E 4-4-e I? 2.7 1)110 SMITIISOMW IIKI DSir / SPEECH OF MR.-RAYNER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, ;ei*>>- ■O N 1 THE UUESTION OF THE //y Q RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS. ,« Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. States, on Tuesday, June 15, 184+, Mr. Rayner said he was aware he shniild he mot with the same Cjiarge, from ascertain quarter, wliicli was made airainst his friend from Virginia, (Mr. \V,se) — that his object was to produce at^'itutioii. iJut he took the dislinct ground, in the outset of his remarks, that he, an-' those who were battling here for tlie riglits of the South, were fiwould be opening a door for still further usurpations; because it would be effecting a breach in the walls of the Constitution, through which the citadel of liberty itself might hereafter be assailed. If our property, that which the Constitution recognises as our property, is to be t;.ken from us, not for a public use, bat to appease the demon of fanaticism, what assurance have we, \ that our own civil rights will not nexibe invaded, and weourselves be reduced 10 the condilioii of a colonial vassalno-e ? But even adriiitting tliat sophistry could distort the abolition of slnverv, in lliP District of Columbia, into h " public use," how would you obtain the means of "compensation?" Would you tax the citizens of tlie District, to raise a fund, to pay them for what already belongs to them? Tliis would not only be a mockery of justice, but an insult to tlieir undcrstandiuirs. It would be an attempt to legalise fraud, and to cheat the Constitution, by doing indi- rectly, that which you cannot do directly. Would you tax the States for liiis purpose? It would only be cflecting, by taxing us against our consent, that, which you can not do even with our consent — unless by destroying that compromise of the Constitution, by which all the great leading interests of the country are protected and sustained. By taxing us. to accomplish an ob- — ject which must prove destructive to our interests, you inflict a double hard- ship upon us ; you add insult to injury; you make us pay for the very lash which is to scourge us — for the very poison that is to work our destruction. But admitting there were no injustice, in taxing the South to efiect an ob- ject, which, without taxation, would be sowing the very seeds of ruin in our soil — siill, you are met with another diHiculty, as insurmountable as if there >rere a positive prohibition incorporated in the Constitution itself. I refer to the compact, entered into between the States, through tlieir joint agents here, and the States of Virginia and Maryland, as contained in their deeds of ces- sion. The deeds of cession from those States have expressly provided uL''ainst any such emergency as this. The deed of cession from Yirsriuia ex- ju'cssly declares, that "nothing therein contained shall be constnied to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, or to allect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than may be transferred by such individuals to the United States." Now here is an express provision, granting to the in- liabitants of this District, unimpaired, all the rights and title to property, which they had, when under the protection of the State governments. AVill any one pretend to say that this stipulation is not binding, and that we, as the representatives of the States, are not bound, by all the solenniity of plighted I'aith, to see that the bond is stricUy complied with ? Here the States of Virginia and Maryland, for a certain consideration, agreed to relinquish all jurisdiction over the ceded territory, to tlie General Government. That con- sideration was, that tlie citizens of the District should not be molested in the possession of their pr()|)erty, or enjoyment of their rii^hts ; and will any one now pretend to say, that any false mawkish notion of benevolence can ab- solve this (Jovernment from its obligations ? Why, sir, the obliiration is as binding as the Constitution itself. The Constitution is only a contract, de- pendent for its observance, upon the jjHohtcd faith of those who ibrmed it; Avhere each of the States has pledged itself to all, and all to each, to the ob- servance of certain stipulations, which are to form a basis of government. The deeds of cession from Virginia and Maryland are also a contract, where the other States have phidged tlnnr faiih, to respect and protect the rights and jiroperty of the people of the Disiricl — which contract, we, as the representa- tives of those States, are bound by every consideration of lionor, as well as duty, to observe. Why, it is to the magnanimity and patriotism of those Stales, that we are indebted for the very privilege of discussing this question here, for the very place of our legislation, for the very site of this fair and splendid edilice-^and shall we requite their kindness and liberality, by erect- iuix the very soil which they have given us, into a platform wherefrom to as- sail them I This would be playing the \)\\vi of the serpent in the fable, which, when warmed, and restored to'life at the hearth of the husbandman, repaid his kindness l)y striking iiisown child with its deadly langs. it there had been no guaranty on the pan of tiie (ieneral Government, to proirci the ciii/ens of the District in the enjoyment of their property and their K ritrhts, still, It wotiltl be restrained bv every consideration of lienor and jus- c; lice, from interterinfr with the iiistilutioii of slavery here. For, who can for ,^a moment believe, that Virginia and Maryland ever would have ceded tlioir <;^* territory, if they could have supposed it was afterwards to become an arena for Ainatics and incendiaries, from wlience the fire brand of commotion could be hurled into their borders ? Does any one suppose, that they ever would have ceded a spot, in the very heart of their territory, if they could have imagined it was afterwards to become the stronghold of the enemies of their institutions — whence their rights and their interests were to be daily assailed? No one can doubt upon the subject for a moment, after seeing tlie sensitive- ness of the people of those States upon this question — their impatience, nay, their indignation, at the manner in which their liberality is attempted to be abused. Even in the absence of any express provision — the deep and vital interest which is felt upon the subject in those Stales, the watchful jealousy which they exercise over this matter, and the disastrous consequences resulting to those States, from any interference with the subject in this District — in con- nection with the absolute certainly, that those Stales never would have ceded this territory, had they supposed it possible that their liberality was ever to be so much abused — raise an implied