FEB. 16, 1835.}

So far as slavery exists within any of the States, it is for them, upon their own responsibility, to determine when, and in what manner, it shall cease to exist there; but so far as it exists here, and is exhibited before our eyes in its worst forms of degradation and cruelty, the right and duty belong to Congress alone of restraining or abolishing it. Towards the abolition of slavery within the States, I am only desirous that the general Government, at a proper time, should contribute to the extent of its ability such aid as may be acceptable, and can be judiciously applied; but in respect to the object which this memorial discloses, I cannot doubt that there are existing evils which require a legislative remedy at our hands, in such form as our wisdom may devise. I cannot doubt that a period must arrive when the continuance of slavery within this District will be regarded, in its obvious aspects, as disgraceful to the nation, contrary to public opinion, and subversive alike of the rights of slaves and the interests of free citizens. That period, in my humble judgment, will have arrived as soon as the facts and arguments contained in such memorials as this shall obtain a dispassionate, candid, and deliberate investigation.

Mr. P. said that he would desire a reference of this memorial to a select committee; but as such a reference had been already formally refused in a similar case, he would content himself for the present with asking that it should be laid upon the table.

BREAKWATER AT PORTLAND.

Mr. SMITH, of Maine, presented a copy of the proceedings of a public meeting, holden in the city of Portland on the 10th instant, for the purpose of taking into consideration the expediency of one or more breakwaters in the harbor of that city. Mr. S. remarked that the meeting is represented as having been com. posed of the merchants, ship owners and masters, at that port; and their resolutions declare the necessity of an expenditure for the protection of their harbor and property. I perceive, said he, that the mayor of the city, who is a distinguished merchant, presided at the meeting. The subject, sir, is one of vital importance to the prosperity of Portland, and in fact to the commercial interests of the State of Maine. The work has been strongly recommended as of great utility, after a careful survey, by an engineer of the Government. An ap propriation for it has has also been reported by a committee of this House, during the present session of Congress.

Under this state of the matter, it will be unnecessary to refer the proceedings now presented to a committee; but I ask that they may be printed for the information of the House.

The printing was ordered accordingly.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Mr. DICKSON presented the memorial of sundry citizens of Rochester, in the State of New York, praying Congress to take the proper measures for abolishing slavery within the District of Columbia; which he moved be laid on the table and printed, together with the names attached to the same.

Mr. BOON asked for a division of the motion. The question was first put on printing the memorial without the signatures, and agreed to.

After the decision was pronounced by the Chair, some doubt was expressed by Mr. WISE whether a majority had voted in the affirmative, and it was suggested that the question was not understood by the House.

The SPEAKER rose again to propound the question. Mr. MCKENNAN objected, on the ground that the decision had already been announced.

Mr. WISE said he did not vote on the question, and
VOL. XI.-88

[H. OF R.

Mr. WISE then moved a reconsideration of the vote. Mr. HIESTER asked that the memorial be read; which was done.

Mr. DICKSON said he would not enter into the merits of the question, but, as a motion to reconsider had been made, he would only remark that the memorial was signed by the mayor and many of the most respectable citizens of Rochester, belonging to both of the two great parties which now agitated the country.

Mr. CHINN said that he hoped the motion to reconsider would prevail. He saw nothing which distinguished this momorial from any other upon the subject. Although it was signed, as the gentleman from New York had stated to the House, by the mayor of Rochester and other distinguished persons, he could not perceive that this fact entitled it to a consideration different from that which was given to others. It presents no new argument; it states no fact but what was contained in others; and the grievances which it recites are common to all which have been offered here. It was unnecessary for him to assert that these grievan

ces were in the main unfounded. If this memorial was

printed, why not print all which had been offered? There was no difference between them; if there was, it was not such as to entitle this to unusual consideration. He did not wish to discuss this question; he did not know that he ever would discuss it. The whole mischief, perhaps, consisted in discussion. This had been, and still was, his opinion; and he had always acted in conformity with it. He hoped the motion would prevail, and that the same disposition would be made of this as of the many others which had been presented.

