when, to gratify a sentiment that they have imbibed, in contemplating slavery at a distance, as it is supposed to exist among us, they endeavor to prevail upon Congress to force us against our will, and against our best judg. ment as to our own security and peace, to derange our whole social system by a revolution that we are morally certain will be pregnant with calamities that make the heart sicken to contemplate.

Peculiar opinions may be found to exist in various parts of our extended country, arising from education, habits, local position, or other causes, for which we may entertain a predilection founded in early impressions, and strengthened by association; and perhaps it might be quite natural that, under the influence of this devotion, we might feel a strong disposition to transplant such opinions elsewhere, where we might suppose they would become as useful and satisfactory to others as they are to ourselves. This design may be innocent in its conception, and perhaps benevolent; yet, before we attempt to press it upon others, we ought, at least, to consult their wishes, and to consider all the circumstances with which they are surrounded. Sentiments like these may probably have worked up a zealous sort of sense of duty to eradicate a system in the District of Columbia, and, through its influence there, in the adjoining southern States, that is regarded at a distance, by those who have but little practical acquaintance with it, as an evil and a wrong; and looking upon Congress as the Legislature of the Union, to which all have access, for the purpose of making known their wishes, they think they may claim a right to give effect to their wishes through the course of proceeding in that body. But if the exercise of this supposed right, thus claimed, is destined, in the belief of all who are to be affected by it, to disturb the rights of property as sanctioned by law and long-established usage, to break up most inconveniently and injuriously an established state of things, and to spread abroad just causes for alarm and danger to personal peace and safety, can it be consistent with sound discretion, or with a benevolent fellow-feeling, or is it legal, to attempt a revolution that is calculated to produce such effects? Why is it that I am prohibited by law from exercising my full right of ownership and of absolute right over my property in a house which adjoins my neighbor's, by putting it out of the way, by burning it down, with a view to my improvements? The house is my own absolutely, but it is not suited to my taste, and is an impediment to the indulgence of what I think would greatly add to the embellishment and value of all around. Is not the answer ready and obvious? Because I must exercise my own rights consistently with the rights of others. Thus we say to our fellow-citizens in the non-slaveholding States, exercise your absolute and indefeasible right of petition so as not to impair or endanger our absolute rights and personal security

I wish, sir, to continue my appeal to the people of the non-slaveholding States, by calling their attention to another historical record of high authority, to show what the sound intelligence of those States did in the early period of our political history through their representatives in Congress, at a time when they who petitioned were as earnest and as honest as any making similar petitions at this day can possibly be, and when there was more sedateness of purpose, and less of that active zeal and enthusiasm which mark the procedures of the present time. I refer, sir, to the proceedings of Congress in the year 1790, upon various petitions from the abolition societies in Pennsylvania, where they first originated, praying Congress to interfere, to produce a system of gradual emancipation of slaves. These petitions were received by Congress, and referred to a committee, in usual course, consisting of seven members,

[SENATE.

six of whom represented non-slaveholding States and one represented a slaveholding State: Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire; Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, Mr. Huntington, of Connecticut; Mr. Lawrence, of New York; Mr. Sinnickson, of New Jersey; Mr. Hartley, of Pennsylvania; and Mr. Parker, of Virginia. The report of this committee was discussed and deliberated on in a Committee of the Whole House, and, after it had passed through the various forms of proceeding, it resulted in three distinct propositions, expressing the power and want of power in Congress over the question of slavery, as declared by the constitution of the Union. First, "that Congress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States then existing should think proper to admit;", which was no more than an affirmation of what the con-. stitution itself declares. Secondly, that Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the States-it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require. Thirdly, that Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the humane treatment, during the passage, of slaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such importation.

