measure for the prosecution of internal improvement. The general Government would advance to the compa nies the means for the construction of these roads, and would thus operate on all the railroads throughout the Union.

The motion was then agreed to.

INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill prohibiting deputy postmasters from receiving or transmitting through the mail, to any State, Territory, or District, certain papers therein mentioned, the circulation of which, by the laws of said State, Territory, or District, may be prohibited, and for other purposes.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, rose and said he proposed, as no other gentleman seemed inclined to take the floor, to invite the attention of the Senate to some considerations connected with this bill. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had justly observed that it was an important measure, and I (said Mr. D.) so view it, for it seems to me to propose a great, and, I fear, injurious change in the policy of the United States. The alleged object (said Mr. D.) is to suppress what are called incendiary publications; and it is necessary to look at the provisions of the bill, that the change in policy, and the manner in which it affects privileges which we have hitherto enjoyed, may be fully understood.

1st. It provides that it shall be unlawful for any postmaster to put into the mail, or deliver therefrom, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other paper, printed or written, or pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, addressed to any person living in a State where the circulation of such paper is prohibited by law.

2d. It makes a violation of this provision punishable with fine or imprisonment.

I need not (said Mr. D.) state the provisions more particularly, as the residue consists of details. It seems to me plain that the object is to transfer from the United States the regulation of the mail and of the Post Office, in these matters, to the States, by making the laws of the States, whatever they are or may be, the laws to regulate the Post Office, and to that extent the laws of the United States. This is a manifest change of public policy, a departure in principle from the uniform course of legislation; and, not being prepared for such a step, I have risen to express the hope that it will not be hastily taken It was the pleasure of the Senate to place me upon the committee; and, as I did not concur in the report or the bill, it is probably expected that I should state my reasons for this difference of opinion.

The report drawn by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] treats the matter in two distinct views, which, however ingenious and able, scem to me not to be reconciled to each other.

[APRIL 7, 1836.

Now, sir, (said Mr. D.,) the propositions seem to me to lead to the same result. The one proposes a suppression of certain papers by the agency of the postmasters, and so does the other: not only the end, therefore, but the means, are the same. The only difference is, that in one case the law comes from a State or States, and in the other from Congress; but if Congress, by its acts, so far adopts the law of a State as to make it a rule of conduct for public officers, requiring them, under penalties, to obey it, is not such a law in fact a law of Congress by adoption? Is it not in truth a part of our legislation in the regulation of the Post Office as much as if it had emanated directly from Congress? I confess I cannot perceive the difference, and the two parts of the report, which arrive at opposite results, seem to be irreconcilable. The one disproves

the other; for, if the one is right, the other is wrong. But, sir, I do not propose to enter into the question of constitutional power at this time, for I have other and distinct grounds of objection, about which I feel no embarrassment; and, therefore, shall at present leave this debatable question.

It seems to me, if the power were unquestionable, the measure is inexpedient. To make myself understood, I must call the attention of the Senate to the char acter of the Post Office, and then distinctly to the proposed plan of regulation; and, if I mistake not, it will be found to be such a perversion of the purposes for which the Post Office was established, as greatly to impair its usefulness.

This

There is, perhaps, no known definition of a post office which so distinctly indicates its character as to show the precise purposes of its establishment in detail. The general design is to transmit intelligence; but in what | form and to what extent, are all matters undetermined by the constitution; for the authority is there contained in a single line. Among the enumerated powers, it reads "to establish post offices and post roads." is all. A naked grant of power, leaving to Congress to determine how and in what way it shall be executed; and Congress has hitherto determined both what shall go in the mail bags, and how they shall be transported, and upon what conditions. The reason of vesting this power in Congress is apparent. The transmission of intelligence through all parts of the country was obviously a matter of great public concernment, in which all were interested; and, as all would be represented here, that could manifestly be better regulated and provided for here than by the States separately. The matter was supposed to be thus confided where there could be no dispute or conflict of interest, but the laws would be uniform, and the transmission certain. It is, then, I think, clearly the duty of Congress to provide for the speedy transmission of intelligence; and in this, I doubt not, we all concur.

In the first place, it contains an able argument to The question, then, raised by this bill is this: shall we prove that Congress has no constitutional power to pass further regulate the Post Office, by requiring the posta law to regulate the Post Office, by making the post- masters to investigate the contents of the mail? The masters the judges to determine the moral, political, bill makes it penal to receive or deliver any papers, the religious, or other tendency, of printed or written mat- circulation of which are forbidden. Now, sir, how can ter, for this would be an indirect invasion of the liberty the receiving or delivering postmaster know what he reof the press, and a perversion of the purposes and in-ceives or delivers, without examination? If he fails to tent of the power granted to manage the Post Office. It likens the case to that of the sedition law, which was condemned on the ground that the press was indirectly invaded by it.