Mr. BOULDIN said that he had not supposed he would vote for the printing of this memorial until he heard it read. But, after having heard it read, he should vote for printing it; not because he approved of the presenting of it, or of the object of it; nor that he dissented from the general propositions about liberty and slavery in it; but because he wished his constituents to know what feelings were entertained by their Northern brethren (some of them) of slavery and slaveholders, and the means of abolishing slavery.

He said he was unwilling to draw any comparisons between the country he had the honor in part to represent, and any other portion of the Union; but every remark about slavery, slaveholders, and slave markets, made in that memorial, in relation to this District, applied equally to the habits, customs, and legal rights, of the people of all the South. He wished them to see what those opinions and feelings were; and therefore, and for that only, he should vote for printing the memorial.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, hoped that the motion to reconsider would prevail, and that the memorial would be laid on the table. He repudiated the interference of the Northern with the rights and property of the people of the Southern States. Whenever the North should succeed in procuring legislation by Congress, in regard to these rights and this species of property, that moment the Union would be dissolved.

Mr. BOON, said as he had asked for adivision of the question, and belonging to a non-slave-holding State, it was perhaps proper that he should say a word or two. There was no person more opposed to slavery than himself; but, while he was opposed to the principle, he was also opposed to interfering with those rights to property which were guarantied to the citizens of particular States and districts by the constitution of the United States. It would be recollected that this question, when the subject

Mr. FILLMORE said, as it was understood that the Committee on the District of Columbia would not act on this subject at the present session, it was certainly due to the petitioners that the motion which had been made by his colleague [Mr. DICKSON] should prevail. It was not unreasonable that the memorial should be printed and preserved among the documents of the House. He disavowed, most unequivocally, now and for ever, any desire on his part to interfere with the rights, or what was termed the property, of the citizens of other States. While he did this, he conceived that, as a citizen of the State of New York, and a member of this House, he was interested in the claim to property in man within the District of Columbia. He referred to the effect which was produced in the North by the advertisements in the papers of this city connected with the purchase and transportation of slaves. The people of that section of the country believed slavery to be improper, and that it should not be tolerated. This was a great national question. There was nothing in the memorial which should prevent its being printed and placed on the files of the House for future reference. Whenever petitions should be presented here from the slave-holding States, of a different tenor, and which might advocate the establishment or continuance of slave markets in this District and city, if they could satisfy the people of other sections that this was proper, he would treat their petitions with respect. He was willing that each party should be fully heard, and that each should have the privilege of spreading their views before the people generally.

Mr. McKINLEY regretted that this discussion had sprung up. He thought it manifested more zeal than prudence. He inquired if the printing was intended to enlighten the House or the country? It was admitted on all hands that no action was to take place upon this subject at this session. That being the case, what object would be attained by printing this memorial? He considered it one of the most impudent memorials which had ever been read in this House. It was a firebrand from one of the Northern States, which had been thrown into this House, and he was, for one, opposed to giving it any publicity. He denied that this House had the right to lay their hands upon his property, let him live where he might. There was no disrespect intended to the memorialists by refusing to print their memorial. It had been received by the House, and that, he contended, was sufficient. Nothing more ought to be expected. He cared not whether it had come from a mayor of a city or the President of the United States, he should oppose the motion to print.

It

Mr. PARKER was at a loss, he said, to perceive how the mere reading and printing of the memorial could produce unpleasant feelings in that House or in the nation at large; nor was it, in his opinion, calculated to throw a firebrand into the slave-holding States. appeared to him to be more like a respectful address to the House, calling upon them to exercise the undoubted privileges conferred upon it by the constitution, of legislating for the District of Columbia, in removing what the petitioners considered a great and existing grievance; and, if it was intended or wished to prevent any debate, it could be easily obviated by withdrawing the question of reconsideration. What was the state of the subject; what had been done heretofore; and how did the matter then stand? A portion of the people of this country,

[FEB. 16, 1835.

considering the evil a national one, as one that ought not to be tolerated by a free people, respectfully ask that House to take measures to redress the evils. Petitions of this nature have been referred to the committee intrusted with the management of the affairs of the District, not only the present session, but the last and several preceding sessions. Now, the prayer of the petition was either right or wrong, and their reasons either forcible and conclusive, or otherwise. Let, then, the Committee on the District of Columbia make a report, and tell us what they think ought to be done, and give us their reasons, so that the House might judge of the question. Mr. P. was not prejudiced one way or the other; but he thought an answer to the prayer of the petition should be given, for it was neither unlawful nor unrighteous.

