It behooves the gentleman from Georgia to show the precise expenses

incurred. Were this once proved it would remove all doubt. The

Commissioners who formed the articles of cession, it may be presumed, had

before them the whole materials; and it must be inferred that the claims

now made were fully considered by them, and were, so far as they are

just, included in the settlement. Mr. S. concluded his remarks by saying

he felt no uncommon tenacity or zeal against the claims; but that he

would be very willing to allow them in case it should be satisfactorily

shown that they were not already compensated.

Mr. MERIWETHER and Mr. HOLLAND opposed the report, when a vote was passed

against the claims--yeas 73, nays 28; when the House, on the motion of

Mr. J. CLAY, postponed the further consideration of the subject till

Monday next.

MONDAY, February 13.

_Public Roads._

On motion of Mr. JACKSON, the House took up the bill making provision for

the application of the money heretofore appropriated to the laying out

and making public roads leading from the navigable waters emptying into

the Atlantic to the Ohio river.

Mr. J. CLAY moved to postpone the bill to the 1st Monday of December.

Lost--yeas 41, nays 40.

Mr. R. GRISWOLD moved so to amend the first section, as to vest the

President with a general power to appoint three Commissioners to

designate a route, to be reported to Congress for their ultimate

decision; which motion, after a short conversation, was agreed to by a

considerable majority.

Mr. LYON offered a motion for empowering the President to designate the

routes. Lost, without a division.

The committee rose and reported the bill with several amendments, in

which the House concurred, and ordered the bill to a third reading on

Wednesday.

TUESDAY, February 14.

_Importation of Slaves._

The following motion, offered by Mr. BARD, was taken into consideration

in Committee of the Whole:

“_Resolved_, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on every

slave imported into any part of the United States.”

On motion of Mr. JACKSON, it was agreed to add after the words United

States, “or their territories.”

Mr. LOWNDES.--I will trespass but a very short time upon the attention

of the House at this stage of the business, but as I have objections to

the resolution, it may be proper that I should state them now. I will

do so briefly, reserving to myself the privilege of giving my opinion

more at length when the bill is before the House, should the resolution

be adopted, and a bill brought in. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to find

that the conduct of the Legislature of the State of South Carolina, in

repealing its law prohibitory of the importation of negroes, has excited

so much dissatisfaction and resentment as I find it has done with the

far greater part of this House. If gentlemen will take a dispassionate

review of the circumstances under which this repeal was made, I think

this dissatisfaction and resentment will be removed, and I should indulge

the hope that this contemplated tax will not be imposed. Antecedent to

the adoption of the constitution under which we now act, the Legislature

of South Carolina passed an act prohibiting the importation of negroes

from Africa, sanctioned by severe penalties. I speak from recollection,

but I believe not less than the forfeiture of the negro and a hundred

pounds sterling for each brought into the State; and this act has been

continued in force until it was repealed by the Legislature at its last

session. This long interdiction, I think, manifests, on the part of the

government of the State, a disinclination to the trade, and, had we

received the aid from Congress which was necessary to enforce the act,

the repeal which is now complained of would never, in my opinion, have

taken place. But, Mr. Speaker, the State was unable to enforce its laws.

It had given up to the Government of the United States all revenues

derived from foreign imposts, and was, therefore, necessarily divested

of the means of preventing the introduction into the country from sea of

whatever the excitements to gain might allure it into. The geographical

situation of our country is not unknown. With navigable rivers running

into the heart of it, it was impossible, with our means, to prevent our

Eastern brethren, who, in some parts of the Union, in defiance of the

authority of the General Government, have been engaged in this trade,

from introducing them into the country. The law was completely evaded,

and for the last year or two, Africans were introduced into the country

in numbers little short, I believe, of what they would have been had the

trade been a legal one. Under these circumstances, sir, it appears to me

to have been the duty of the Legislature to repeal the law, and remove

from the eyes of the people the spectacle of its authority being daily

violated.

I beg, sir, that from what I have said, it may not be inferred that I

am friendly to a continuation of the slave trade. So far from it that,

without adverting to considerations by which I know other gentlemen

are influenced, I think the period has passed when the interests of

the country required, and her policy dictated, that an end should be

put to it. I wish the time had arrived when Congress could legislate

conclusively upon the subject. I should then have the satisfaction of

uniting with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who moved the resolution.

Whenever it does arrive, should I then have a seat in this House, I will

assure him I will cordially support him in obtaining his object. But, Mr.

Speaker, I cannot vote for this resolution, because I am sure it is not

calculated to promote the object which it has in view. I am convinced

that the tax of ten dollars will not prevent the introduction into the

country of a single slave. Gentlemen must be sensible of the truth of

this observation, when they are informed, and the fact is too notorious

even to be doubted, that, notwithstanding the expense and risk which

attend an illicit trade, they have been introduced in very great numbers.

