[NOTWITHSTANDING the compromise of the slavery question, on
the admission of Missouri into the union, many citizens of
the northern states were opposed to the admission of Arkansas,
agreeably to the terms of the compromise. Mr. Clay, however,
adhered to his former opinions, as is shown in his remarks which
follow.]
MR. CLAY rose to present several petitions which had come into his
hands. They were signed by citizens of Philadelphia, many of whom were
known to be of the first respectability, and the others were, no doubt,
entitled to the highest consideration. The petitions were directed
against the admission of Arkansas into the union, while there was a
clause in her constitution prohibiting any future legislation for the
abolition of slavery within her limits. He had felt considerable doubt
as to the proper disposition which he should make of these petitions,
while he wished to acquit himself of the duty intrusted to him. The
bill for the admission of Arkansas had passed the senate, and gone
to the other house. It was possible that it would be returned from
that branch with an amendment, which would bring this subject into
consideration. He wished the petitioners had selected some other organ.
He did not concur in the prayer of the petitioners. He thought that
Arkansas, and another state or territory south of forty degrees, had
the entire right, according to the compromise made on the Missouri
question, to frame its constitution, in reference to slavery, as it
might think proper. He adhered to the opinions on this point which he
held on a former memorable occasion, which would be in the recollection
of senators. He would only ask that one of these memorials be read, and
that the whole of them should then be laid on the table.
[Mr. King, of Alabama, expressed his regret that the senator
from Kentucky had introduced these petitions, while a bill
was pending in the other branch, in the progress of which
it was probable that this question would be stirred. If the
presentation of these petitions should bring up again the
agitation which was produced by the discussion of the Missouri
question, it would be difficult to predict the consequences
which might ensue. When the Missouri question was under
consideration, he acted with the senator from Kentucky, and
agreed to give up certain rights of the new states for the
purpose of conciliation. But he would now say, that never again
would he give up any thing for the purpose of conciliating
another quarter of the country. He repeated his astonishment
and concern, that the senator from Kentucky should have brought
forward the petitions.]
Mr. Clay said he felt unaffected surprise at the expression of
regret contained in the language of the senator from Alabama, as to
the presentation of these petitions. I feel no regret. The subject of
these petitions I do not approve, and I stated my disapprobation. I
should have been happy, had the petitioners chosen another organ, I
stated, further, that my opinions were unchanged. But these petitions
have been committed to my care. In presenting them, I only performed
a duty――a duty, in reference to petitions, of a constitutional, almost
a sacred character. I have presented the petitions, but I have asked
for no other action on them than the mere laying of them on the table,
although I might have done so, as the bill is yet before the other
branch. It is highly competent to the legislative authority to pass
another bill, to control this clause in the constitution of Arkansas.
I have asked no such thing. If the question should be stirred in the
other branch, as seems to be apprehended by the senator from Alabama,
it is better that the petitions are presented here. Here they are.
I have merely performed a duty in presenting them; yet I am chided,
chided at least in tone, by the senator from Alabama, for having done
so. Sure I am, sir, that in this tone of chiding, there is not another
senator on this floor who will participate.
As to the principle of compromise, there were several epochs from which
gentlemen might take their start. The adoption of the constitution was
a compromise; the settlement of the Missouri question was the second
epoch; the adjustment of the tariff was the third. The principle
illustrated in all these great cases it was highly desirable should be
carried out. These persons who now come before congress, think it hard
that they should be excluded from any participation in the soil south
of forty degrees, which was won by the aid of their treasure and their
valor. Perhaps the hardship was equally severe on those whose habits
have rendered them familiar with slavery, that they are virtually
excluded from a residence in any of the states north of the line of
forty. He concluded with saying, that he had defended the principle of
compromise, in the Missouri question, with as much zeal, if not as much
ability, as the senator from Alabama.
[The petitions were then laid on the table.]