This part of the recorded journal of congressional proceedings has been cited heretofore on this floor for somewhat different purposes, but I recall it to view for the express design of showing the true line of demarcation of the constitutional power of Congress over the question of slavery in this country, as declared and laid down by the non-slaveholding States themselves-a decision founded upon a full view of all the powers in the constitution in relation to slavery, strengthened by the lapse of more than forty years, and fortified up to this time by tranquil acquiescence and unprecedented prosperity. It is true that Congress held its session at that time in the city of Philadelphia, and the question was more particularly applicable to the States; yet as this was the deliberate result of the view of the whole powers of Congress over the question of slavery, as vested in them, by the constitution, and as the appropriation of a district not exceeding ten miles square, for the seat of the gen. eral Government, is contained in that constitution, with the powers of Congress over it, and the selection of the site had then been made in parts of two slaveholding States, it does not seem to be quite fair to contend that, after a decision upon so dispassionate and thorough a view of the whole ground, there was any particle of power omitted to be considered, that had any existence under the constitution. It is then with increased confi

dence that I appeal to the intelligence and love of justice in the non-slaveholding States, when I point out to them the metes and bounds, set by themselves, as to the interference of Congress with our institutions of slavery. Here are your own boundaries set by yourselves-here are your own lines of power run by yourselves. Do not disturb these ancient, these established holdings, but leave us, as we leave you, to regulate all those internal concerns which so deeply affect all that is desirable in life.

Whatever may be the views of the petitioners in this case, be they born of benevolence or what, I am persuaded they are little aware of the real practical effect that must ensue from the pursuit of this object-abolition. Instead of promoting the happiness of the bond and the welfare of their masters, they will ensure the misery of both. If they would but be contented to forbear to intermeddle in this subject, and leave it to work its own way, the progress to that state of things which they profess to desire to bring about would become

more accelerated and more sure. The sentiment which they want abruptly to force upon us has already a cherished existence among us all, and it has been gradually growing more and more effective as circumstances arise to permit it. Nothing so certainly checks its growth as this ill-judged interference. Yielding in sentiments of philanthropy to none, and desiring to extend its influence when we may, we must hush its voice upon the approach of danger, and bend all our thoughts and might to protection. The propagation of the doctrines of abolition among the slaves of the South produces discontent, restlessness, and insubordination, that have been and must be put down by any restrictions or punishment necessary to the end. To prey upon and poison the minds of these people is but to cause their fetters to be riveted more closely, and hand them over to suffering or to death. If the danger is imminent, summary justice takes the place of established law, and an excited state of feeling pronounces the judgment that an excited state of feeling executes. Could the design be, which it cannot be, to light the torch of servile discord, and to drench the land in blood, these mistaken and misguided benevolent efforts would lead, if persisted in, unerringly, to that result. How mistaken is this zeal; how ill-adapted to its professed end! If they who are leading on to such things could only witness the return of these southern gentlemen with their families to their homes, and see their meeting with their slaves, as they call them, and as they really are, they would not only be astonished, after all they have heard or thought, but I believe sincerely they would desist. Instead of the "crouching creatures in the forms of men," coming with doubting fear into the presence of a tyrant, as the scene is ever falsely represented, they would see the gladdened countenances of a well-taken-care-of people, hastening with joy to greet their friends' return; and the rustic laborers from the field, when they come in from their employments, are no less anxious to bid the hearty welcome; then ensue the inquiries for health and cares, and all is satisfaction and joy around. Sir, I present no fancied picture. I give the scenes that are prevalent and usual.

My object is to place things in the true point of view, to prevent these scenes from being changed into scenes of sadness and horror.

It ought to be known, but it is not known, that there

* See Bishop Bowen's pastoral letter, by order of the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina, 1835, pages 21 and 22:

"The subject of our slaves is one which circumstances have made of so much delicacy; it is in consequence of an ill-informed, unwise, and even a reckless philanthropy, affecting it in other parts of our Union, surrounded by so much sensibility of alarm and offence, and, where the moral interest of it is concerned, is, under the supposition of even the best dispositions entertained among us to promote it, encumbered confessedly with so much difficulty that the ministers of religion cannot approach it with too great caution and circumspection.

"There are schemes respecting them [the slaves] now, and for some years past, on foot among the pious, and on every account respectable, of our fellow-citizens, in which I own myself unable to see it to be the duty or wisdom of the Christian to bear the part which is so loudly urged on him, as in a peculiar manner to be his. Both the duty and the wisdom of the Christian seem to me, in a manner greatly paramount, to consist in giving them [the slaves] in the condition in which they are, the knowledge of God, according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and cheerfully committing the event of this course, prudently, intelligently, observingly, and conscientiously pursued, to the disposal of an all-wise and benignant Providence."—Note by Mr. G.