In the second place, it contends that, while this direct exercise of power by legislation here is denied, there is a full and complete constitutional authority to sanction and carry into effect the laws of the States, when they require precisely the same investigation of the mail, the same objectionable separation of its contents, and the same practical invasion of the press.

examine them, the whole purpose of the law is defeated. If he examines them, the contents of the mail are exposed. The bill embraces all letters, as well as printed matter; for, after enumerating newspapers, pamphlets, handbills, pictures, &c., it says, or any other paper. The mail is necessarily submitted to the inspection of the postmasters, with a power to reject or withhold so much of the contents as have any thing in them touching the subject of slavery, if it is prohibited circulation. We are told that all incendiary publications are prohibited; but what are incendiary? Yes, what are incendiary? I will

APRIL 7, 1836.]

Incendiary Publications.

[SENATE.

read to the Senate, from a document before me, that lic mind, should pass a law prohibiting the circulation of they may be the better able to judge what is and will be all political matter not in accordance with the opin inhibited as incendiary. A short time past, a citizen of ions of a majority; or of bank notes, or checks, or New York, residing in that State, and editing a news- drafts, through the mail in payments of debts, as has paper called the Emancipator, was indicted in Alabama; lately been menaced; or of speculations in philosophy and as he was not resident in that State, the Governor or religion: can this Government, consistently with the demanded him of the Governor of New York as a fugi-fundamental principles of the constitution, lend its aid tive from justice, (though he had not been within the to countenance such measures? Are they not clearly in limits of Alabama,) that he might be tried upon the in- restraint of public liberty, and hostile to free Governdictment. A copy of this bill was exhibited to the Gov- ment? And yet, if whatever touches the subject of ernor of New York, as the foundation of the right of slavery is to be shut out from the mail on the principles claim, and thus became public. The Governor of New upon which this bill rests, how are we to shun these York denied that a person who had not been in Alabama consequences? One State makes a law, which stigmaticould be a fugitive from that State, and so he was not zes as libellous, and therefore criminal, whatever touches surrendered. or affects slavery, ay, mere opinions, as in Alabama. Another condemns religious sentiments as heretical, and another stamps with reprobation all political discussion, except what is agreeable to the views of its own majority. Each demands the aid of Congress to enforce its laws, because they have, under their several constitu tions, a right to make such laws. If you admit the claim of one, on what principle will you resist the others? Such, sir, is the general character of this bill, and such its obvious tendencies. If no further objections could be found, are we prepared to countenance doctrines pregnant with such injurious consequences? For myself, I could have no hesitation in saying to the southern States, you must first satisfy me that you have no other remedy for the evil of which you complain, before I would establish a precedent tending strongly to invade the great principles of public liberty.

Now, (said Mr. D.,) I beg the Senate to be attentive to the offence set forth in this indictment. It consists in matter extracted from the Emancipator, and is as follows: "God commands and all nature cries out that man should not be held as property. The system of making men property has plunged 2,250,000 of our fellow-countrymen into the deepest physical and moral degradation, and they are every moment sinking deeper." Of all the matter published in this incendiary periodical, as it is styled, this has been selected as the most criminal, as designed, as the indictment alleges, "to produce conspiracy, insurrection, and rebellion, among the slave population of said State, in open violation of the act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided." Such is the law of Alabama, and such the language which it makes criminal, and sends the publisher, on conviction, I suppose, to the pentitentiary. With the policy of such a law I have nothing to do on this occasion, for I adduce this indictment as a leading example to show what is by law made incendiary. Whatever may be the views entertained in the States where slavery is lawful, I cannot forbear remarking that this language will be read with surprise in this connexion out of them. It will be esteered a mere expression of opinion, a mere truism, by nine tenths of the people; and they will find it difficult to understand how, in a land where the freedom of speech and the press are secured by the constitution, it can be in law criminal. If, sir, such declarations are to be denied the privilege of the mail, the constitution of Massachusetts would be excluded as libellous, because it declares all men are born free and equal. This sentiment is manifestly as much at war with slavery as that contained in the indictment.

