UNITED STATES, _Dec. 19, 1799_.
MONDAY, December 23.
THOMAS T. DAVIS, from Kentucky; ROBERT WILLIAMS, from North Carolina;
and JOHN DENNIS, from Maryland; appeared, produced their credentials,
were qualified, and took their seats in the House.
_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._
Mr. MARSHALL, from the joint committee appointed to report what
testimony of respect ought to be paid to the memory of the man first in
war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, made a
report in part, which he delivered in at the table, where it was twice
read, and unanimously agreed to, in the words following, to wit:
_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That a
marble monument be erected by the United States, in the
capitol, in the city of Washington, and that the family of
General WASHINGTON be requested to permit his body to be
deposited under it; and that the monument be so designed as
to commemorate the great events of his military and
political life.
_And be it further resolved_, That there be a funeral
procession from Congress Hall to the German Lutheran
Church, in honor of the memory of General GEORGE
WASHINGTON, on Thursday, the 26th instant, and that an
oration be prepared at the request of Congress, to be
delivered before both Houses on that day, and that the
President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
Representatives be desired to request one of the members of
Congress to prepare and deliver the same.
_And be it further resolved_, That it be recommended to the
people of the United States to wear crape on the left arm,
as mourning for thirty days.
_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
United States be requested to direct a copy of these
resolutions to be transmitted to Mrs. WASHINGTON, assuring
her of the profound respect Congress will ever bear to her
person and character; of their condolence on the late
afflicting dispensation of Providence; and entreating her
assent to the interment of the remains of General GEORGE
WASHINGTON, in the manner expressed in the first
resolution.
_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
United States be requested to issue a proclamation,
notifying to the people throughout the United States the
recommendation contained in the third resolution.
_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolutions to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
Previous to the question being put upon the first resolution, Mr. H. LEE
of Virginia, rose, and addressed the Chair as follows:
Mr. Speaker: In executing the task assigned to the committee, it will be
observed much remains to be done; so far as they have gone, and as far
as they may go, one hope is cherished, that whatever is done, will be
unanimously adopted.
This will be most pleasing to our constituents, and most honorable to
the character we all honor. Out of a wish to execute in the best manner
the direction of the House, a difference of opinion will naturally
prevail. This difference of opinion, however commendable, upon
ascertaining the mode of public mourning, ought to be suppressed when we
come to act; for unanimity then is, as I before stated, most to be
wished for, whether the feelings of our constituents, or our intentions,
on the celebrity which all desire to give to the high occasion, govern.
A message was received from the Senate, announcing their concurrence in
the report of the joint committee made this day; and then the House
adjourned till to-morrow morning.
TUESDAY, December 24.
_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._
The SPEAKER informed the House that, conformably to the resolution of
Congress, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives had requested Major General HENRY LEE, one of the
Representatives from the State of Virginia, to prepare and deliver a
funeral oration before both Houses, on Thursday, the twenty-sixth
instant, in honor of the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON, late General of
the Armies of the United States; and that Mr. LEE had been pleased to
accept of the appointment.
And, on motion, the House adjourned.
THURSDAY, December 26.
This being the day appointed by the resolution of Congress for the
funeral procession in honor of the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON, late
General of the Armies of the United States, the House proceeded to the
German Lutheran Church, where they attended the funeral oration,
prepared and delivered on the occasion by Major General LEE, one of the
members of this House for the State of Virginia.
The House, having returned, adjourned until to-morrow morning.
FRIDAY, December 27.
JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.
_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._
On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution, to wit:
"The House of Representatives of the United States, highly
gratified with the manner in which Mr. LEE has performed
the service assigned to him under the resolution desiring
the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
Representatives to request one of the members of Congress
to prepare and deliver a funeral oration on the death of
GEORGE WASHINGTON; and desirous of communicating to their
fellow-citizens, through the medium of the press those
sentiments of respect for the character, of gratitude for
the services, and of grief for the death of that
illustrious personage, which, felt by all, have on this
melancholy occasion been so well expressed:
"_Resolved_, That the Speaker present the thanks of this
House to Mr. LEE, for the oration delivered by him to both
Houses of Congress on Thursday, the twenty-sixth instant;
and request that he will permit a copy thereof to be taken
for publication:"
The question was taken that the House do agree to the same, and
unanimously resolved in the affirmative.
MONDAY, December 30.
_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._
The SPEAKER informed the House that, in pursuance of the resolution of
Friday last, he had addressed to Major General HENRY LEE, one of the
members for the State of Virginia, the following letter:
"PHILADELPHIA, _Dec. 27, 1799_.
"DEAR SIR: The enclosed resolutions, which unanimously
passed the House of Representatives this day, will make
known to you how highly they have been gratified with the
manner in which you have performed the service assigned to
you, in preparing and delivering a funeral oration on the
death of General WASHINGTON. That our constituents may
participate in the gratification we have received, from
your having so well expressed those sentiments of respect
for the character, of gratitude for the services, and of
grief for the death of that illustrious personage, I
flatter myself you will not hesitate to comply with the
request of the House, by furnishing a copy of your oration,
to be taken for publication.