[MARCH 3, 183€.

is no portion of the inhabitants of this country who have been more benefited, whose condition has been more ameliorated by the independence of this country, established by the war of the Revolution, than the slave population. Anterior to that time, and for a short period after, the system of negro slavery in the colonies, and in the new States, was pretty much the same as in the British West Indies-not a great deal better. But no sooner had our dependence upon, and close connexion with, the mother country become severed, and the new system of things had time to diffuse abroad its beneficent influences, than we saw their effects in the happy ame. lioration of every class in life. It is a law in social life, that the condition of dependants will always keep pace with the liberalized views and sentiments of their superiors, produced by mental culture and refined association; and in no instance has it been more happily illustrated than in our negro populution. In no part of the whole slaveholding country can we find any exception, unless, possibly, in Louisiana.

[Here Mr. PORTER prayed the Senator from Maryland to yield the floor for a moment; which request being complied with, Mr. P. said he had interrupted the Senator for the purpose of correcting an error into which he had fallen in regard to the treatment of the slave population in Louisiana. Mr. P. assured the honorable Senator that the treatment of the slaves there would compare advantageously with any portion of the Union. If the honorable Senator would only visit that section, he would be as convinced of his mistake as he is satisfied that the people of the North would be of their miscon ceptions if they would go into Maryland.]

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH resumed the floor, and proceeded. I should not, probably, have made the disparagement so great as the honorable Senator [Mr. PORTER] might have been led to believe. I only designed to say, that as Louisiana had much more recently emerged from the colonial state than most of the other parts of our slaveholding country, it was to be expected that she retained more of the old colonial usages than the elder sister States, who had been longer freed from the thraldom of colonial subserviency. However, sir, I rejoice to be corrected by the honorable Senator, and thank him for the correction; and I shall endeavor to use it to good account, by offering it as another evidence to show how easily men are led into error, who trust to their theories in relation to the state and condition of things at a distance from them.

Yes, sir, the American Revolution has produced no happier change in the state of any of our people than in the negro population: the general sentiment and treatment, in regard to them, has undergone a great revolution, and they have been progressively advancing to an improved condition. That spirit, engendered by the character of our Government, which has liberalized and elevated the minds of the white race of men, has been the cause of extending to the slave a full portion of its ameliorating influence. To check this improving state of things will be no voluntary act of our own; it must be forced upon us by those at a distance, who interfere in our concerns, or it will not be arrested. It is not that we fear the influence of individuals so much, who may come amongst us with the views of inculcating doctrines adverse to our institutions, that delude our slaves, and render them dissatisfied-men are tangible and responsible, and we can therefore guard against them—but it is the silent circulation of poisonous principles, that are diffused by means of every channel that presents itself throughout our country; and whilst we are unsuspicious of their operation, they are corrupting all around us, and spreading turbulence and blind vengeance in our very households. Inflammatory and insubordinate doctrines, that tend directly to sever all the ties between

master and dependent servants, that pervert all their feelings, and stimulate them to restlessness and rebellion, are the secret sources of whatever calamities may befall ourselves or our slaves. These are what we dread. It is against their intrusion upon us that we com. plain. And to guard against their introduction into our communities, our utmost vigilance must always be directed. In such a state of things there can be no peace within our borders; all is agitation and anxiety. When men are bent on schemes of disorder, they first infect the minds of those on whom they design to operate with doctrines adapted to lead on to it; and then, by the means of that contamination, the way is opened, and the impulse is given to tumult and revolt. The effect of corrupting principles is more to he dreaded than arms, as they secretly discipline those that are to be turned loose, at an unguarded moment, to spread abroad the horrors of devastation and carnage.