stipulation on the part of tliis Govern- ment, that this question should not be disturbed by it. If, then, the Constitution prohibits you from taking private property, except for public use, how can you rob the people of this District of their rights, merely to gratify the fiendish appetite of fanaticism ? If your Government has entered into a solemn contract, for a valuable consideration, to protect these people in all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under tiie ceding States, how can you take their property, without violating the plighted faith of the nation? If you are certain in your own mind — as you must be — that Virginia and Maryland never would have ceded this territory, had they sup- posed it possible that this Government ever would have taken a step so detri- mental to their interests, how can you now impose upon their liberality, and abuse their confidence, without violating " every precept of morality, every sentiment of honor? But gentlemen tell us, that by refusing to receive these petitions, we violate that right of petition, which is guaranteed in the Constitution to tlie citizens of this country. But I insist upon it, that the Constitution must be complied with, by the use of constitutional means'. You have no right to violate the Constitution, under a pretence that it is necessary to the enjoyment of a con- stitutional privilege. The means must be commensurate with the end. 'J'he Constitution would be a dead letter, and its restrictions a mere mockery, if its provisions are to be violated, under the pretence that such violation is neces- sary to the enjoyment of a right claimed under it. If this construction of the Constitution is once adopted, there is no violation of its provisions, no mattec how flagrant soever it may be, that sophistry and interest will not distort into a means indispensably necessary to the enjoyment of an admitted right. You thus destroy the safeguards of the Constitution, in a pretended zeal for their observance. Such a regard for the Constitution as this, is destructive of the very end and object proposed. It is like the embrace of a giant, that smoth- ers in his grasp, the very object of his love. The Constitution says, that the people have a right " peaceably to assem- ble and petition for a redress of grievances." Here we see that the right to petition is not unlimited in its nature, but is restricted and confined to " a re- dress of grievances." A redress of whose grievances? — their own grievan- ces, or the grievances of others ? It requires no proficiency in constitutional law to answer the question. Common sense must answer it. If it is for a re- dress of their own grievances, then they have no right to have considered, petitions which Iiarrass this House session after session, obstructing the pro- gress of public busines?, and sov.ing the seeds of tumult vwd conlusion la this hall — for a redress of what they woulJ call the i^rievanres of the slaves of this District — thereLiy endangering the existence of that very Constitution, under which they pretend to claim the right. It certainly cannot be, that the Constitution gives the right to petition for a redress of the grievances of oth- ers ; if so, where is its benevolent operation to terminate ? Is it limited to the grievances of the people of the United States, or of the western continent? — or of the civilized world? Once you pass tlie limit, within which common sense must confine the operation of this privilege, and there is no people, no matter however remote they may be, no grievance no matter howsoever ima- ginary, that is not a legitimate object of petition, and to which we are not bound to attend. If these people have a right to have considered, petitions asking for a redress, not of their own, but, of the grievances of others — then they have a right to petition us to declare war against Texas, on account of the toleration of slavery in that country — they have a right to {)etition us to inter- fere in dissolving tiie union between England and Ireland, on account of the grievances under which the people of the latter country may suffer. They have a riglit to petition us to make war against Russia or Austria, for permit- ting the landed proprietors in those countries, to retain in bondage, the thou- sands of wretched serfs, whose condition is ten times as bad as that of the slaves of the South. And if the right of petition means the right to have the petition considered, we should be bound t(j take the prayers of such petitions under our most serious consideration. So you see to what absurdities the doctrine would lead us. Establish the principle, that any portion of the people of this country have a right to peti- tion for redress, not of their own, but of the grievances of others — and if of others, of the whole world — and there is no subject, no matter how liiiie con- nected with our constitutional duties — no matter how remote iVom the pur- poses of our election — petitions on which, we would not be compelled to re- ceive, and il to receive, on which we would not be compelled to act. And thus might this House be kept not only in interminable confusion, but at an endless labor, merely to gratil'y the restless and importunate cravings of a band of fanatics. The absurdity then, to which a diflerent construction would lead us, proves, that tlie right of tiie citizen to have considered, a petition for the redress of griev- ances, must be qualified, by confining it to his oivn, and not the grievances of flthern. But sir, the right of petition for a redress of his own grievances, is not unlimited in its nature. It must be restricted to those grievances only which Con- gress has the constitutional power to redress, or rather, which it is not clearly forbid to redress. If the citizen claims a privilege, in pursuance of a provision in the constitution, that privilege must be exercised and enjoved, by the use of con- stitutional means. The constitution certainly never intended to confer upon the citizen, tlie right to petition Congress to do that, which it has refused Congress \\ie. poivf:r to do. If so, we would be bound to receive petitions praying for the nhfllition of the Constitution itself — nay, sir, we would be bound to re- ceive petitions praying for the destruction of our republican system, and the establishment of a kingly government. There is nothing so al^surd, so abu- sive, so anti-republican soever it might be, that would not be a legitimate sub- ject of petition, and the reception and consideration of which, would not be ob- ligatory upon us. Suppose petitions were sent here, complaining of the ex- cesses of democracy, as a grievance, and praying for the establishment of an order of nobility in this country, for the purpose of checking its violence — would you be bound to receive them? Suppose petitions were to come