"Allow me, while performing this pleasing task of official
duty in communicating an act of the Representatives of the
people, so just to you and so honorable to themselves, to
embrace the opportunity to declare that I am, personally,
with great esteem and sincere regard, dear sir, your friend
and obedient servant,
"THEODORE SEDGWICK.
"The Hon. Maj. Gen. LEE."
To which Mr. LEE had replied as follows:
"FRANKLIN COURT, _Dec. 28, 1799_.
"DEAR SIR: I owe to the goodness of the House of
Representatives the honor which their resolutions confer on
my humble efforts to execute their wish.
"I can never disobey their will, and therefore will furnish
a copy of the oration delivered on the late afflicting
occasion, much as I had flattered myself with a different
disposition of it.
"Sincerely reciprocating the personal considerations with
which you honor me, I am, very respectfully, sir, your
friend and obedient servant,
"HENRY LEE.
"The SPEAKER _of the House of Reps_."
Mr. MARSHALL, from the joint committee appointed to consider and report
what measures ought to be adopted in honor of the memory of General
WASHINGTON, made another report in part, which was unanimously agreed to
by the House, in the words following, to wit:
_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled_, That it be
recommended to the people of the United States to assemble
on the twenty-second day of February next, in such numbers
and manner as may be convenient, publicly to testify their
grief for the death of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, by
suitable eulogies, orations, and discourses, or by public
prayers.
_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
United States be requested to recommend the same, by a
proclamation for that purpose.
_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolutions to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
THURSDAY, January 2, 1800.
RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.
_Petition of Free Blacks._
Mr. WALN presented a petition of Absalom Jones and others, free men of
color, of the city and county of Philadelphia, praying for a revision of
the laws of the United States relative to the slave trade; of the act
relative to fugitives from justice; and for the adoption of such
measures as shall in due course emancipate the whole of their brethren
from their present situation; which he moved to have referred to the
committee appointed to inquire whether any and what alterations ought to
be made in the existing law prohibiting the slave trade from the United
States to any foreign place or country.
The petitioners, after mentioning their sense of the bounties of
Providence in their freedom, and the happiness they felt under such a
form of Government, represent that they cannot but be impressed with the
hardships under which numbers of their color labored, who they
conceived equal objects of representation and attention with themselves
or others under the constitution. That the solemn compact, the
constitution, was violated by the trade of kidnapping, carried on by the
people of some of the Southern States on the shores of Maryland and
Delaware, by which numbers were hurried into holes and cellars, torn
from their families and transported to Georgia, and there inhumanly
exposed to sale, which was degrading to the dignified nature of man.
That by these and other measures injurious to the human species, there
were 700,000 blacks now in slavery in these States. They stated their
application to Congress to be, not for the immediate emancipation of the
whole, knowing that their degraded state and want of education would
render that measure improper, but they ask an amelioration of their hard
situation. They prayed that the act called the fugitive bill, which was
very severe on that race of people, might be considered; also that the
African slave trade might be put a stop to.
Mr. WALN moved its reference to the committee appointed to prohibit
carrying on the slave trade to any foreign place or country.
Mr. RUTLEDGE thought any reference at all very improper; he hoped it
would be laid on the table, and with a view never to be called up
hereafter. Petitions of this sort had repeatedly come before the House,
only with the difference of transfer of hands. When the Congress sat at
New York, they spent much time and attention on the subject, but no
sooner had it been decided that nothing could be done, than the same
scenes were acted over again by repeatedly petitioning. Those gentlemen
who used to come forward, to be sure, had not avowedly come forward
again, but had now put it into the hands of the black _gentlemen_. They
now tell the House these people are in slavery--I thank God they are! if
they were not, dreadful would be the consequences. They say they are not
represented. To be sure a great number of them are not. Farther, they
say they are sent to the Southern States. Who can prevent that? Persons
possessing slaves have a right to send them there if they choose. They
tell you that they are brought from Africa. This matter is in a train to
be prevented, the subject being now in the hands of a committee. Already
had too much of this new-fangled French philosophy of liberty and
equality found its way and was too apparent among these _gentlemen_ in
the Southern States, by which nothing would do but their liberty. This
appeared to be the intention of the petition, but he supposed the people
of the Eastern States had felt as much in having them among them as
those of the Southern States in losing them, and therefore he believed
gentlemen from those parts would vote with them. However, he considered
this subject very improper and unconstitutional to discuss, and, from
the ill effects it might produce, should say no more.
Mr. WALN thought the gentleman mistaken as to the nature of the
petition; it related but two grievances: one was the operation of the
fugitive act, by which free men were carried and sold into slavery, and
the other was the slave trade. He did not wish to enter into general
principles, because he conceived it as improper as any gentleman, but he
could see no good reason why the petition might not be committed; every
petition presented to the House ought to receive that attention, and a
rejection of the present without examination could have no good effect.
Mr. SMILIE was much surprised at the opposition of the gentleman from
South Carolina to the reference. To be sure a great part of what these
people asked, as far as he was acquainted with it, was out of their
power to grant, but there was much of the petition which was within the
power of the House. So far as they had power, he considered it the duty
of the House to attend and grant relief. He could wish to drop some
ideas on the situation of those people, but felt a contrary impulse from
motives of prudence. However, he must consider them as a part of the
human species, equally capable of suffering and enjoying with others,
and equally objects of attention, and therefore they had a claim to be
heard.
