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

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

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

[JAN. 7, 1836.

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

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

In

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

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

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

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

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

[SENATE.

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

ment.

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

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

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

SENATE.]

tween the course he (Mr. C.) had pursued, and the one the Senator recommends. A reference of these petitions is not necessary to give jurisdiction to the Committee for the District, in order to bring out their opin ion and that of the Senate on the highly important point on which the Senator anticipated so much unanimity. A resolution may be moved expressly denying the power of Congress, and referred to the committee; and, if no other should move it, he (Mr. C.) would, if acceptable to the Senator from Virginia. So far from the two courses being incompatible, they were, in his opinion, in perfect harmony, and, together, formed the true course. Let the Senate, by a unanimous rejection of these vile slanders on the slaveholding States, show a just indignation at the insult offered them; and let it be followed by the passage of a resolution, with like unanimity, denying the power of Congress to touch the subject of emancipation in this District; and much, very much, would be done to put down agitation, to restore confidence to the South, and preserve harmony to the Union.

The question of postponement till Monday was then determined in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, it was

[JAN. 11, 1836.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, could see no difference between discussing the question on this or on the former petition. The language of this memorial, indeed, being more respectful, there seemed to be a propriety to confine the debate to it, rather than to extend it on the other, the words of which were calculated to produce so much bitterness and excitement.

Mr. WEBSTER hoped that the Senator from Pennsylvania would not take a course by which all the ordinary business of the morning would be obstructed, and that the consideration of this memorial would be deferred until the other petitions had been received.

Mr. CALHOUN thought the debate which commenced on Thursday ought to be resumed and continued. He saw no reason why this memorial should take priority over the one presented from Ohio; why we should break away from that petition to receive this, merely because the language in which it was couched was respectful; that is, as respectful as could be expected. For, however temperate it might seem,. the same principle was imbodied in it; and the inuendoes conveyed were as far from being acceptable as the barefaced insolence of the other. He hoped the debate would go on on the first petition; that the question would be met manfully; and

The Senate then adjourned.

MONDAY, JANUARY 11.

The honorable A. CUTHBERT, from Georgia, appeared and took his seat.

CALN QUARTERLY MEETING MEMORIAL. After the reception of sundry executive communications and memorials,

Mr. BUCHANAN said he was now about to present the memorial of the Caln quarterly meeting of the religious society of Friends in Pennsylvania, requesting Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On this subject he had expressed his opinions to the Senate on Thursday last, and he had no disposition to repeat them at present. He would say, however, that, on a review of these opinions, he was perfectly satisfied with them. All he should now say

was, that the memorial which he was about to present was perfectly respectful in its language. Indeed, it could not possibly be otherwise, considering the respectable source from which it emanated.

It would become his duty to make some motion in regard to this memorial. On Thursday last he had suggested that, in his judgment, the best course to pursue was to refer these memorials to a select committee, or to the Committee for the District of Columbia. He still thought so; but he now found that insurmountable obstacles presented themselves to such a reference.

In presenting this memorial, and in exerting himself, so far as in him lay, to secure for it that respectable reception by the Senate which it deserved, he should do his duty to the memorialists. After it should obtain this reception, he should have a duty to perform to himself and to his country. He was clearly of opinion, for the reasons he had stated on Thursday last, that Congress ought not, at this time, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that it was our duty promptly to place this exciting question at rest. He should therefore move that the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected.

Mr. PRESTON said that the question was already raised by his colleague, and he trusted that the Senator from Pennsylvania would not urge any action on this petition until some disposition was made of the one presented on Thursday by the gentleman from Ohio.

hour which ought to be devoted to other business.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, said his object was to avoid excitement. The object of the petitioners in both memorials was the same. It intends the abolition of slavery and of the traffic in slaves in the District of Columbia. He had no wish to shrink from the question; on the contrary, he was desirous of giving a direct vote. Let the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania prevail, and certainly the object of the gentleman from South Carolina would be attained. It would say to all who hold the same sentiments with these petitioners, that no further action would be had on any similar memorials, except merely to read and to reject them. He had hoped that this session would pass away without any additional excitement. But the legislation here upon the subject had produced tenfold agitation. Suppose you reject the petition from Ohio because the language is disrespectful, will that put an end to this excitement? Any man must be blind not to see that an impression, and a well-founded one, would go abroad that it was not received on that account merely, and that legislation was had on it in reference only to the language in which it was couched. The course pointed out by the Senator from Pennsylvania puts an end to all this. It says distinctly, we will reject what we will not, cannot, ought not to receive. He had no disposition and no intention to take any part in the debate. He should give a silent

vote.

Mr. CLAY said that he had not risen to take a part in the principal question. He did not think, however, that these petitioners ought to have any monopoly of the time and attention of the Senate. He could not consent to it. He had a motion himself which he wished to present, and to which he attached much importance. He should therefore move that this whole matter be laid on the table, at least until the necessary business of the morning be got through with.

The question being taken, the memorial, &c., was ordered to lie on the table.

SPECULATION IN INDIAN CLAIMS.