here from the South, denouncing the manufactories of the North, as public nuisances, complaining of the grievances of the laborers in those establishments, of the cruelty of their taskmasters, of the tyranny to which they are subjected — and praying Congress to jia-^s a law, that if they were not all abandoned by a given (lav, they should be abated as nui?anrps by the public offirer, or confiscated to the public use — would gentlemen from the North vote for tlic reception of such petitions. Suppose petitions were to come here from tlie Roman Catholics, askiiiu- us to pa^s a law forbiddins the use of meat on ce - tain days; or from tlie Jews, asking us to prevent the toleration of the CMiri: - tian religion, or from Fanny Wright and her followers, asking us to abolisii il e institution oi' marriane — would gentlemen who come from the land of steady habits, be so sensitive about tht^ right of petition ? \Vould they feel bound to receive them I ;md to treat them with respect ? Would the gentleman from Massacliusetls (Mr. Adams,) vote to receive such propositions ? Mr. Adams. One oroat objection to slavery is, that it does abolish marriage. Slavery tears husband from wife, parent from child. That is one of the grie- vances attending it. It destroys all the relations of life, and among them the lies of marriage. How have I seen it operate in this very district? Mr Kaynkr. I yielded the floor lo the gentleman, for an answer to my question, and not for an argument. Mr. AuAMs. Then ask me no more questions. If I am to be stopped as soon as I begin to answer, let no more questions be asked me. Mr. Ravner. The gentleman has dodged the question, with his usual ability and sagacity. I suppose the gentleman from Massachusetts is opposed to nulli- fication, and would consign lo oblivion and disgrace, all who dilfer with him ou tliatsubject; because he would say, the tendency of nullification was to disunion. Would he receive petitions, asking for a dissolution of the union of these Stales ? Would he feel bound lo receive and refer ])etilions, praying for the establishment of a religion bylaw ? Suppose petitions come here couched in language too vul- gar and obscene for the ears of decency — suppose they teem with blasphemy against the God who overlooks and protects us ; suppose they breathe of that sin and pollution, amid scenes of which I learn these abolition petitions have their origin — acording to the doctrine insisted on, we can exercise no dis- cretion, we are bound to receive them, and to bestow upon them our most gracious consideration. Suppose we arc petitioned to dissolve the Union, why we must immediately set about and calculate its value. According to this con- struction of the Constitution, it contains within itself the elements of its own destruction. Il has provided the very means by which it may be cautiously approached, successfully assailed, and inevitably destroyed. These agita- tors pretend, that it is a sacred regard for the rights secured by the Constitu- tion, that actuates them ; yet in the excess of their devotion, in the fervour of their affection for the Constitution, they stab it to the heart, as Joab did Abner, when pretending to embrace it. Why sir, it is ridiculous, it is absurd, to talk about the constitution imposing on Congress, the duty to do that, which must inevitably work a destruction of the Constitution itself. I presume the House has the power, if it thought proper in its discretion to do so, to receive petitioners themselves at the bar of the House, and hear their grievances verbally explained. Well, are petitions drawn out on paper, and subscribed by the petitioners, entitled to more respect, or more binding in their obligation on us to receive them, than if the petitioners were to present themselves here in person? Certainly not — and who will deny, that the house in the latter case, would have power, and be fully justified, in driving the petitioners from our doors, if they addressed us in abusive or disrespect- ful language ? And the house would, and must of necessity, be the judge, in its discretion, whether the petitioners demeaned themselves in a becoming man- ner, or not. This power must result from the inlierent and necessary right of every legislative body to protect itself, and preserve its own dignity, in the ex- ercise of its legal functions. Then, if the House would have the right to drive from its doors for improper conduct, or disrespectful language, or an attempt to disturb the order and harmony of the House and the Union, the petitioners themselves ; it mMsMiave the right to refuse to receive tlieir petitions for like cause ; unless pen, ink, and paper, can impart a sanctity to petition, whicli it does not possess wlien orally made. This House must have the power to protect itself iVom outrage and insult; in doinij so, it must exercise its own discretion ; and in the exercise of this discretion, a sound and enlightened pub- lic opinion will always secure for petitions tiiat are respectful, and within the limits of our constitutional power, a calm and dispassionate consideration. And this point being yielded — that Congress must have the power to protect itself from insult and abuse, of which it can be the only judge, in its discre- tion — and every thing is yielded ; and all the sophistical arguments that are built upon the assumption, that Congress is bound to regard the right of pe- tition without any qualification, must tumble to the ground. For all the stren- uous advocates of the doctrine, that we are bound to receive and refer those petitions, are compelled to take the ground, that the right of petition is sacred, inviolalile, and obligatory in its nature, and that it leaves Congress no discre- tion on the subject; and that we are bound, without regard to the subject matter, or the language in which they are couched, to receive all petitions, respectfully refer and report upon them, even to the neglect of other pressing and important business of the nation. But gentlemen tell us, it is the sacred riglit of petition these people are contending for. Very good, sir, no one denies tliem the right of petition. In- sulting and vexatious though it be to us, still we do not deny them the right to assemble together; to interchange their views ; to listen to the hypocritical rant, and rhapsodical appeals of their priestly impostors ; to shed as many crocodile tears as they please, over the imaginary wrongs of the poor slaves of the South, that are far happier than tlie thousands of starving wretches who need their charity at home ; we are willing that they should abuse us of the South, as tyrants, and deserving of massacre, as much as they choose; we are willing to all this ; but we are not willing that their vile petitions, which ask us to violate the Constitution, and to put in jeopardy the peace and