Mr. OTIS hoped the petition would not be committed; he had never seen a
petition presented under a more dangerous and unpleasant aspect. It
appeared to be subscribed by a number of individuals who were incapable
of writing their names, or of reading the petition, and, _a fortiori_,
of digesting the principles of it. It therefore was a petition of
certain men made out by other men, who ought to have come forward
themselves, but had forborne. To encourage a measure of the kind would
have an irritating tendency, and must be mischievous to America very
soon. It would teach them the art of assembling together, debating, and
the like, and would soon, if encouraged, extend from one end of the
Union to the other. A great part of the petition was improper, and the
other part entirely unnecessary. No particular object or evils were
pointed out in the fugitive law, but the truth was, they wanted a repeal
of the law. Although, he thanked God he had no slaves, nor ever wished
to possess any, yet he thought the subject ought not to be meddled with
by the General Government, and if any grievances existed, they were
properly and only objects of legislation in the several States. It was
the duty, and he thought the interest of the States, while they were
kept in servitude, to ameliorate their situation as much as consisted
with security. He thought those who did not possess that species of
property had better leave the regulation of it to those who were cursed
with it. However, it was unjust to intermeddle with it to the injury of
the possessors.
Mr. H. LEE observed that gentlemen were sent to that House to preserve
the rights of the people and the rights of property. That property
which the people of the Southern States possess consisted of slaves, and
therefore Congress had no authority but to protect it, and not take
measures to deprive the citizens of it. He said he held himself not
second to any gentleman in a genuine attachment to the rights of
humanity, but he could not believe that great ends would be answered by
the reference of the petition, but much evil might accrue. It contained
sentiments which he thought it would be highly improper so far to
encourage. One object prayed for in this petition was now in the hands
of a committee; let that committee report respecting the Guinea trade,
let it be entirely obliterated; to that he would agree with all his
heart, but he hoped the House would never intermeddle with the property
of any of the citizens. Instead of voting with the worthy member who
wished it to lie on the table, he would have it returned to the
gentleman who presented it, as the only effectual means of checking an
injurious practice.
Mr. RUTLEDGE, in addition to his former arguments, observed, that so
improper was it to consider this subject that some of the States would
never have adopted the federal form of Government if it had not been
secured to them that Congress would never legislate on the subject of
slavery. Inasmuch, therefore, as it might rouse the jealousy and fears
of those States, the least attention paid to it might do mischief.
Mr. THATCHER said that gentlemen generally set out wrong, on this
subject, and leave off about half right; they debated till they were
almost tired, and then the petition was not to be committed. If Congress
had not power to legislate on the African trade, then why did they say
it was with a committee? If they had power, where was the impropriety of
referring, at least that part which could be considered? Would any
gentleman say that it was policy not to legislate about 700,000 enemies
in the very body of the United States? While they were slaves they were
enemies. He declared a greater evil than the very principle could not
exist; it was a cancer of immense magnitude, that would some time
destroy the body politic, except a proper legislation should prevent the
evil. It must come before the House sooner or later. Then why postpone
it? It was true the Eastern States were now suffering from the streams
which issued from this great and dangerous fountain, but the evil ought
to be stopped, ere it become too strong.
Mr. BROWN, of Rhode Island, said he was in hopes that every member
belonging to the Northern States would have seen by this time the
impropriety of encouraging slaves to come from the Southern States to
reside as vagabonds and thieves among them, and have been tired of the
bad policy. No subject surely was so likely to cause a division of the
States as that respecting slaves. He did not hold a slave in the world,
he said, but he was as much for supporting the rights and property of
those who did, as though he was a slave owner. He considered this as
much personal property as a farm or a ship, which was incontestably so.
He went into a view of the federal compact, to argue the impropriety of
legislating on the subject. This petition, he said, did not come from
the blacks, but from a combination of people who had troubled Congress
for many years past, and he feared never would cease. He did not fear
the power of the 700,000 enemies that the gentleman had pointed out,
since there were five millions to withstand them: they could at any time
subdue them. He begged that the gentleman, who put the petition on the
table, might be desired to take it back again. He was sorry to see the
commitment supported by two such worthy members of the House, both good
Federalists. [A laugh.]
Mr. WALN contended, that at least the House had the power of legislating
on the state of free blacks as well as other people, and on the slave
trade, much of which was still carrying on from Rhode Island, Boston and
Pennsylvania. This ought to be looked into. He denied that any idea had
ever entered his mind on presenting the petition either to debate on the
subject, or to will an emancipation of the slaves. Gentlemen from the
Southern States appeared to lament there were so many among them, but
their conduct was very contrary to their declaration.
Mr. HILL thought if any evil existed under any law now in force, a
committee ought to be appointed, to examine into and correct it: but he
hoped the petition would not be committed. It was to be lamented that
this kind of property did exist; but it did exist, and was sanctioned by
the constitution. That being the case, the House ought to set their
faces against any innovations on it, either directly or indirectly.