We ought not to be regardless of the lessons of experience. When regicide France, in the early period of her revolution, zealous in the cause of republicanizing the world, had proclaimed war against all crowned heads, and against all Governments of law and order, and had particularly marked out the neighboring empire of Great Britain as the chief object of her emancipating designs, unable to reach her object through fleets and armies, she resolved to accomplish it by the agency of her destroying revolutionary principles. Against these Great Britain kept up the war for years. The cannon and the bayonets of France she could meet on the ocean or in the field, without fear and with equal chances; but the corroding principles of her revolutionizing schemes fought always in ambuscade; their force it was difficult, if possible, to elude, when once they had gained admittance. Yet the leaders in France, in these glowing schemes for the deliverance of nations from the bondage of monarchy, of aristocracy, of established law, and of usages that were denounced as corroded by the rust of time, were then held by multitudes to be the apostles of liberty and equality, who professed themselves as aiming at equal rights, to aid the mind in its progress to perfectibility, and to establish universal happiness by universal liberty.

Fortunately, the profound and patriotic intelligence that directed the councils of the British empire did not become enlisted among the proselytes of this fatal imposture. That intelligence knew its origin, and saw its inevitable tendency, and, in the undaunted spirit of resistance forced up to defiance, established the maxim, as the rule of action, "that with revolutionary France and her principles there was no safety but in war.” France in arms could be met, and she could be resisted; but the all-subverting influence of her false philosophy, her atheism, her jacobinism, and her dissolute course of anarchy, spread terror and dismay throughout the world. Similar to this is the condition of our slaveholding country in respect to the doctrines of emancipation that are now attempted to be introduced amongst us. Capable of resisting men, even with arms, we only dread the secret influence of principles, which is most active when we are asleep, and which may awaken us to become the victims of its maddened proselytes.

Mr. President, the happy Government under which we live, in its very nature, dissuades from and interdicts all this sort of interference. Formed to regulate our foreign concerns, to defend us from without, and to preserve peace and security within our borders, it leaves the States themselves to manage their own concerns within their own limits, without interference and without hinderance. Our Government is national in all its character, and cannot be made an engine to transplant the feelings and opinions of one section into another more distant, to work revolution and change. We look to it for

[SENATE.

the general protection, and we demand that it be not made to intrude upon or intermeddle with our domestic interests, our comforts, or our possessions. It cannot be the province of the federal Government to regulate our property or our internal social relations, or, at the bidding of one part of our great community of States, to break down the system of another part. The Govern ment of this Union was designed to be universal and equal in all its influence and action; and it is our business here to direct all its operations to national purposes alone, to preserve the security of all, and to establish national happiness, prosperity, and power.

When Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH had concluded

Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that he could not consent that the question should be taken on the reception of the memorial then under consideration, without saying one or two words explanatory of the vote he should feel it his duty to give, and the grounds on which he should give it. He was too unwell to consume much of the time of the Senate by a lengthened argument; and, as the constitutional part of the question had been sufficiently and ably discussed, he should be exceedingly brief in the address he was about to make.

Mr. K. said he was one of those who, when this unfortunate subject was first attempted to be introduced in that body, was anxious to escape all excitement on it. He felt then, and still thought, and the conviction had been more firmly impressed upon his mind the more he had reflected on it, that all discussions on this subject had a strong tendency to aid the excitement, not only here, but throughout the country; and by that very excitement they but added to the mischiefs which these incendiaries or these fanatics, or whatever they might be called, were most anxious to produce. He was disposed to take such a course that, without affording any pretext for the charge that they were infringing on the right of petition, as secured by the constitution, or, on the other hand, giving the slightest countenance to the wild and extravagant views of the petitioners, would quietly get rid of them without discussion and without excitement, and lead them to the conclusion that it was a hopeless task to endeavor to get any action from Congress on the subject.