happi- ness of the people of this country, should receive any countenance from this body, the members of which are sworn to support the Constitution, and who ought to be the guardians of the rights and liberties of the people of the States. "We insist upon it, that the petitions should be treated in the same w-ay, the petitioners themselves would deserve to be treated, if they were to present themselves in person, disturbing our harmony and interrupting our proceed- ings — that our doors should be shut against tiiem, and they driven with indig- nation from our presence. AViien petitions are presented here, that are re- spectful in their language, praving for a redress of the grievances of those who petition, and which relate to a sul)ject within our constitutional jurisdic- tion ; the spirit of our free institutions requires, that we shotdd, in the exer- cise of that sound discretion, wiiich this bodv nuist possess for its own pre- servation, receive them, and respectfully consider them. Init when they arc violent in their tone, disrespectful and abusive to a large portion of the people olthis country, praying for a redress not of their own real grievances, but the imaginary grievnnces of others; wiien they ask us to throw the country into disorder and commotion, and to violate the (yonstitution which is the very soul of the Union ; so far from being received, they sliouhl be njecteil with scorn and contempt. Hut, sir, what is the right of petition, in the constitutional meanincr of the term ? Is it the right of the ))eople to assnnhle foixethtr without molestation, and to express their wishes to the Legislature ; or is it the right to have their petitions unqualifiedly and unconditionally received, referred, and acted on/ It certainly cannot nif an the latter, for the same process of reasoning, that would e.stiiblish it as the dutv of Congress, to receive all petitions that are pre- fcnted, of whatsoever I'hnrnctcr, would ulho prove it to be thi'ir bouudcn duty to s^rmit the prayers of the petitionrrs, wlien received. Rpcaupe the duty "f Conoress to receive them, is an inference only, to be drawn from a latitude of ccrnstruction ; and the same latitude of construction, by going a step far- ther, could as easily prove, that the power petitioned is bound to grant the ap- plicant's prayer. If the right of petition means any thing more than the right to assemble— to subscribe, if you please, and offer the petition — how much more does it mean, and what, and where, is the rule by which you apply its meaning? Do you derive your rule of construction from the Constitution, or from the law ? If so, where is it? If the right of petition does not necessa- rily include the right to have the petition granted, what is the difference be- tween rejecting it at the threshhold, on account of its unconstitutionality and tendency to disunion, and doing so afterwards, on account of its inexpediency? If it does include the right to have the petition granted, why then there is an end to the Government, for there is no act of legislation, to which some fac- tious spirit would not object, and thus the action of this House might ever be kept suspended, between petition on the one hand, and counter petition on the other. Sir, I again ask, what is the riglit of petition as provided for in the Constitution ? if my recollection of history is correct, it grew out of, and is intended to guard aga'inst, the dangers and dilficulties, which beset the friends of liberty, during their struggles against the despotism of the latter Stuarts. It is well known, that the peaceable assemblages of the opponents of power in those times, were frequently annoyed and dispersed by military ibrce, un- der the pretence, that they were collected for treasonable and seditious pur- poses. And this right of' assembling to consult together, for the purpose of laying their complaints before Parliament, was one of the great piivileges contended for, and recognised in the bill of rights, signed by the 'Sd William, when he wao called to the English throne in 1088. 'Jliis right of petition, so much talked of, is secured to the English citizen as well as to ours ; yet who will contend that Parliament would be bound to receive, refer, and con- sider, a petition, praying for the expulsion of the house of lirunswick, and the restoration of the Stuarts ? Does any one here believe, that such a petition would receive countenance from the Common-s of England ? So far from it, it would place in peril the petitioner's head. This right of petition, secured to the people of England by the bill of rights, was claimed and exercised before the Kevolution, by these colonies, as a component part of the British realm. Anil the grounds upon which its vio- lation was complained of, during the early struggles of the colonies against the tyranny of the mother country, was, not that their petitions were not receiv- ed, but that " large bodies of armed troops were quartered among them," for the purpose of overawing their deliberations, and of interrupting tiieir peaceful assemblages, when quietly convened, for the purpose of consulting for iheir common good. This is one of the grievances set Ibrth in the Declaration of Independence, a protection against which was afterwards incorjiorated in our fundamental law. Judging, then, from the history of this question, and tiie probable motives which caused its insertion in the ('onsiiliition, it has refer- ence to the acts and personal security of the petitioners — their right to as- semble together, to consult for their common good — io send on their petitions hx presentation, if you please, and not to any obligation on the part of the petitioned to lull have power "to ex«rci.-e exclusive leijislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceedinsr ten miles square) as may, bv cession of particular Slates, and the acceptanr-e of Congress, become the' seal of the .ovcrnment ol the United Slates," &c. I believe the abolitionists admit— 1 know 1 have heard the irentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Slade,) admit it— that if the power is not derived from the srrant of ^^ exclimve legislation^ tlien shivery in the district is not a rsons muler thirty years of age. The company of the Washington and lialtimore rail-road have tlie exclusive right of transportation on that road : yet they have not the ab- sofute and unlimited power to transport the person or property of any man against his will ; neither have they the right to wantonlv run their engines over any luckless traveller, who may happen to straggle across their track. And so the "exclusive legislation" mentioned in the Constitution, while it excludes legislation by any other power, still does not grant to Congress an absolute and nn imited control over those subjects, on which it is authorized to legis- late. If