Mr. DENNIS rose, he said, principally because he conceived the petition
implicated the justice of the States of Maryland and Delaware,
respecting the abominable practice of kidnapping. In justice to the
State he represented, he must say that none of this evil was
attributable to that State, because they had enacted extremely penal
laws to stop it. He wished the petition to lie on the table, because the
objects of it appeared to be extremely multifarious, and he believed but
few members knew its contents, from the different opinions they had
advanced. He wished them to have an opportunity of examining it.
Mr. RANDOLPH hoped that the conduct of the House would be so decided as
to deter the petitioners, or any persons acting for them, from ever
presenting one of a similar nature hereafter. The effects must be
extremely injurious. He did wish that the conduct of the House would
have been so indignant as to have passed it over without discussion. He
should not, therefore, say any thing that would tend to encourage that
discussion. The constitution had put it out of the power of the House to
do any thing in it, and therefore he hoped the motion for a reference
would be lost by a decided majority, and this be the last time the
business of the House would be entered upon, and the interest and
feelings of the Southern States be put in jeopardy, by similar
applications.
Mr. CHRISTIE said the gentleman was mistaken, if he thought it would be
the last time, for a certain society had thought it their duty to
present petitions of this nature to Congress every year since he was
acquainted with it; but he hoped this, which came from that source, but
through other hands, would have the fate of all the rest, and go under
the table instead of upon it. As to the fugitive law, he would wish it
to be taken up, and if no other member moved it, he should; but not for
the purpose of repeal or weakening, but to make it stronger. There was
now a fine laid upon any person who should harbor a black, knowing him
or her to be a slave; he wished the provision should be that the persons
harboring should know that he or she was not a slave. He mentioned the
great desire of his State to prevent kidnapping, for which their laws
were very severe.
Mr. HARPER had hoped that the House so well understood this subject, as
to the people who instigated the petitioners to come forward, who well
knew that nothing could be done by Congress, as to decide on it
instantly. This was the act of a religious body of people whose
fanaticism leads them to think it a bounden duty to come to the House
every year, though they now come in a different name. By this measure
they had discharged their duty; all that now remained was for the House
to discharge theirs. He hoped, from the present time, they should merely
let the petition be read and pass it over in silence--for he expected
that society would continue presenting petitions. The obvious tendency
of agitating this question would only be to create discontent in a class
of people whom it was out of the power of the Legislature to change the
situation of. He called upon gentlemen to say whether a temper of revolt
was not more perceptible in that quarter? It was; and what was the cause
of it but that they were not let alone by those people; but if others
would disturb them, he hoped at least that House would cease to do it.
Mr. DANA said if the petition before the House contained nothing but a
farago of the French metaphysics of liberty and equality, he should
think that it was likely to produce some of the dreadful scenes of St.
Domingo. Or if he believed it was only the effects of a religious
fanaticism in a set of men who thought they were doing their duty,
though he thought the subject quite out of the power of Congress, he
might be disposed to think it quite wrong. But when he perceived a
petition, addressed in language which was very decent, and which
expressly declared that the petitioners did not wish the House to do
what was inconsistent with the constitution, but only asked an
amelioration of the severities under which people of their color
labored, he thought it ought to be received and committed. He did not
think the gentleman who presented it ought to withdraw it, nor was he
the least culpable, but executed a duty he conceived him bound to.
Mr. JONES said the petition threw so much aspersion upon the State he
represented (Georgia) that he must think it his duty to rise. Why was
that State to be selected out from all others? However, he should follow
the petition in its parts, in order to show that the petitioners
actually had asked what it was not in the power of the House to
legislate upon--emancipation. It was said to merely affect the slave
trade.
First, the petitioners contemplated that those people (the slaves) ought
to be represented, "with _us_ and the rest of the citizens of the United
States." Then they speak of the Federal compact, in which they consider
those people as interested in common with others, under these words:
"we, the people of the United States of America," &c. I would ask
gentlemen whether, with all their philanthropy, they would wish to see
those people sitting by their sides deliberating in the councils of the
nation? He presumed not. They go on farther and say, "We do not ask for
the immediate emancipation of all, but we ask you to prepare the way for
the oppressed to go free, that every yoke might be broken, thus keeping
up the principle to do unto others as you would they should do unto
you." The words need only be read to convince every man what is the
tendency of their request. The gentleman farther says that 700,000 men
are in bondage. I ask him how he would remedy this evil as he calls it?
but I do not think it is any evil; would he have these people turned out
in the United States to ravage, murder, and commit every species of
crime? I believe it might have been happy for the United States if these
people had never been introduced amongst us, but I do believe that they
have been immensely benefited by coming amongst us. It was the British
Government that transmitted them down to us when in a colonized state;
but being here, and being the property of individuals, after obtaining
our common liberty, and forming our Federal compact, property and safety
were guaranteed to every individual and State in the confederation. How
then can this House meddle with that part of our property? The General
Government has no power over it. With respect to that part of the
petition which said that these people were crowded into cellars and
transported to Georgia, Mr. J. informed the House that the importation
to that State by sea had been prohibited; none had come there by sea for
many years, and offenders against that law were fined £100 sterling for
each individual thus introduced. He hoped the petition would be treated
with the contempt it merited, and thrown under the table.
Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to move that the question might be decided by _yeas_
and _nays_. It was a practice he generally was against, and scarcely
ever moved, but he considered this of importance sufficient to demand
it. It was a question in which the interests of a great number of people
in this country were involved. He had no doubt it would be lost by a
very great majority, and he thought it would have a good effect to be
recorded by how vast a majority it would be lost. He thought it would be
some consolation to his constituents, when he returned home, to say how
few of the House of Representatives were the supporters of this
dangerous petition.
Mr. WALN said if he had known that this petition would have caused so
much alarm, he certainly should have desired the petitioners not to
present it; but if they had still thought it necessary and been desirous
of it, he should, as he then thought it within the power of legislation,
and still thought so, have presented it. He thought it his duty,
whenever any individual conceived himself injured by a law, to receive
his petition, and he thought himself in no wise implicated in the
manner, form, or subject of the petition, or answerable for it as
containing his opinions. If it should be supposed that the assertions in
the petition were unfounded, or bore too hard on a certain State, the
only way to ascertain that fact was by referring to a committee, that
the necessary inquiries might be reported. He again declared his
disapprobation at this subject undergoing any discussion, nor would it
have taken place had not the gentleman from South Carolina commenced it.
Mr. PLATT conceived that every thing which was brought before that House
ought to be committed, unless there was manifest indecency in the
language, or it should appear that the relief prayed for could not be
granted consistently with the power of the House. In his opinion, except
one of these two causes prevented, it unquestionably ought to be thus
disposed of. As for indecency of expression, he could perceive none,
either in the petition, or in the arguments of the gentlemen who
advocated its reference. A third reason indeed might be mentioned, which
was, that the persons whose names were signed did not give consent to
the petition and therefore it was not their act. Neither of these
reasons was proved to have existed.
Although, agreeably to the constitution, Congress could not make any
laws to prevent the emigration or importation of any persons whom the
several States should, at the adoption thereof think proper to admit,
yet Congress could, and had made laws relative to fugitives from justice
and previous to the year 1800. It was this law they prayed the
amelioration of, and that the power of persons over their slaves might
be limited, and that the law might be so amended as to prevent its
violation. It was for that, and not for the general abolition of slavery
they prayed, and surely they ought to be heard; their prayer ought to be
committed for that purpose.
He disclaimed the least desire, but an abhorrence, of any principle that
would rob persons of their property, but at the same time he was not
such a dupe to _words_ as to be of the opinion held up by a gentleman,
that because the French had used the words "reason" and "philosophy" he
should discard them, and with them humanity.
Mr. THATCHER thought that to make use of the incapacity of these people
to read or write, as an argument against committing their petition, must
arise out of prejudice in his colleague against the general object, or
he surely never would have resorted to such pitiful, and he might say,
mean, virulent remarks. [Mr. T. was here called to order.] This was
certainly a "new-fangled doctrine." But the reason why they could not
write was because of the degraded state of their minds for want of
education; many of them, perhaps, in their youth were in slavery.
The gentleman from Georgia had objected to the reference because the
petition contained a system of facts which _he said_ was not true? He
(Mr. T.) believed they were true, and thus the dispute was in issue. How
was this to be ascertained but by inquiry? If the State of Georgia
should prove themselves innocent of that black stain, it would be to
their honor. But no, said the gentlemen, "We will not have it examined
into, because it will make us out to be as _black_ as the petitioners
themselves?"
Mr. EDMOND observed that the gentleman from South Carolina had called
for the yeas and nays for a particular purpose, to wit, that it should
be seen how few voted for this intermeddling with the property of the
people in the Southern States. Mr. E. said he should vote for the
reference, and as that opinion would be attached to his conduct, his
reasons ought to accompany his vote. He should be as far from wishing to
affect the property of the citizens as any gentleman, much less should
he wish to affect the constitution. This appeared to him to be a very
respectful petition; it mattered not whether the people were black or
white; the petition only was to be regarded, and not the color of the
persons, who, representing their grievances, asked for such a relief as
the constitution could afford them. Surely then, every measure ought to
be adopted to alleviate their sufferings. Was it consistent that the
House, instead of a reasonable and patient attention, should come
forward and treat this complaint with an inattention which passion only
could dictate? Was contempt the way to recommend attachment to the
Government? This ferment and scorn could not be necessary, but he was
sure it was highly improper and inconsistent.
Mr. GALLATIN said that in his opinion there were many parts of the
petition exceptionable, but not being so much acquainted with it as
might be necessary to form a decision, he could not say whether or not
it was in the power of the House to legislate on it. However, seeing
this much in the situation with other petitions, he felt disposed, and
should vote for its reference. If it should appear improper for Congress
to legislate on it, then the committee would so report. He said he was
not satisfied that there was no grievance to which the House could apply
a remedy; he thought there was such a part. He remembered a petition
from Delaware once on one of the complaints, that of kidnapping free
negroes; therefore, he conceived it was truth, and could be no insult to
the States of Delaware and Maryland to mention it. If so, surely an
effectual remedy ought to be applied. In the former State he believed
they had made the punishment death, and yet the evil was not prevented,
if the complaints of the petitioners were true.
