regulate com- 
 merce, although they interfere with commerce to a very great extent. In the 
 same case to which I have referred, judge Marshall said : 
 
 " The acts of congress, passed in 1796 and 1799, empowering- and directing the officers 
 of the general government to conform to, and assist in the quarantine and health laws of 
 a state, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is un- 
 doubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea ; and the constitutionality of such 
 laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an ac- 
 knowledgment that a state may rightfully regulate commerce witli foreign nations, or 
 among the states ; for they do not imply that sucli laws are an exercise of that power, or 
 enacted with a view to it. .On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health 
 laws, are so denominated in the acts of congress, and are considered as flowing from the 
 acknowledged power of a state to provide for the health of its citizens." 
 
 If the states may detain a vessel in entering her ports, to protect her citi- 
 zens from disease and pestilence, surely she may inspect her before she de- 
 parts, to see that the property of the citizen is not illegally carried away. 
 
 But the inspection laws, the constitutionality of which is not questioned, 
 are still more in point. They are very numerous, and I will not detain the 
 house by referring to them in detail. In our tobacco inspection law we re- 
 quire every master of a vessel coming into our waters with the view of shipping 
 tobacco, to take an oath, that he will not carry any uninspected tobacco out of 
 the state. Have we not the same power to require a bond as an oath? The 
 one is a religious obligation the other a pecuniary one. Have we not as much 
 right to require him to give a bond that he will not take our slaves out of the 
 state without authority of law, as we have to require him to swear that he will 
 not ship uninspected tobacco? We have gone further than this. In our law 
 for the inspection of lumber, we act on the collector and officers of the customs. 
 The collector, or other proper officer of the customs is thereby charged and 
 directed not to suffer any vessel to clear from his office, unless the master 
 shall produce inspection notes or certificates, and make an oath that he has 
 no lumber on board but what is entered in his manifest. I must forbear, how- 
 ever, Mr. Speaker, from going into further detail upon this subject. I de- 
 signed to analyze these laws minutely, and trace out the strict analogy which 
 they bear to the measure before the house ; but I am too much exhausted to 
 do so, and perhaps it is unnecessary. I will make no further remark in rela- 
 tion to them than to refer to what is said in the report of the committee : 
 
 " Your committee, however, will not be betrayed into further argument on this point. 
 The constitutionality of similar laws involving the same principles, have been so univer- 
 sally admitted, that it would be superfluous. The quarantine laws which have been passed 
 by nearly all the maritime states, the laws passed prior to 1808, prohibiting the importa- 
 tion of slaves, the state laws prohibiting the circulation of incendiary publications by 
 mail, the pilot laws, the inspection laws of the states, &c. &c., all involve the same prin- 
 ciple. New York herself has her pilot laws ; she has her health laws, by which all ves- 
 sels coming from any port south of Cape Ilenlopen, are quarantined and compelled to 
 pay fees. In her act for the inspection of pot or pearl ashes, the inspector is authorized 
 to enter on board any ship, &c., to search for pot or pearl ashes imjiroperly shipped for 
 exportation, and if such be found, he is required to seize them and sell them for the bene- 
 fit of the state treasury. Before 1808, New York passed a law prohibiting the hnportoiion 
 or exportation of slaves. Virginia has enacted similar laws, and so have most of the states. 
 Their right to pass them has not been questioned ; and the right to enforce them is inci- 
 dent to their right to pass them." 
 
37 
 
 I had also designed to refer minutely to several instances in which cono-ress 
 has recognized the power of the states to pass similar laws ; particularly to 
 the laws prohibiting the transmission of incendiary publications by mail, and 
 the law, passed at the instance of the people of Wilmington, N. C, prohibi- 
 ting the introduction of free negroes from the West Indies. 
 
 The first case is a very strong one. The power over the mail is expressly 
 granted to the federal government. Nevertheless, congress recognized the 
 right of the states, by their legislation, to prohibit the circulation throuo-h it of 
 such papers as they should regard as of a dangerous character. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gentleman from Fauquier has not duly 
 weighed the consequences of the positions which he takes. If the states can- 
 not pass such a law as the one now under discussion, because the power to do 
 it is exclusively vested in the general government, then congress may enact it. 
 If congress can enact this law, prohibiting masters of vessels from carrying 
 slaves to New York, it could pass one prohibiting them from carrying them to 
 New Orleans. In a word, congress may prohibit the slave trade between the 
 states. The fact that the states may permit their being carried to the one 
 place and not to the other, could make no difference. The legislation of the 
 states cannot confer power upon the general government. This is the leo-iti- 
 mate consequence of the gentleman's argument, yet I believe that but few, 
 even of the most latitudinous construers of the federal compact claim this 
 power for congress. 
 