excluKivc legislation means unlimited ieirislation, then Compress has power to establish a censorship of the j.ress for this district, or to establish ihercnn a religion by law. I liavc frequently heaid it eaid, that this matter would not have been fell so vague and indclinile, if Virginia and Marvland had intended to re- «lnct the General (u)vernniciit in its legislative aci'ion ; but that thev would have inserted a provision, that would have placed the question "beyond i oubt. I have already attempted to show, that this ease was fully provi- Ued lor in the deeds of cession, juid that the restriction is .ntire and coin- plote. Hut. if there had been no exjJiess restriction, it would not have altered the cast, .No one believes that cither of those Stales would ever have ceded llie territorv in qtiestion, could they have supposed the General Gov- ernment would ever so far violate every principle ol' faith and justice, as to convert this district into an asylum and a refuge for their runaway slaves. The cession, however, was made in the purer days of the repuhlic, when its destinies were controlled by the same men who achieved its liberties, and the noble impulses of freedom and patriotism beat high and bounding in their bosoms. Those States could not then have supposed, that, in fifty years, faction and fanaticism was to shake this Union to its centre ; and that a boon, which they bestowed from the purest motives of patriotism, was to be used as a means of their destruction. Amid the warmth of those generous impul- ses that excited to the deed, it is not to be supposed, that they should have been as exacting as Shylock, or as accurate as a miser w'hen counting his gold. If no provision of restriction had been inserted, the General Govern- njent could not have exercised the power, without being guilty of an act of perfidy, disgraceful to the Government, and disreputable to the American character. It is cruel, at all times, to deceive the credulous and unwary, even when no fatal injury is to be the result; but to take advantage of confi- dence reposed, to plot disaster and ruin against the innocent and confiding party, is crime unpardonable, and when committed by a nation, is " a re- proach to any people." Yes, sir, in the absence of any provision, if this Government were to violate the faith reposed in it by Virginia and Maryland, then American faith might well become a bye-word and a reproach, in modern times — as Punic faith was among the ancients, to denote the perfidy and in- sincerity of the Carthagenian character. I presume noone will deny, that the abolition of slavery in this District, by this Government, would be an act of perfidy towards Maryland and Virginia, who ceded the territory. And w-ill gentlemen yet insist, that we should re- ceive and consider petitions, which call upon us to commit a gross and wilful act of perfidy? Now I presume it is unnecessary for me to undertake to prove, that a proposition to commit an act of perfidy, ought not to be enter- tained in this House. If an honest and conscientious man in private life, would leject such a proposition with scorn and indignation, ought not the assembled representatives of a Christian people to do it? Perfidy, which is a violation of confidence, of trust reposed, is a crime which, in all ages of the world, has been stamped with the deepest reprobation ; and which untutored savages even look upon with horror. The wild Arab of the desert, who roams in quest of plunder, and whose mind has never been illumined by the beams of Chris- tian light, not only observes his promise with scrupulous fidelity, but looks upon the way-worn traveller who enters his tent, as inviolable in his purse and person ; and would risk his life, in defence of the guest who relies up- on an iw;)/tef?assuranceof his protection. And shall it be said that a Christian people, who boast of their civilization, and of their regard for all the obliga- tions of morality and justice, are guilty of an act of perfidy, which would bring the blush of shame to an Arab's cheek ? Will this Government legal- ize treachery ? will it knowingly and wilfully violate the confidence which has been reposed in it? Gentlemen who favor the views of the fanatics, talk a great deal about moral right and justice. Here is a case, which affords them an opportunity of showing their sense of moral right. For there is a great moral principle involved in this issue ; it is whether plighted faith is here- after to be regarded among men, or whether it is to be treated as a jest. It is, whether confidence is hereafter to be observed, or doubt and suspicion to pre- vail in its stead. Why, sir, what sort ofa spectacle would the human family present, if all confidence were destroyed between man and man ? Banish confidence from the world, and you produce a social chaos. Governments ex- ist by confidence, society is held together by no other tie — and all the tender 10 and endearinj? relations of life, would lose their charm without it. Destroy confidence, and then indeed, is friendship " but a name, A charm that lulls to sleep," and a still more tender relation yields its power to " The green-eyed monster, which doth mock The meat it feeds on." Establish the principle, that plighted faith is not to be regarded, and you con- vert man, from a social being, into a gloomy misanthrope. Destroy confi- dence between nations, and intercourse must be suspended ; and where com- merce now spreads her canvass to the breeze, solitude will brood over the bosom of the deep. Destroy confidence, and you dissolve the cement that binds this Union together ; you convert this building from a legislative hall into a castle of defence ; and where our stars and stripes now wave in the breeze, armed sentinels will. soon keep watch. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to attempt to show, that the interference of Congress, with the sale of slaves between the States; the abolition of slavery in the Territories ; or the prohibition of slavery in the new States to be ad- mitted into the Union, would be equally unconstitutional, and violative of good faith, as the interference of slavery in this District; but having occupied the time of the House so long, I cannot now go into either of those questions. The genUeman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) remarked, in quoting the language of another, that there was not one of the attributes of the Almighty, on the side of tliose who tolerate slavery, or who would attempt to quell a ser- vile insurrection by force. Here the gentleman has chosen to forget the Consti- tution and the law, and to place this question upon the great principles of moral riglit and of tlie Divine law. I will not stop to look at tlie direful consequen- ces, growing out of the loose application of such a doctrine as this, to the