Mr. WALN then withdrew his former motion, and moved "that so much of the
petition as related to the slave trade carried on from any part of the
United States to any foreign place or country; and so much of the said
petition as respected fugitives from justice, or escaped from their
masters, be referred to the committee appointed on the 12th day of
December last on the subject of the slave trade."
Mr. RUTLEDGE appealed to the Chair to know whether the motion was in
order.
Mr. SPEAKER said, perhaps, that was the only deliberative body in the
world where a motion, having been made, seconded, and debated, could be
withdrawn by either the mover or seconder. But it had been a practice in
that House so to do, and there was no rule against it. The motion was
therefore perfectly agreeable to order.
Mr. RUTLEDGE then moved an adjournment, which was carried--yeas 47, nays
35.
FRIDAY, January 3.
BENJAMIN HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took
his seat.
_Petition of Free Blacks._
The House resumed the unfinished business of yesterday, on the
resolution for referring certain parts of the petition of Absalom Jones
and others, when
Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to explain his reasons for moving the adjournment
yesterday, as not having arisen from a desire of protracting the debate,
but because he conceived the Chair misunderstood him on the point of
order. When he submitted the question of order to the Chair, it appeared
from the decision to be the Speaker's opinion that the question was,
whether a member had a right to withdraw a motion in that situation or
not. He knew that right to exist, but he doubted of the competency of
the House to refer parts of a petition, and not the whole. In his
opinion it ought not to be referred, or, if so, the whole ought to be
referred generally. He mentioned a petition which was last session
presented from Northampton County, praying the repeal of the alien and
sedition laws, but in their general zeal in the pursuance of those
objects severally, other laws were found fault with, particularly those
relating to measures of defence. These were thought to be improper for a
reference; on which a motion was made to refer a part, but it was then
thought the petition could not be divided. He submitted to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania a very easy mode of acquiring the object, which was by
withdrawing the petition and advising the petitioners to present one
conformable to the decision, and within the constitutional power of the
House. Gentlemen were mistaken in saying that petitions of this kind
came annually. The session before last the subject was referred to a
committee, who made a suitable report upon it, and in order to prevent
the continual debate, it was resolved to be a proper object of Judicial,
and not of Legislative cognizance. This brought the matter to such an
understanding that he hoped he would have heard no more of it. It
appeared to have had the good effect of preventing any application
during the sitting of last session.
The SPEAKER said the question of order, as now explained by the member
from South Carolina, was not understood by the Chair. From all the
examination and the fruits of inquiry which the Chair had since
acquired, it appeared not to be unusual to refer parts of a subject, for
parts of the PRESIDENT'S Speech had been referred; also, parts of
petitions had frequently been referred; on which account the opinion of
the Chair at present, unless an appeal should be made to the House, was,
that the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was perfectly in
order.
Mr. WALN said it would have been very agreeable to him that the question
should have been taken on the motion first made to the House; but, on
hearing the warmth with which it was contested, and willing to remove
the jealousy of several gentlemen in the House, he thought it best to
alter the motion to their wishes.
It had been suggested that to withdraw the petition for its
modification, would be an easy way to acquire the object. He thought it
entirely unnecessary to withdraw it in this stage of business. Although
he could have wished the words objected to had never been inserted, yet
he was not prepared to say that the petitioners had no right to use
them. It appeared that these people's sentiments accorded with those of
the gentlemen who opposed the reference. They wished to obtain a removal
of this great evil when proper: those gentlemen called it an evil which
they could wish to get rid of, but they think it cannot be done. Mr. W.
said he should not have objected to a resolution importing that it would
be improper to legislate on the subject of slavery, but so far as
relates to the bad traffic, and the practice of kidnapping, they ought
to be examined by a committee. On these accounts he was not authorized,
nor was he inclined to withdraw the petition.
He was in hopes the gentleman from South Carolina would not have
desisted from his motion for calling the yeas and nays; that gentleman
wished the House to show the world that this petition was so irritating
and alarming as to merit universal contempt and abhorrence. He believed
this gentleman was mistaken as to the small number he supposed would
vote for its commitment, and therefore wished he would renew the motion
on the question as modified.
Mr. GOODE then observed that as a public discussion had taken place upon
this subject--one from which he thought Congress precluded by the
constitution, and one which materially affected the interest and perhaps
the safety of a great portion of the United States, and particularly of
his constituents, he thought it his duty not only to give his negative
in the usual manner, but to call for the pointed disapprobation of the
House, and proposed to amend the resolution by adding the following
words:
"And that the parts of the said petition which invite
Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the General
Government is precluded by the constitution, have a
tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought
therefore to receive the pointed disapprobation of this
House."
Mr. THATCHER said it was the first time that he had ever known any
petition or part of a petition receive the "pointed disapprobation of
the House" by a resolution, even though the object of it was not within
the power of the House. Several petitions had been received upon which
the House had no power. He referred to the petition of John Churchman,
in December 1791, praying the patronage of Government to facilitate his
discovery of the longitude, by enabling him to undertake a voyage to
Baffin's Bay. It was reported that great inconvenience operated to
prevent the grant prayed for, and no money was allowed, yet no member
moved a censure upon the petitioner. Was it a desirable object to do
away a great evil? It was professed to be the wish of several gentlemen
to eradicate it. No gentleman in the House but appeared desirous of
embracing it with all his heart. These people only wished the evil
destroyed, but did not point out the form. He was willing, for the sake
of argument, to admit that slavery did exist and was sanctioned by the
laws and constitution of the United States; he did not believe the fact,
but as some other gentlemen did, he would admit it for the present.