The speeches made here in the halls of legislation could not pass through the mail. The debates themselves would be suppressed; the speeches delivered here by the Senator from Carolina himself, if the matter he has read to us from papers is carried into them, could not be distributed in Alabama through the Post Office; and for aught I see, in following out the same doc trine, an essay on education sustaining its general importance would be deemed incendiary, because it is a portion of the public policy not to educate slaves. And why should not a discussion of free and liberal principles, asserting the right of mankind to govern themselves, follow the same fate? I need not multiply instances to show where this power leads to. Incendiary matter is any thing unfavorable to slavery. The general principle urged by the Senator from Carolina is, that where the States have power to legislate, the United States are bound to carry into execution their laws. They have power to prohibit the circulation of incendiary matter, and therefore Congress ought to aid that power. It is clear, however, in doing so, we ought not thereby to surrender or impair the power vested in us by the constitution. Without this qualification, where will the doctrine lead us to?

Suppose a State, in a highly excited state of the pub. I

VOL. XII.--70

But, sir, beyond all this there are insurmountable difficulties. How, and by whom, is this law to be executed? Who is to determine, and in what manner, whether the constitution of Massachusetts, which declares that all men are born free and equal, or the declaration of independence, which declares that "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," touch the subject of slavery, or are incendiary? Who is to decide whether the people shall see the debates in Congress, and know what their agents are doing and saying here? These are momentous considerations: for whoever holds this power, may shut up the great channels of intercommunication; may obstruct the great avenues through which intelligence is disseminated. I say close and obstruct them, because the Post Office power is a monopoly in the hands of this Government. It claims the exclusive right to transmit the mail, and denies to individuals the right to send letters by private conveyance under severe penalties. It may, also, if it chooses, claim the exclusive right to transmit printed papers. It is obvious, therefore, that this right of decision is one of great moment; and it is vested in each and every deputy postmaster, and any clerk he may see fit to employ. These persons are required to sit in judgment upon matters that would perplex the greatest judicial talent in the country. What is incendiary? What touches the subject of slavery? These are the questions. Every one is aware that few matters are carried into the courts of law so difficult to determine as what are libellous, or what slanderous; and yet, if I wish to send a letter, a paper; yes, sir, the declaration of independence itself, through the Post Office, it must first be scrutinized by a clerk, to ascertain whether it violates the laws of Alabama, Carolina, or some other State; and if, in his opinion, the subject of slavery is touched, so as to offend one of these sweeping laws, I am denied the privilege of the mail.

Ordinarily, when our rights of property or privileges are assailed, we are entitled to be heard, and to have the matter settled by a court and jury. But here a

28th of March, 1834; and that the Legislature also passed, at the same time, a resolution instructing their Senators to present their resolution to the Senate. In obedience, therefore, to the instructions of the Legisla ture, and in accordance with his own feelings, he would now ask leave to present the resolution, and would move that it be laid upon the table and printed.

The following is the resolution referred to by Mr. HUBBARD:

"STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE:

[SENATE.

that

duced Maine not to legislate on the subject, were,
no abolition papers were printed in that State, and no
discussion of the kind was carried on there. He would
now ask the Senator whether there was not an abolition
society in Maine, and whether it did not issue addresses
that were extensively circulated. He put these ques-
tions because he was anxious to give correct information
to the South on the subject.

Mr. RUGGLES replied to the inquiry of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that there had

in Maine friendly to the abolition of slavery. But
whether that society is in existence now, he was not able
to say.
He regarded the resolution just read to the
Senate, asserting that public discussions of the subject
had been arrested, as justifying the belief that there
were now no proceedings relating to abolition in that
State, which it was necessary to suppress by law.

"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Represent-been in times past, as he had been informed, a society atives in General Court convened, That our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby, authorized to vote that the resolution passed by the Senate of the United States on the 28th day of March, 1834, in the words following, viz: That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both,' be expunged from the journals of that body; and that they be further instructed to lay this resolution before the Senate of the United States."