The argument of his honorable friend from Alabama, [Mr. MCKINLEY,] that Congress had no right to interfere, Mr. P. could not assent to so readily. Let that gentleman, who was fully competent to give his reasons, state them on this subject. For himself, in accordance with the wishes and opinions of his constituents, and the persons presenting this memorial, he should feel it his bounden duty to vote to put their petition upon the files of the House, and he should continue to urge it with all the zeal of which he was capable, at the same time with all due consideration to the feelings, prejudices, interests, and rights, of others, and which they were entitled to require at his hands. This he should do, until the Committee on the District of Columbia, or some select committee of the House, answered the question, and told us, at the same time giving their reasons, whether Congress had a right to legislate on this subject or not, and until the House had concurred in that decision.

Mr. DICKSON then withdrew that part of the motion proposing to print the names of the subscribers to the

memorial.

Mr. CLAY said he was even more opposed to the printing of the memorial itself than he was to printing the names appended to it, which he regarded as a matter of little consequence compared with the other. He was decidedly opposed to the publication of such a document. In spite of all the fair professions heard there upon the subject, as to any non-interference with the rights, interests, and property, of the Southern States, or any other property of this kind, gentlemen must be forgetful of the domestic policy and every thing else concerning the peace and tranquillity of those States, when they ask for the printing and publication of a document like the one under consideration. Are these gentlemen ignorant that the printing and publishing of documents of this kind, in almost all the Southern States, are prohibited under high and heavy penalties? And would they compel, or at least sanction, the publi cation of documents by Congress, for doing which, if a Southern tribunal could lay their hands upon a printer doing the same on his individual responsibility, he would be treated and punished as a culprit? Do they call this non-interference with the rights of property, where slavery prevailed? Gentlemen might disclaim any intention of interfering with this subject; but when he heard such disclaimers as those made by the gentleman from New York, covered by so thin a veil as he had employed, Mr. C. could not yield his assent to them. The gentleman told us that this was a subject he had no intention of interfering with, while at the same time he called it a great national question, and, consequently, one that ought to be agitated in that House. Was it not a subject against which Southern people should decidedly protest? And was it not one calculated to excite the most direful calamities in that portion of the Union whence Mr. C. and many of his friends came?

Mr. C. had no hesitation in giving an unqualified con

FEB. 16, 1835.]

tradiction to the supposition that it was the wish of the intelligent and enlightened citizens of the Northern and Middle States to agitate this question. It was confined to a few fanatics, urged and guided by the Garrisons, the Tappans, and others, their wire-workers, who had recently attracted public attention, and whose object was well known. He did not, he could not, bring himself to believe that it was the wish of the great mass of the population of the New England or Middle States to bring on this matter. Were we to be told, because a handful of fanatics, who were ready to light the torch of disaffection and civil discord through the country were moving on this subject, that it was a matter connected with the national prosperity, or that it was a matter of right to that description of individuals, to discuss and agitate the subject in that House. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. PARKER] called upon the Committee for the District of Columbia to report on the subject, in order that it might be discussed and investigated. Why, that was the very course of proceeding calculated to produce the evils contemplated-evils of such a character as no good citizen, in any part of this wide-spread and extensive Union, ought for a moment to desire. Mr. C. would inquire, how came it that this was a matter of such concern to those individuals? Did it interfere with their domestic policy, their domestic rights, their liberty, their property, or their security, in any point of view? He was at a loss to perceive how it could. Why was it, then, that those persons sought to interfere with the domestic policy of others? It could not be denied that this was a matter of domestic right and policy; and on what grounds, then, could they find themselves warranted or justified in interfering to give direction to that policy? It was a matter that concerned not them, either individually or as a community. Until the Committee for the District of Columbia, or some other committee, should report, the gentleman from New Jersey tells us he should hold himself ready and willing to receive and print all memorials on the subject. But had the people of the District called upon Congress to legislate on the subject? They had not. And why should Congress be called upon by others to give a new direction to the domestic policy of others, without consent first obtained? That doctrine was contrary to any expressed wish of theirs. These petitioners might, with equal propriety, memorialize the Legislature of Virginia, or the Legislature of any other State, and call upon them, in the name of national honor, to reverse their policy, and abolish the laws authorizing the holding of property of this kind.