This had invariably been the course in both houses of Congress, from the formation of the Government to the present time. Two or three hundred petitions on this subject of abolition had been presented a few sessions past, received without a moment's hesitation, referred to the appropriate committee, and then were heard of no more. At other periods, memorials of this description were received and laid on the table. There they slept; there was no excitement; the number of the abolitionists was not increased; they saw a silent deter mination on the part of Congress not to interfere with the subject on which they petitioned; that it was vain to persevere in their attempts; and they in a great degree abandoned them. He was not, however, disposed to find fault with those gentlemen who differed with him with regard to the course that should be taken with these memorials. He knew that they stood, as he did, pledged by every consideration, both of feeling and interest, to support what they believed to be the strongest measure in opposition to these memorials; but he could not agree with them in the propriety or expediency of the course they had determined on; he could not agree that any other question should be mixed up with the one so vitally important to the section of the country he came from, and particularly a question which might draw with it the sympathies of well-disposed persons, for those whom it was their imperative duty to put down by the best means in their power. The question before them was that raised by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] "Shall the memorial be received?"

He should but consume the time of that body, if he attempted to add any thing to the able argument of his friend from Georgia, [Mr. KING,] so strongly and clearly enforced by his friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] on the constitutional principle involved. He should therefore leave the question, as it seemed to him perfectly settled.

The right of petition was admitted on all hands to be one of the most sacred rights inherited from our ances. tors. It was secured to us by the constitution--not granted, for it was inherent in the very nature of our Government, and was not to be set aside under any circumstances. Should they, therefore, to answer the purpose of putting an end to these abolition petitions, (and certainly, in the opinion of many, it would not have that effect,) should they give occasion to many wellmeaning citizens to array themselves on the side of those in whose persons the right of petition might be violated, and to unite with them in the prosecution of an enterprise they would not otherwise have thought of? We should be cautious (said Mr. K.) how we give occasion to these abolitionists to shift the odium from themselves to a decision of the Senate. Even if he admitted the constitutionality of refusing to receive the memorial, he would hesitate long before he pursued a course calculated to produce unfavorable impressions in the minds of our fellow-citizens, simply on the ground of expediency. Since the commencement of the present Congress, those individuals associated together for the purpose of agitating the public mind, and disturbing the peace of the South, had increased beyond all calculation. They had their agents out every where, distributing their tracts and pamphlets, and were pouring out their treasure with a lavish hand, to subsidize presses, and circulate papers, for the purpose of operating on these very deliberations that were then going on; thus endeavoring to bring to bear on Congress the power of the abolition societies, and the influence of the presses which they had set up, with the acknowledged design of producing action here. Now, he would not undertake to say that the discussion which had taken place had had the effect of stimulating the exertions of these misguided men, but he felt that there was too much reason to fear that it had done so. If this was not the case, he would ask, why had the zealous efforts of these abolitionists heretofore failed in producing the effect they had intended? For it was undeniable that they had hitherto failed in produIcing such an effect; and it must have been because Congress did not give consequence to their memorials by a protracted discussion, but passed them by with silent contempt.

The reception of these memorials was so strongly impressed on his mind to be the only true policy, that he could not resist the obligations of duty which impelled him to urge the Senate to pursue that course. They had been told by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. BLACK,] that many of the State Legislatures had acted on such memorials, and had refused to receive them. But, said Mr. K., we have our own rule of action prescribed by the constitution, and are not to be governed by what has been done in the State Legislatures. The reception of petitions had been compared to the introduction of bills on leave; and they had been told by the gentleman from Mississippi that even here, in this body, they had refused permission to introduce bills in extraordinary cases. That was very true as regarded the introduction of bills; but the principle on which they had been refused did not apply to petitions. He recollected a case where a resolution which an honorable Senator from Missouri sought to introduce was thrown out, because a majority of the Senate did not approve of its principles. This was a resolution in opposition to the Bank of the United States, and was offered at a time of high party

[MARCH 3, 1836.