Surely it would be desirable that this great evil should be destroyed,
if it could be done without injury, nay, with advantage, to the
possessors. Did the petition go any farther than this? It did not. The
second person in the Government of the United States had devised a means
to procure this object, as also had a certain learned professor. If it
was therefore the desire, as avowed, of those gentlemen, and an
equitable means had been devised to acquire it, would the reference of a
petition which made that request be improper, or would it be impolitic
in gentlemen to examine these plans, and if eligible bring about their
execution? Certainly not. Even if a certain sum of money was wanting,
he did not believe the House would refuse to appropriate it. Who would
withhold a few dollars from his purse to facilitate it? Then, while such
are the propositions, a petition in behalf of its accomplishment ought
to be heard; if it be not, it must fix a national indignity and stigma
which ages of good actions could never wipe away.
Mr. DANA was not of the opinion of a number of gentlemen, that the House
ought to express its indignation against these petitions. The
indignation of that House ought to be limited to certain objects; it
might be expressed against an offending nation, but he much doubted
whether it became it to express that high sensation against any
individuals. He thought no circumstance could occur which called for
such condescension, and therefore he could not approve of words so
strongly expressed upon an occasion comparatively so trivial. If the
gentleman from Virginia would so convey his ideas as to express the
impropriety of those subjects for the consideration of this House, he
was willing to agree with him.
Mr. RUTLEDGE thought it a little extraordinary that when gentlemen from
some parts of the Union were positively assured that very serious, nay,
dreadful effects, must be the inevitable consequence of their discussion
on this subject, they still would persist. He used strong words, he
said, because no others would be appropriate. Gentlemen recommended the
subject to be calmly argued. Would gentlemen feel calm if measures were
taken to destroy most of their property? Would calmness be consistent if
entering wedges were prepared to ruin the property of whole estates? If
ever it was justifiable to be warm on any subject in the House, it
surely was on an occasion like the present, when imminent danger was in
view. Yes, we deem this as an entering wedge to an inevitable loss of
our property, if persisted in. It appeared by the gentleman's arguments
that he had just been reading the opinions of his brother philosopher,
Brissot.
Three emissaries from St. Domingo appeared in the hall of the
Convention, demanding the emancipation of their species from slavery.
The Convention were told it would operate as an entering wedge that
would go to the destruction of property, and the loss of one of the
finest islands in the world; that it would be murderous in the extreme;
that it would open scenes which had never been practised since the
destruction of Carthage; that a whole rich country would be buried in
blood; that thousands would instantly be reduced to abject penury; that
the first towns in that fine island would be reduced to a heap of ashes.
But those gentlemen said no, it cannot be, all our desires originate in
philanthropy--we wish to do good! But, sir, we have lived to see these
dreadful scenes. These horrid effects have succeeded what was conceived
once to be trifling. Most important consequences may be the result,
although gentlemen little apprehend it. But we know the situation of
things there, although they do not, and knowing we deprecate it. There
have been emissaries amongst us in the Southern States; they have begun
their war upon us; an actual organization has commenced; we have had
them meeting in their club rooms, and debating on that subject, and
determinations have been made. It might be wrong in me to mention these
things, because many of those people can read and write, and will be
informed of what I am now saying, which they think I did not know, but
knowing, I am determined to make use of.
Sir, I do believe that persons have been sent from France to feel the
pulse of this country, to know whether these are the proper engines to
make use of: these people have been talked to; they have been tampered
with, and this is going on. They now will see that the argument has been
agitated in the Legislature; that the subject of emancipation has been
discussed. Is not this extremely wrong, when gentlemen are told how much
it puts our property at hazard. Although these people are unable to do
any harm, yet the work will be done by gentlemen in this House, _they_
must be answerable for the mischief.
Before I had the honor of a seat in this House, one question which was
agitated by the people was, how do the General Legislature regard this
species of property? I said, our brethren in the Northern States are
willing to leave this business entirely to us who possess it--they will
not intermeddle. I did hope that they never would take the lead in any
arguments of this dangerous tendency. But, as gentlemen have gone into
this business, I find I am compelled to use arguments which otherwise
ought not to be mentioned.
I recollect that gentlemen in France used arguments like the gentleman
from Massachusetts: "We can indemnify these proprietors." But how did
they do it, or how can it be done?--Not at all. Farther, we were told
these things would take place, we need not be alarmed; it was
inevitable; that it was reasonable and unavoidable. Sir, it never will
take place. There is one alternative which will save us from it, but
that alternative I deprecate very much; that is, that we are able to
take care of ourselves, and if driven to it, we will take care of
ourselves.