Mr. BLACK said he had received, and would take this occasion to present, a memorial from a number of the citizens of Mississippi, residing in the northern part of that State, on an important subject. It related to extensive frauds said to be about to be practised on the Government in relation to the public lands, involving, as the memorialists suppose, at least the quantity of upwards

of two millions of acres of public land. He was informed that there was much excitement on the subject in that State, and that other memorials would be forwarded, numerously signed. It appears by the treaty of Dancing Rabbit creek, that, to each Choctaw head of a family desirous of remaining and becoming citizens of Alabama or Mississippi, a reservation was made of six hundred and forty acres of land, to include improvements, and to each child a less quantity, adjoining the improvement of the parent; the land to be patented to claimants after a residence thereon of five years. It was made necessary, under the 14th article, which contains this provision, that all intending to avail themselves of this advantage should record their names with the Indian agent within six months after the making of the treaty. This register was kept by the agent at that time, (Colonel Ward,) but it appears that, by mistake, some names were omitted, or, if recorded, the register has been mutilated. The memorialists state that some speculators, seizing upon the advantage which this circumstance afforded, have gone to the Indians who have removed beyond the Mississippi river, and have procured, for a trifling consideration, very numerous claims, to be preferred, sufficient to cover all, or nearly all, the good land remaining. He was informed that some of these gentlemen, speculating on these claims, no doubt from "patriotic motives," had sold out their chances for immense sums. He was also informed that, seizing upon the advantage of the fact that these lands had been reserved from the late sales, they were endeavoring to exact large amounts from the settlers to quiet their possessions, and secure their homes, under the apprehension that these claims will finally be made good. Mr. B. said he had no doubt there were some few cases in which individuals among the Choctaws had suffered detriment by their names not appearing in the register kept by the agent, who have conformed to the requisitions of the treaty, but he had no doubt that those cases were very few indeed, and those should meet, when presented, with the favorable attention of Congress. What he desired at present was, to put all on their guard against these claims, and to prevent the innocent settlers from being taken in by them. They must come into the action of Congress; and while he was ready to do justice to the meritorious claims, he would at the same time say it was his firm conviction that few, very few, will be found to be of that character. He would advise the settlers, therefore, against causeless apprehension, and all especially against dealing in such improbable chances. Mr. B. said he had been informed that one hundred sections had been reserved at a single land office, without any power so to reserve. The land should, after having been proclaimed, have been sold.

As to the direction which this memorial shall take, he remarked that he was not altogether sure that it properly belonged to the Committee on Private Land Claims. He did not desire the investigation in which these claims would probably involve the committee; yet, if the Senate thought that the proper direction, he was ready to undertake it, and they should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. They cannot be passed without legislative action, and none of them shall pass until, after the fullest investigation, they shall be found to be just.

After a few words from Mr. KING, of Alabama, inaudible to the reporters, from the loud conversation in the privileged seats,

Mr. CLAY expressed his gratification that the Senator from Mississippi had brought forward this subject; and stated that he had received accounts of extensive frauds said to have been committed under the Choctaw treaty. It had even been said that the extent of these frauds would amount to ten millions of dollars out of

[SENATE.

the public lands. It was said these frauds had been the result of misconstruction of the President's language, and he wished it may turn out so. But he hoped, to whatever committee the subject might be referred, that every effort would be used to bring these nefarious culprits before the world, and to hold them up to the indignation they deserve for having attempted to commit so outrageous a robbery on the public property. From what he had gathered, there had been no project since the famous Yazoo business, which had been so nefarious as the schemes which had been carried on in Mississippi, and he hoped every pains would be taken to ferret out the abuse.

Mr. WHITE, of Tennessee, made a few remarks on the subject. He said he was led to believe, from information which had reached him, chiefly through the newspapers, that a plan had been laid for an immense speculation, under cover of the Indian treaty referred to; in pursuance of which, the claims that might be allowed to certain Indians under the treaty, to a very large His beamount, had been bought up by individuals. lief was, that claims of this kind had been purchased up, by using the names of the Indians, but entirely for the benefit of other persons. The Government, (Mr. W. said,) in his opinion, lay under a high responsibility to protect the Indians in the rights reserved by the treaty. By this speculation in the contingent claims of the Indians, if sanctioned by Congress, great injustice would be done to them. He hoped, he said, that not a claim of this description would be allowed until it was ascertained that the whole amount of it would enure solely and exclusively to the benefit of the Indian entitled to it. So far as he was concerned, as a member of the committee to whom it was proposed to refer this subject, he wished to be understood that he would not consent that any man but an Indian should enjoy the benefit of any one of these claims. No white man should, with his consent, enrich himself by the beggary of those people, whom he considered peculiarly under the guardianship of the United States.

Mr. WEBSTER remarked, that the fame of these speculations had reached the State in which he resided. These reservations had been made in the expectation that they would be productive of substantial benefits to the Indians. It seemed, however, that the substantial benefits had been in another quarter. He wished to know if he had understood that these grants, obtained by the speculators, would require the sanction of Congress to make them valid. If so, he was very glad to

hear it.

Mr. BLACK, in explanation, stated that some of the grants were registered in the proper manner, and belonged to the Indians, and he hoped these would not be prejudiced. Others would require the sanction of Congress.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, stated (as well as he could be heard) that, owing to the negligence of the agent, or by some means, some of those who were regularly registered had not received their lands. The evidence of their claims was ordered to be presented to Congress at the last session, but was not sent; and as the acting agent had gone on to render the sales, he hoped none of those who had legally availed themselves of the provisions of the treaty would be injured. The claim of a white citizen ought not to be disallowed, if it should be found that the Indians received all the advantages guarantied to them by the treaty.

Mr. WHITE briefly explained that, under the fourteenth article of the treaty, no Indian was to receive a patent for his land unless he had resided on it for five years. He wished it to be understood that he did not intend to give any opinion on these claims in advance. There were none presented to be relied on, on which