excitement, and when a majority in both houses of Congress were known to be favorable to the bank. Did this preserve the bank? The result is known to all. In one word, then, he could not vote against receiving this memorial. He could not, because he did not believe that they could constitutionally refuse it; and he did not be. lieve it would be good policy to create a sensation against them among those who valued, and correctly valued, the right of petition as one of their dearest privileges. He had listened with great attention, as well as with great pleasure, to the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. WALKER,] and was struck with the earnestness and zeal with which he had pressed the Senate to adopt some measure that would put an end to the prevailing excitement. He knew that that gentleman came from a country where this excitement prevailed to an alarming, to a fearful, extent; he came from a hotbed, where this all-absorbing and all-powerful excitement was so strong that no man, no matter what was his firmness, his coolness, and selfpossession, could possibly resist it; he could not fail to be borne along, wherever the feelings and passions of the multitude carried him. But that, said Mr. K., is not the case with us; it having been a longer time since we left the places where that excitement was raging, it is not for us to be hurried along with it into the adop tion of measures that our cooler judgment condemns; we should take up the subject as wise, discreet, and reflecting men, anxious to preserve the peace and tranquillity to the community, and should be very careful to do nothing that would defeat the end we have in view. He would go with the Senator from Mississippi in voting for the strongest measure against these abolitionists. But was the refusal to receive the memorial the strongest measure? No. It would place us (said Mr. K.) in a false position, in which we could not maintain ourselves; we should create an excitement against us, and, by enlisting the sympathies of the people in favor of these abolitionists, we should relieve them from the odium which now properly attaches to them, and thus defeat the principal object we have in view. The strongest vote, in his opinion, the one best calculated to quiet the agitation in the public mind, to put down the agitators, and to prevent the frequent recurrence of their misguided and fanatical attempts to disturb the peace of the South, was that proposed by the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania,[Mr. BuCHANAN,] to reject the prayer of the petitioners at once, and show to these men that any hope of producing an effect on Congress was entirely delusive. By this course (said Mr. K.) we steer clear of those constitutional objections which apply to the refusing the right of petition. We receive from the citizens of the United States who present themselves here, be they fanatics, incendiaries, or mistaken zealots, the expression of their wishes; but we go not one step farther; we tell them that the pray. er of their memorial is unreasonable, and cannot be grant ed; that to grant it would be contrary to the obliga tions of our duty; that it would be a violation of the con. stitution, and against every principle of justice and humanity; and we therefore stamped it with our unqualified reprobation. He took occasion some days since to express the grateful sense he entertained of the manly, frank, and disinterested manner in which his friend from Pennsylvania had come forward with his motion, as well as for the enlarged, liberal, and clear-sighted views taken by him in the remarks with which he accompanied it. Sir, (said Mr. K.,) he has my thanks, and deserves, for the disinterested stand he has taken, the warmest enco miums of every southern man, as well as every lover of the Union, be he from the North or from the South. If any thing (Mr. K. continued) could put an end to the unfortunate state of excitement produced by this agitating subject, if any thing could tranquillize the feelings of the South, and put a stop to these petitions which

were pouring in upon Congress, it would be that gentleman's motion to reject the prayer of the petition then before them; and he could not avoid here expressing his sincere regret that the question had not been taken at first on this motion, without going into any discussion whatever.

This excitement, however, which had so inauspiciously commenced, would probably go on for some time longer; but he looked to public sentiment, particularly to the public sentiment of that portion of the country whence these agitating memorials come; he looked with confidence to the wisdom, and virtue, and patriotism, of the people to put that evil spirit down. If that could not be done, he confessed that he must almost despair of a much longer duration of the Union. He could not, however, admit that the prospect was so deplorable as that represented by the eloquent Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. PRESTON.] We see, (said Mr. K.,) as he does, the storm brewing, but we feel assured that we are not to be overwhelmed by it; that though it may howl above our heads, it will pass harmlessly by, leaving a purer and fresher atmosphere. I care but little, said he, for the sympathies of those a broad, so long as we have public sentiment with us at home; so long as we have the Christian world in America with us, so long as we have so strong a party of wise, zealous, and disinterested friends at the North, making every exertion to put down the fanatical spirit of abolition, we care little about what is said or thought in France or England. Let us cherish, then, said he, those kindly sympathies felt by each section of the Union for the other; and though the fairest fabrics of Government in the old world may be broken down, though the liberties of their people may be put in jeopardy, we shall stand secure; our Union will be preserved, upheld by a community of feeling, of interest, and of origin, as well as the ennobling recollections of the history of our common country.