Mr. JONES had hoped that the decision of Congress when sitting at New
York would have put a final stop to any future applications, and the
councils of the United States would have been troubled no farther with
them. It was justly and wisely proved that it was a difficulty unfit for
Congress to attempt, on account of the extremely different local
circumstances and species of property possessed by the Northern and
Southern members, who were all met in one convention. However, he must
do justice to the candor of some gentlemen from the North, who had
vindicated their right to this property. Mr. J. did not think there was
any more probability of discovering an eligible and just mode of
acquiring the object of _emancipation_, than there was in the case
referred by the gentleman to Mr. Churchman's discovery of _longitude_.
All researches into these attempts were illusory, and both alike
impracticable at this time, if ever they would be. However, he was
certain that the honorable gentleman's manner of treating the subject
would give rise to a just jealousy in those parts of the United States
whose property consisted only in slaves. As to the State he represented,
as he before said, a very heavy penalty was the fine on each slave
imported, and killing, maiming, or ill-treating them was punished
severely by the whites. He could not think but the arguments of some
gentlemen must originate from improper motives.
Mr. EDMOND could not conceive any danger from committing this petition,
whatever alarms some gentlemen had apprehended. But as gentlemen
apprehended so much danger from committing certain parts of the
petition, he would be willing to quiet these alarms, and do every thing
reasonable by expressing an idea that Congress would not legislate upon
what belonged not to them. The amendment at first proposed, he professed
himself much opposed to, upon the ground that the House were about to
express a pointed disapprobation towards the petitioners, which he
conceived wrong, because no censure could be due where a petition was
respectfully addressed. But as now modified he had no objection to adopt
the amendment; not that he conceived it important, but because it tended
to quiet the minds of some gentlemen in the House.
Mr. WALN again said, that it was not his intention to advocate the
emancipation of slaves, but only to ameliorate their state. He therefore
would cheerfully consent to the amendment as amended.
Consent being given by the mover to incorporate the amendment with the
original resolution, it was now all before the House in the form of one
resolution.
Mr. THATCHER said, as an abstract proposition, he should have no
objection; he thought the House ought to give no countenance to any
thing that it could not legislate on by the constitution; but as he did
not believe the petition contained any such proposition, he must adhere
to his former sentiments, and could not consent to the incorporation of
the words. As amended, he disliked it much less than before, but he did
not like it as connected with the first motion.
Mr. J. BROWN asked whether it was in order for a gentleman to speak five
or six times.
Mr. THATCHER said he had spoken but once on this question. The gentleman
from Rhode Island need not be afraid, for he was not now going to say
much about slavery, which was the nearest to his heart. Mr. T. was fully
of the opinion that the House had a right to take up the subject, and
give it a full, free, and deliberate discussion, but this did not
appear to be the general opinion. As he was opposed to the motion, as
amended, he was willing his name should appear against it, even though
no other gentleman should think fit to vote with him.
Mr. GALLATIN conceived that there certainly were parts of the petition
over which that House had no power, for though the petitioners did not
pray for emancipation to be completed immediately, yet they anticipated
that it would some time be done, and their prayer included a wish that
the House would take a preparatory step. As to the amendment, although
he did not like the wording of it altogether, he had no objection to the
principle, and therefore should vote for it; for he thought it right to
say that it was improper for the House to legislate on the subject. What
was not specifically acknowledged by the constitution, in his opinion,
carried with it a doubt upon which the Legislature ought not to enter.
Mr. THATCHER called for a division of the question.
Mr. NICHOLAS, on this, expressed some embarrassment as to giving his
vote, on which he moved to strike out the latter part. The same appeared
to pervade the minds of several gentlemen.
Mr. WALN, therefore, to relieve the House from the situation, withdrew
his acquiescence to the amendment, so as to leave the questions
distinct. The yeas and nays had been several times moved during the
embarrassed state of the House, but were only taken once, to wit, on the
amendment to the proposition:
"And that the parts of the said petition which invite
Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the General
Government is precluded by the constitution, have a
tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought
therefore to receive no encouragement or countenance from
this House."
The question was taken, that the House do agree to the same, and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 85, nay 1, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, George Baer, Theodorus Bailey, Bailey
Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John Bird, Phanuel Bishop,
Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Robert Brown, Christopher G.
Champlin, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
Claiborne, John Condit, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
Franklin Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, John
Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Joseph Eggleston,
Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Albert Gallatin,
Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur
Goodrich, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger
Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert
Goodloe Harper, Joseph Heister, Archibald Henderson,
William H. Hill, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, James H.
Imlay, George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Henry
Lee, Nathaniel Macon, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, Abraham
Nott, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Jonas
Platt, Leven Powell, John Randolph, John Read, John
Rutledge, junior, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Richard
Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro,
John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, John Thompson, Abram
Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln,
Robert Williams, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.
NAY.--George Thatcher.
And then the main question, to agree to the said motion, as amended,
being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative.
TUESDAY, January 7.
JAMES SHEAFE, of New Hampshire, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.
FRIDAY, February 7.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
The following Message and documents were received from the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, which were read, and ordered to lie on the table:
_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:
In consequence of your request to me, conveyed in your
resolution of the fourth of this month, I directed the
Secretary of State to lay before me copies of the papers
intended. These copies, together with his report, I now
transmit to the House of Representatives, for the
consideration of the members.