af- fairs of human legislation. It sweeps away, in a moment, all the restraints of law and order; and subjects all social compacts, all conventional agreements, all legislalive enactments, to the capricious and factious construction, which a blind and infuriated multitude might place, upon the principles and require- ments of the moral law. It is disorganizing, it is revolutionary — and lets loose upon the world, all the tumultuous impulses of human passion. So far as relates to human government and to temporal institutions, tJiesc must be a matter of conventional arrangement — of plighted faith. As to the abstract and inherent behests of the Divine law, tltci/ rest only in the bosom of that great Being who governs the world— and He, in his appointed time, will mete out justice in due proportion, to the offender and the offended. And will the gentleman from Massachusetts and his abolition friends, presume to assert one of the attributes of Deity itself? Will they undertake to avenge, what they call ni their fanatical jargon, the accumulated' wrongs of an injured race ? How dare they be guilty of such impious presumption? "Vengeance is mine snith the Lord," says that book which we are all taii<:htto reverence. In their wild rant iihoMijmlke, they should recollect that injunction of the decalogue, which says, " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's man servant, nor his maid servant, nor any thing that is his." We also demand nothing but justire. We claim to be let alone— to be left free to the enjovment of those rights, that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of our country; and as to any viola- tion of justice, or of the moral law, we are responsible to that Being", before whom we must all apj)ear in judgment. 'IMie giMilleman from Massachusetts told us, that this movement on the part of the abolitiiinisis, was in accordance with that progress of public opinion which is pervading the world. He referred to the emancipation of (he slaves in the West Indies, and to the gradual progress of mental improvement even 11 in China itself. I was really surprised to hear a man of his reach and pow- er of understanding, advance an argument on this subject, winch a pigmy m intellect can overturn in a moment. What, does he put the power ot this House, on a level with the power of the British Parliament ? Has he .lu.te forgotten the Constitution ? Does lie not know that our powers are hmUed, while those of Parliament are said to be omnipotent ? If the Covernments ot EnMand and France have seen fit to abolish slavery ui their dommions, they had\n unlimited right to do so ; but I have never yet heard of that nation, which has ever advanced the claim to interfere with this institution, on the soil, and within the jurisdiction, of another country. The gentleman from Massachusetts spoke, with much apparent pride, of the emancipation by England of the slaves in her W est India possessions. If he is willing to know the workings of this system, 1 refer him to an article in the Edinburgh Review* for January, 1841, entitled "Wrongs and Claims of Indian Com- merce," from which it will be seen, that the present degraded and unhappy condition of the emancipated slaves there, needs his sympathy much more than do the slaves of our Southern States. If slavery be an evil, the remedy must be left to ourselves ; and we need not the mawkish sensibility of those who are unacquainted with our situation, to teach us our duty or our interest. This attempt to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, is false and deceptive in its character; for it cannot be concealed,t hat the object is to gain a foothold, wherefrom to assail slavery more eflectually in the States. 1 know this was for a long lime denied ; in fact, at the commencement ot this aaitation, we were told that they did not contemplate any legislative action whatever ; but that their only object, was to exercise a moral iniluence upon public opinion. But they have changed their position My friend trom Georgia (Mr. King,) who, the other day, threw himself so gallantly in the • "This misundcrstandins [between the managers and laborersJ-thouRh the term is too mild adequately to represent the existing relation of the parties,-has ansen from the un- ^..ise endeavor of the planters to compel labor, by the exercise ot a species ot coer on futile for every purpose but annoyance and exasperation. It has been attempted o n ake the dwellingslnd provision grounds of the negroes, the instruments of comjelhng them o >vork for the land-owner on whose plantation they reside, or of reducing their wages. The lan<^ualiorrence upon the conduct 15 of the female portion of abolition petitioners here. At least half of the sign- ers to these petitions, breathing "venom and denunciation against the entire South, are women. Sir, women have no business interfering wliere men are contendino- for empire. They are as until to leach us our political duties, as thev are to lead our armies in war, or to conduct our councils in peace. The scenes here are too exciting, the conflicts too bitter, for their tender and deli- cate natures. Their business is to soothe the impetuous and liardened na- ture of man, instead of exciting it into still more violent conmiotion. Their empire is decidedly one of the heart — " Wherever a tear is dried, a v^^ounded heart Bound up, a bruised spirit with the dew Of sympathy anointed, or a pang Of honest suticring soothed." there is woman's sphere, there is the proper theatre for her action. But when they will unsex themselves, by thrusting themselves into scenes for which na- ture never intended them ; they must expect their conduct to undergo the or- deal of criticism — for a reprobation of their course is a duty which we owe to others of their sex, whose modesty and sense of propriety lestrain them within their own sphere. It always denotes adistempered state of moral feeling, to see women busily interfering in the political affairs of a nation. English history reads us many lessons on this subject. The plans and intrigues that led to the elevation of Cromwell, the most tinished hypocrite of modern history were originated and matured at the pretended meetings for prayer, in which the women of the time not only participated, but exercised an important influ- ence. What sort of an administration had England in the reign of Charles II, when ministers even, held seals to-day, and were expelled from ofllce to-morrow, as one favorite or another happened to predominate in the Sover- eign's afljections. The revolution in France, was horried in its progress by the fish-women of Paris ; and many of the horrors of tliat bloody time, were perpetrated by female hands. And all the hypocritical cant of the days of Cromwell — all the disgusting intrigue of the court of Charles II — all the hor- rid excesses of the French revolution — proceeded not from a more fiendish spirit, than that which hurries on, in their course, the abolitionists of the pre- sent (lay ; for they are not only regardless of the human suffering which may result from their course; but the inevitable tendency of their measures, is to overthrow the Government itself, and thereby extinguish forever, the hopes of freedom throughout the world. Now, sir, I think the time has arrived when the North and the South should understand each other on this question. I wish the South to know who are the friends, and who the enemies of their constitutional rights. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) has said this is the greatques- tion— that it is a question between the North and the South — between libeity and slavery. He has said that the adoption of the 21st rule at the last ses- sion, was a then administration measure — and spoke with apparent pride, of the abrogation of this rule, being the first measure of the Whig administration. And this speech of his will be printed and sent abroad to the world, as having received the tacit sanction of the members from the North. Are Northern gentlemen willing to endorse this proposition ? If they are not, why have they not disclaimed it ? Now, if the gentleman from Massachusetts is right, and the reception of abolition petitions is the great question which supersedes all others — if Northern gentlemen are to annoy us eternally on this sulijoct — • if all political and party difterences are to be merged in one great issue of sectional feeling — the sooner we know it the better. For no matter what political diflerences may have existed among us heretofore, yet, my word lor it, on this question the South will stand firm as one man— not for tlie pur- pose of offence—nol for the purpose of aggression— but for the purpose ol IC defending ourselves, against a lawless anJ insolent interference with otir rights. And according to the position of the gentleman IVon^ Massachusetts, we are bound to consider the rescinding of this rule at this time — if not as a direct attack upon us — as a tacit sanction of the mad measures of those, who have for years, been endeavoring to light the torch of the incendiary for our dwellings, and to sharpen the knife of the assassin for our throats. We know no party difl'erences at the South on this subject. And if any portion or party in the North attempt to deprive us of our rights, be tliey Whigs or be they Democrats, we shall regard them as our enemies, and deal with them as such. And on the other hand, if any portion or parly in the North shall, in the discharge of their constitntional duty, come to our relief on this question, we are bound, not only on the principle of gratitude, but of self-preservation, to consider them as friends, and to unite with them as such. And, sir, I will take this occasion, to tender my sincere thanks, in itie name of my State and of my constituents, to those from the non-slaveholding States who voted with us on this question — who took counsel of their duty rather than of their fears. The course of Northern gentlemen who have acted with us on this matter, presents an instance of high moral sublimity — of noble self-sacriiloing devo- tion. They had every thing to lose and nothing to gain at home, and yet, in discharge of a constitutional obligation, they have come to the relief of the unoffending South. Mr. Speaker, let it be recollected, we of the South did not commence this controversy. We wish no excitement on this subject: all we ask, is to be let alone. We wished to proceed to business under the rules of the last Congress, till new ones can be reported ; but the gentleman from Massachu- setts, (Mr. Adams,) and those who sustain him, objected to this; they rel'use to move one step ; they refuse to organize this House, till they have triumph- ed over the feelings of southern men; and when we complain, they turn upon us with scorn and insult, and accuse us of agitation — agitation. We know our position here. Although we are but defending ourselves^ yet we are taunted with creating excitement. I call upon this House, and this coun- try to witness, that we of the South arc not responsible for the consumption of time, and excitement of feeling growing out of this discussion. T^c know that we came here for a different purpose. Jf'e know that we came here for the purpose of trying to heal the sullerings, and to relieve the currency and finances, of tlie nation. The very men who taunt us with this delay, are the ones, who suffer themselves to be diverted from the great purposes for which we assembled — who neglect the important interests of the country — merely for the purpose of pandering, to the prejudice and bigotry of those whose very element is mischief, and the success of whose schemes must inevitably result in disunion. This 21st rule was not originally passed for the purpose of enabling the South to oppress the North, as contended by the gentleman from Massachu- setts, in the fury of his temper and the wildness of his imagination; but it was passed for the purpose of defending the South, against the unjust aggres- sions and hypocritical j)hilanthropy of a band of fanatics at the North, who are urged on and instigated by a few political discontents, who hate us and our institutions on account of some political pique. 'J'he gentleman from Massachusetts said the object of southern gentlemen, in voting for this rule, was to screen themselves from the charge of abolitionism at home. Is this all the charily that gentleman has learnt in a life of near fifty years of public .service ? What rigiit has he to im[)ugn the motives of others .' Who made him a judge of tiie hcarls of men ? liy what authority does he condemn ihe motives of men, who act under the same responsibility to God and their country, that he docs .' It is as illiberal and unkind in him to make the charge ir he does, as it wcwld be in me to say, that his motives, in puisuinjf the course he does, is to create an insurrection amono; tlie slaves at the South. T'le (jentlenian from Massachusetts says, the reason wiiy we are not wil- linir to listen to the prayers of the abohtionists is, that " conscience makes cowards ot'us." Which is the most cowardly, to defend our rights on our own soil, or to take advantage of our position, to assail with impunity the riidits of others ? According to the code, which prevails in this land ol " cowards," as the gentleman would call us, it is considered the greatest evi- dence of cowardice, for any one to take advantage of age or station, to cast his insults and denunciations upon his unoffending neighbors. " Cowards" as we may be, we have magnanimity enough, to spare those who are shielded by their irresponsibility. We of the South, I repeat, are not responsible for this discussion, and the