 In replying on yesterday to the declamation of the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 (Mr. Scott) about a dissolution of the Union, I omitted to make some re- 
 marks which I designed to offer. 
 
 I hold it to be the duty of every friend of the Union to resist every infrac- 
 tion of the constitution. Nothing can so much tend to dissolution as the ha- 
 bitual violation of that instrument. He who would preserve the Union must 
 protect the constitution from invasion. It is admitted that New York has 
 trampled in the dust some of its most vital provisions. The constitution, now, 
 practically is not the constitution which our fathers framed. It is to all prac- 
 tical purposes, as far as New York is concerned, such a constitution as the 
 southern states never would have agreed to. She has nullified two provisions 
 of the constitution, which are of such a vital character to us, that not one 
 southern state would have adopted it without them. Shall we consent to New 
 York's changing that instrument in a most important feature, not only without 
 our consent, but in despite of our remonstrance ? The character of the two 
 provisions which New York has annulled, is too decided to leave room for 
 doubt. But to put the matter past all question, I will quote what judge Story, 
 the most federal of authorities, says in relation to them. At page 676, vol. 3, 
 of his Commentaries upon the constitution, he says : 
 
 " This clause, (the one providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves,) was introduced 
 into the constitution solelj? for the benefit of tlie slaveholding states, to enable them to 
 reclaim their fugitive slaves who should have escaped into other states where slavery was 
 not tolerated. The want of such a provision under the confederation was felt, as a grievous 
 inconvenience by the slaveholding states, since in many states no aid whatever would be 
 allowed to the owners ; and sometimes indeed they met with open resistance. It is ob- 
 vious, that these provisions for the arrest and removal of fugitives of both classes, con- 
 template summary ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary course of judicial inves- 
 tigations, to ascertain whether the complaint be well founded, or the claim of ownership 
 be established beyond all legal controversy. In cases of suspected crimes, the guilt or 
 innocence of the party is to be made out at his trial, and not upon the preliminary en- 
 quiry, whether he shall be delivered up. All that would seem in such cases to be neces- 
 sary is, that there should be jrriina facie evidence before the executive authority to satisfy 
 its judgment, that there is probable cause to believe the party guilty, such as upon an 
 ordinary warrant, would justify his commitment for trial. 
 
 "And in the cases of fugitive slaves, there would seem to be the same necessity of re- 
 quiring only prima facie proofs of ownership, without putting the party to a formal as- 
 
38 
 
 sertion of his rights by a suit at the common law. Congress appear to have acted upon 
 this opinion ; and, accordingly, in the statute upon this subject, have authorized sum- 
 mary proceedings before a magistrate, upon which he may grant a warrant for removal." 
 
 This is the constitution as we adopted it. New York has annulled it. With- 
 out these provisions we never would have agreed to it. New York has nul- 
 lified them against our remonstrance. We seek to restore the constitution to 
 what it was ; and we are told, do not attempt it, lest you dissolve the Union ! 
 The Union is now dissolved, and I desire to do what I can to restore it. 
 
 The acts of New York would be bad enough under any circumstances ; but 
 when they are done in obedience to the mandate of our worst enemies, and the 
 worst enemies of our country, they assume an atrocity which defies descrip- 
 tion. We have arrived at a point, when to recede farther from the abolitionists 
 will be dishonourable and fatal. We have receded too far already. We have 
 never met the aggressions of these people with sufficient firmness. What has 
 been the consequence 1 They have been multiplied upon us, and we have be- 
 come comparatively callous. We submit with patience to acts now which 
 would have made our blood boil in the beginning. In 1836 we passed solemn 
 resolutions, requiring New York to suppress the abolition societies within her 
 borders; we had clearly the right to make the demand, but it was contemned 
 and despised. We gave way. These aggressions have continued to advance 
 upon us, as we have receded, until we have arrived at a point, where the very 
 existence of the constitution requires that we shall make a stand. Yet it is 
 proposed that we shall still farther recede. When will gentlemen be prepared 
 to make a stand, if not now? Will they sit here in cold debate and lull them- 
 selves into a fancied and fatal security, until the most horrible of scourges — 
 servile war rages through this peaceful land? The abolitionists are active, 
 spurred on by a frenzied zeal, which disregards every duty ; they declare that 
 if we do not ultimately submit to their mad schemes, that insurrection will be 
 the consequence. Let that dread catastrophe come when it may, and scenes 
 of horror will be enacted which will make the stoutest heart sicken. What 
 would be its termination no one doubts. The negro race of the southern states 
 would be exterminated. But before that would be done, this fair land, upon 
 which peace and prosperity now smile, would be laid waste from the banks of 
 the Potomac to the gulf of Mexico, and present one boundless scene of blight 
 and desolation. I desire to save my country from this tragic end. 
 
■rf^jiyhnfti 
 
•r- 
 
 LBAp'U 
 
 »• •