It was not to be doubted, however, (said Mr. K.,) that if ever public sentiment at the North is against us; that if it acquire such strength as to induce Congress to take up the subject of abolition, and legislate on it, to the destruction of our rights, of our peace, and of our safety; great as must be the sacrifice, whenever that day shall arrive, we shall consider that the cords which bind this Union together are severed. He begged his northern friends to bear this in mind; to believe that such would be the inevitable effect of an interference by Congress with the subject, and to use every exertion in their power to put an end to this excitement before it produced further mischief.

It was disavowed by these abolitionists, on all hands, that they had any intention of interfering with slavery as it existed in the States. Here, in this District, was the battle ground, and here the plan of all their operations was laid. It was admitted that there was a difference of opinion entertained among gentlemen of sound and discriminating judgment on both sides of the question, with regard to the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery within the ten miles square ceded to the general Government by the States of Virginia and Maryland. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. PRENTISS] had entered into a long and carefully prepared argument to show that Congress possessed this power, but the gentleman had failed in convincing him that his views were correct. He recollected that, some years ago, a report was made in the other House on a bill before that body claiming remuneration for a slave killed at New Orleans in the public service, in which the doctrine was advanced that slaves were not property. We thought, (said Mr. K.,) at the time, that the author of the report was very little removed from a madman, in endeavoring to get around the constitution in so strange a way; but the gentleman from Vermont had leaped over all the

[SENATE

barriers of the constitution, and lighted at once on the principle that, if Congress emancipated the slaves in the District of Columbia, it would be "for the public use," and therefore in accordance with one of the provisions of that instrument. Now, he wished to know if there was one single man, when this constitution was adopted, who believed that, if ever his property was got away from him in the manner contemplated by the gentleman from Vermont, that it could be for the public use.

He

[Mr. PRENTISS here explained. He did not argue on the expediency or propriety of Congress emancipating the slaves in the District "for the public use.' only referred to what might hereafter be done under color of that particular clause in the constitution, and at the instance of a majority of the people of the District.]

Mr. KING continued. Do you make compensation, said he, when you emancipate a slave? Where is your fund? Is it for the public use? What public use? Do you put him to any use whatever? None, sir, none.

Sir, (said Mr. K.,) the framers of our constitution well understood that cases would frequently occur when it would become necessary for the Government to use the property of individuals to advance the public interest, and to guard against the injury which might result from the obstinate refusal of the owners to yield up such property: it was well provided that it might be taken. Yet, so careful were they to guard the rights of property from any improper interference on the part of the Government itself, that it is expressly required that it shall only be taken for public use-paying therefor a just compensation.

lle

Now, he would ask how this clause in the constitution could possibly apply to the emancipation of slaves? You cannot (said he) take private property without the consent of the owner, unless you make him just compensation, and then only for public use. But the gentleman went still farther. He said that Congress could get rid of slavery in the District of Columbia by taxation. That is, (said Mr. K.,) if you can render property valueless by taxation, you may as well take it away at once. should like to know what others from the North thought on this subject. If that is the prevailing sentiment, (said Mr. K.,) it is time that we should know it. Taxation may be carried to the States; but he did not believe that the gentleman from Vermont himself entertained the opinion that such a course of legislation would ever be either just or expedient. Such, he felt assured, was not the sentiment in the State of Vermont. At the last session of the Legislature of that State, if he was correctly informed, resolutions were introduced declarative of the power of Congress to emancipate slaves in this District, and they were rejected by a small majority; but at this session resolutions of the same tenor were again introduced, and they were rejected by an overwhelming majority. Yet this was the State where the abolition spirit was said to be so much increasing, and was so much to be feared.

[Mr. PRENTISS here explained. He had made no statement that the abolitionists had increased in Vermont, or were increasing.]

Mr. KING said he had not stated that the Senator had gone into an examination of the number of societies for the abolition of slavery in the State of Vermont; this, he believed, had been done by the gentleman's colleague. But to pursue the subject further. It was to him as clear as daylight, that if it had been believed for a moment, when this Government required the cession of this territory of ten miles square for the use of the national Legislature, that it would ever assert the right to emancipate, or so to tax slave property as to drive it from the possession of the owners-that if, at that time, it had been even suspected that Congress would ever