Mr. C., in conclusion, said, for his own part, after the admission, which seemed to have been made on all hands, that this was a matter belonging to the people holding this peculiar species of property, and after the disclaimer that had been made of non-interference, and in the absence of any petition from the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, and without any call on the part of any of the States where property of this kind existed, he did think that these gentlemen ought not to press this subject, in any form whatever, upon the consideration of the House.

Mr. C. P. WHITE moved to lay the motion to reconsider, and the memorial itself, on the table.

On a question from Mr. WISE, some conversation arose on the point whether, if the motion to lay on the table prevailed, the motion to print, which had been announced by the Chair as adopted, would be considered and recorded as adopted. Mr. WISE, Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, and Mr. BRIGGS, participated therein.

The CHAIR said it was a matter not entirely belonging to him, but as the question had been put to him, he should say that the Clerk of the House could not order

[H. OF R.

the memorial to be printed, inasmuch as there would be, if the motion to lay on the table prevailed, a motion pending to reconsider the vote to print the memorial. The motion to lay on the table prevailing would not finally dispose of the matter, because the House might call it up, on doing which the question would recur on the motion to reconsider.

Mr. DICKSON asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. GHOLSON appealed to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WHITE,] to withdraw his motion; for the people of the South were very anxious to know the feeling of the House upon the subject, and he hoped to see it expressed by a direct vote.

Mr. C. P. WHITE said, though he was at all times very glad to accommodate the gentleman, yet, in this particular, he must be excused.

The conversation on the point of order, and the Speaker's decision, was resumed; and after a few minutes spent thereon,

Mr. C. P. WHITE said, to meet the views of the gentleman from Virginia, he withdrew the motion to lay the subject on the table, and moved the previous question.

The second to the previous question and the main question were both agreed to, without a division.

The question then occurred on reconsidering the motion to print the memorial, on which the yeas and nays had been ordered, and it was decided as follows: Yeas 125, nays 81.

So the House determined to reconsider their vote. Mr. WISE said: Although I have my feelings, my prejudices, my passions, and my fixed principles and determination, as a Southern man, on this subject, yet I hope I can discuss it without excitement. I rise not, sir, to throw, as some others have thrown, a firebrand amongst I rise simply to state to my constituents, and the country at large, the true state of feeling, and of the case as it exists here, in the North and in the South.

us.

I trust I am well assured that the Representatives on this floor from the North do not wish or design to interfere with our rights... That they merely feel bound in their representative duty to present these memorials, so dangerous in their tendency, and incendiary in their character, from respect to a few, a very few only, of their constituents, comparatively, and that they do not act from their own impulses.

Sir, on this delicate and vitally important subject, the moderate, considerate, and patriotic men of the South, as well as of the North, have enemies to contend with. In the North we have a few misguided fanatics, whose zeal prompts them to rush blindly into the most absurd extremes; and in the South, I am sorry to say it, there are not wanting those who seize upon every pretext to inflame the public mind on the subject of slavery. In this delicate situation, what should be the course of the friends of our country and our institutions? Why, sir, the friends of good order, of the constitution, and of the existence of this Republic, in this House or out of it, in the North or in the South, must use their influence to moderate and quench these spirits of both extremes of fanaticism and of disorganization. When memorials of the character of this now asked to be printed are presented, it is respectful enough, I should think, to the memorialists, to receive them; if printed, they will be circulated throughout the country, to fan the flames of the zealots on one side, and to serve as food for the disorganizers on the other. We, who would be safe and secure in the blessings we now enjoy, will, therefore, smother these memorials on their first presentation. I am willing, sir, to treat all memorials, no matter how extravagant or preposterous, or of what character, with respect, provided they are from a respectable body of citizens,