excitement growing out of it: we were content with the rule of the last ses- sion ; we were ojiposed to agitating the subject. But, sir, if the issue must be made, if the war must come, Me are ready to meet you — if you will come out, and take your position in a fair field. Don't send your missiles from your secret retreats, but come out boldly, and we are ready to meet you, first in argument, and after that is exhausted, we know by what we are to stand. Gentlemen may call this mere declamation — idle gasconade ; I liave no doubt they wdl ; that is the usual answer that right and justice usually receive, from the cold heardess voice of arrogance and oppression. IJut no, sir, we warn you now to let us alone, to leave us unmolested in the enjoyment of our un- doubted rights. If you are resolved to force this issue upon us, I repeat again, I for one am ready to meet it. There are others here who are ready to meet it — others, whose voices have so often been liaised in support of constitutional right — who have not quailed before oppression at home, and who are not likely to yield to it from abroad. I was pleased at the gallant manner, in which the gentleman t>om Maryland, (Mr. Johnson) — the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) and the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. King,) met this question at the very threshhold. They have given warning, that they are ready to meet the enemies of our institutions, on the ramparts. There are others here, who are ready to stand by diem. We have taken our position. We stand on the defensive. We plant ourselves on the platform of the Constitution. We ask for notliing, but the enjoyment of those constitutional rights and pri- vdeges, guaranteed to us by the fathers of the republic. From this position we wdl not be driven. Gentlemen are mistaken, if they suppose they are to crush us, and trample on our rights, by mere brute force — by a mere majori- ty of numbers in (his hall. Those who are congratulating themselves, with the idea of having defeated us, will yet find, that the " race is not always to the swift, nor the batUe to the strong." They will yet find, that there is a moral power in being in the right, which will defy all their assaults. Men, yes, men who know their rights, are not to be deterred from the exercise of those rights, by a band of fanatics, who are attempting to wield a rod of terror over this hall, and who, I am sorry to say, do exercise an mllu- ence here, incompatible with the dignity of this House, and the character of this country. It is not because we fear the assaults of this seditious clan — it is not that we doubt our ability to protect ourselves against all their machi- nations — that we are opposed to the reception of their abusive memorials ; but, sir, it is because we dmi't choose — no sir, we don't choose to be annoyed by this insolent interference with our concerns — and because we believe fur- ther, that it is calculated to sow the seeds of dissention and of disunion throughout the land. The gentleman from Massacliusetts remarked that these incendiaries were 18 actuated by tho same principle, as that depicted in the armorial bearintfs of the State of Virginia — wliicli is a beautiful woman trampling on tl:e neck of a ty- rant, with the motto. Sic semper tyrannis. Yes, sir, and as long as Virgi- ivia remains true to that motto, she will deluge her borders in blood, sooner than suffer her rights and privileges thus rumlessly to be invaded, Sir, what is tyranny ? It is an unjust and unlawful interference, with the rights ot oth- ers. AVhy was George III. denominated a "tyrant" in the Declaration of Independence? It was because he dared to infringe upon the rights of the colonies — rights which were guaranteed to the subjects of the Uriti:ih cr-jwn, by the usages of ages, and the laws of the realm. And whenever you of the North, attempt to encroach upon the constitutional privilecres of us of the South, we shall regard you as attempting to play the part of ty;ants, and we will treat you as such. We oppose to your assaults, that same motto of the Virginia arms — Sic semper tyrnnnis. And whenever you attempt to rob us of our rights, yon will liiul — not a beautiful woman, for mc do not call upon women to light our battles, as your incendiaries do, but — men, yes, men, with stout hearts and strong arms, trampling you under our feet, and your crown and sceptre trailing i,i the dust. The gentleman from Massachusetts took the daring groui.d, that al- though tills Government might not disturb, in the first instance, the institution of slavery in the States of this Union, yet, it might in- terpose as the treaty-making power, in case of a servile insurrection, even to the extent of universal emancipation. This is the boldest ground I have ever heard assumed, even by the most ultra aboUlionists. Is such lan- guage as this, to be proclaimed on this floor, and to be {)asseil over without notice — especially, when we consider the high source whence it comes ? And are we to be charged with creating " agitation," when we rise to protest against it? When such language is used here, " I will speak, thoug'i hell itself should ga{)e, and bid me hold my peace." Interpose as tiie treaty- making power ! Between whom ? Between the slaves and their masters? Does ttie gentleman from IVIassachuselts pretend to say, that, in case oi' a ser- vile insurrection, the slaves would maintain the position of an uidependcnt belligerent power? How can this be, when slaves are recognised as proper- ty, in the Constitution — virtually property, as irmch so, as are (>ur lan'is, and the stock that grazes them. Hovv can this Government constitutionally in- terfere, for the purpose of securing political privileges to our slaves, when they are not recognised as citizens in that instrument, or as entitled to any po- litical rights whatever? Does he not see to what an absurdity this argument would lead him I Suppose the agrarian mol)s in your Northern cities uorc to rise in commotion, and attempt to appropriate to themselves the property of the wealthy, and the proceeds of the honest man's industry. Suppose they were to bid defiance to the laws— provetoo strong lor the civil power — and threaten to overthrow the authority of the local government, against which they might be in arms. Will it be pretended, that this (Jovernment might in- terpose in such case, as the treaty-making power, to the extent ol salislying the inordinate demands of these insurrectionists, bv securing to them t!ie i)ro- perly, which they had taken by violence? Such arirument is based uptm the Piippositiou, that the Constitution provides for enloiciiig a violation of its ex- pie.--s provisions. Mr. Speaker, the scene exhibitepreciate the blessings of this Union, wiiich a reckless fanaticism is now shaking to its centre. ^ ^ 4