MAINE RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. RUGGLES said that he held in his hand a copy of resolutions passed by the Legislature of Maine, relating to the subject of abolition proceedings in the nonslaveholding States. They are responsive to resolutions transmitted to the Executive of Maine from the States of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, calling upon the non-slaveholding States to suppress, by law, abolition publications. These resolutions of the Legislature of Maine assert, as the sense of the two Houses, that the Government of the United States is one of enumerated, limited, and defined powers; that the power of regulating slavery within the States does not belong to Congress, not being one of the enumerated powers; that the States, with certain defined exceptions, are, with respect to each other, distinct and sovereign States, each having an independent Government, whose action is not to be questioned by any power whatever, but by the people of such States; and that any interference by a State, or by the citizens of a State, with the domestic concerns of another State, tends to break up the compromises of, and to disturb, the Union. The resolutions further declare it to be inexpedient to legislate on the subject of abolition publications, because there is no abolition paper printed within the State, and because all discussion on the subject has been arrested by the decided expression of public disapprobation. These resolutions, said Mr. R., were reported from a large and respectable committee of both Houses, and received the unanimous assent of that committee. In the Senate they passed unanimously, and nearly so in the House of Representatives, a body composed of upwards of one hundred and eighty members. There was one circumstance, said Mr. R., which he considered deserving of the particular attention of certain honorable Senators. He could not refrain from recommending it, with due deference, to their serious consideration, as furnishing an example worthy of imitation in this body in its action upon the abolition memorials which had been, or should hereafter be, presented here. The circumstance to which he alluded, he said, was this: the resolutions were permitted to pass through both Houses of the Legislature of Maine, without one word of agitating and exci ting debate.

He then moved that the resolutions be read.

Mr. CALHOUN observed, he had put the question because, shortly after his arrival here, he saw a publication, drawn up with great ability, said to be issued by a society calling itself the Maine Abolition Society, having numerous signatures appended to it. Now, he held the existence of such a society to be as dangerous to the South as an abolition newspaper; and he thought_if the State could suppress the one, it could suppress the other. He hoped that in time public sentiment would be such at the North as to put down all such societies; but he confessed he was incredulous as to the result. The Senator from Maine went so far as to cite the example of the Legislature of Maine, as worthy to be followed by certain Senators on that floor; meaning, he suppsed, himself for one. He thanked the Senator for his advice, and was, perhaps, so weak-minded as to require it; but he who offered this advice ought to have himself followed the example recommended by him to others. would tell the Senator, that so long as his constituents sent here denunciations against the people he represented, terming them pirates, murderers, and villains, he should take the liberty to treat such denunciations with the scorn they deserved. He held it to be a solemn truth, that as long as they were compelled to discuss the subject of abolition on petitions received there, the abolitionists had gained all they wanted; and so long as they were permitted to come there he would take the liberty to speak of them in the terms they deserved.

He

Mr. BROWN rose and said that he did not know in what spirit the resolutions which had been presented by the Senator from Maine, passed unanimously by both branches of the Legislature of that State, might be received by some gentlemen, but, in his capacity as one of the representatives from a southern State, he hailed them with feelings of gratification, and looked on them as a most favorable omen, among many others, of that peace and good will, among our brethren of the North, so important to the continuance of the confederacy.

He did not know to what extent anti-slavery societies existed among the people of Maine, but when that party had been unable to return a single member to the Legislature of that State, the resolutions having, as appeared on the face of them, been passed without a dissenting voice, strongly condemnatory of the course of the abolitionists, he thought it would require a high degree of credulity to believe that they possessed either weight of character or strength of numbers. To expect a State to eradicate every folly or infatuation from the minds of all its citizens, was, and would be found, a very impracticable undertaking. Mr. B. said, in this, as in many others of the Legislatures of the northern States, the unanimity of sentiment on this subject was almost unprecedented. In some, he was confidently assured, there was not an abolitionist; in none, could that

Mr. CALHOUN expressed his gratification at the tenor of the resolutions, which he said gave the correct view of the subject in discussion, going back to the good old republican principles. He was also gratified to understand from her Senator that the reasons which in-party make any exhibition of strength.

petitions might be rejected. The Senate would then see in what language the petitions were drawn up, and might judge for itself whether it was as offensive as it had been represented to be. Remarks had been made on that floor, in relation to these petitioners, which he deemed very erroneous. It mattered not what class of citizens presented themselves as petitioners, they were entitled to a respectful hearing. They had been termed miserable fanatics, vile incendiaries, and charged with an intention to dissolve the Union. All those interested in putting down this spirit, which they so much deprecated, had used these violent terms in reference to persons petitioning for what they deemed Congress had a right to grant. He had always thought that these people had an undoubted right to be heard; and he was of opinion that the receiving their petitions, and then reinjecting them immediately, as moved by the Senator from Pennsylvania, was tantamount to refusing to receive them; it was keeping the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to their hope.

Mr. CALIIOUN asked the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MORRIS,] to let him have the petitions that he had with-declaration he made to his friend from Georgia. When drawn.