Was I friendly to the trade, I should, without any hesitation, embrace

the proposition contained in the resolution, and I should consider it a

point gained of no small importance, that the Legislature of the General

Government had given a sanction to it--for I can regard the Government

deriving a revenue from it in no other light than a sanction. The

gentleman from Pennsylvania, and those who think with him, ought, above

all others, to deprecate the passing of this resolution. It appears to

me to be directly calculated to defeat their own object--to give to

what they wish to discountenance a legislative sanction; and, further,

an interest to the Government in permitting this trade after the period

when it might constitutionally terminate it. When I say that I am myself

unfriendly to it, I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to be misunderstood; I do

not mean to convey the idea that the people of the Southern States are

universally opposed to it--I know the fact to be otherwise. Many of the

people in the Southern States feel an interest in it, and will yield

it with reluctance. Their interest will be strengthened by the immense

accession of territory to the United States by the cession of Louisiana.

Gentlemen cannot foresee what the situation of the country will be when

the period arrives when Congress may constitutionally interdict the

trade. The finances of the country, and the exigences of the times, may

be such as to prevent the Government from dispensing with any part of

its revenue. The tax, if imposed, will undoubtedly produce a revenue,

and in proportion to the amount of this revenue will be the interest of

the Government in the trade. But, Mr. Speaker, my greatest objection to

this tax is, that it will fall exclusively upon the agriculture of the

State of which I am one of the representatives. However odious it may be

to some gentlemen, and however desirous they may be of discountenancing

it, I think it must be evident that this tax will not effect their

object; that it will not be a discouragement to the trade, nor will the

introduction of a single African into the country be prevented. The only

result will be, that it will produce a revenue to the Government. I

trust that no gentleman is desirous of establishing this tax with a view

to revenue. The State of South Carolina contributes as largely to the

revenue of the United States, for its population and wealth, as any State

in the Union. To impose a tax falling exclusively on her agriculture

would be the height of injustice, and I hope that the Representatives

of the landed interest of the nation will resist every measure, however

general in its appearance, a tendency of which is to lay a partial and

unequal tax on agriculture.

Mr. BEDINGER observed, that the gentleman from South Carolina had so

fully expressed the opinions he entertained, that he should say but

little. Every body who knew his opinions on slavery might think strange

of the vote he should give against the resolution. There was not a member

on the floor more inimical to slavery than he was, still he was of

opinion that the effect of the present resolution, if adopted, would be

injurious. He should, therefore, vote against it.

Mr. BARD.--It was my wish that the question before the committee might be

taken without discussion, but, as the gentleman from South Carolina has

preferred a different course, I beg permission to offer a few thoughts on

the subject.

As to the constitutionality of the measure, I believe there can be but

one opinion. It is pretty well understood that the union of the States

was a matter of compromise; and, indeed, the language of the constitution

suggests the idea that the convention which formed that instrument, must

have had the emancipation of slaves under their consideration. They had

achieved liberty, and their object was to transmit it to posterity;

and we cannot permit ourselves to suppose that men whose minds were so

enriched with liberal sentiments, and who had so often reiterated the

sacred truth, “That all men were born equally free”--I say we cannot

suppose that they would consider slavery to be a subject unworthy their

discussion; and it appears to be equally suggested that the convention

were not all agreed to an absolute prohibition of the slave trade,

but yielded so far that a duty or tax might be imposed on the future

importation of that description of people. The question, then, is only on

the policy of laying this tax; and it appears that there can be no doubt

on this question.

The slave trade, in terms, makes African men mere articles of traffic,

and of course they must be as much a subject of commercial regulation as

any other species of foreign manufactures. The tax will be high or low,

in proportion to the price the article will bring. And if my information

is correct, a slave will bring four hundred dollars; the tax, then, is

but two and-a-half per cent., which is many degrees lower than any other

imported article pays. The tax is a general one; no State in the Union

is exempted; it will operate wherever its object can be found. It may

be that some States will pay more and some less, but it will be at the

option of any State how much, or whether it will pay any of this tax;

for it will be just as the State shall please to deal in this article of

commerce. And, on the score of uniformity, no objection can lie against

the tax--the slaves have already been the object of direct taxation,

and Vermont paid none of that tax, because she had none of that kind of

taxable property; and yet I never heard it complained of as not being

uniform. It is said the tax is impolitic, because it will not prevent the

importation of Africans into our country. This may, indeed, be the case;

and I believe it will be but a feeble check to the trade if not aided

by nobler motives. However, if any of the States engage in the trade,

the tax will have two effects--it will add something to the revenue, and

it will show to the world that the General Government are opposed to

slavery, and willing to improve their power, as far as it will go, for

preventing it. Both these ends are valuable; but I deem the latter to be

the more important one, for we owe it indispensably to ourselves and to

the world, whose eyes are on our Government, to maintain its republican

character. Every thing compared to a good name is “trash;” and it rests

with us whether we will preserve or destroy it. If our Government will

respect power only, and justify whatever it may be able to do, then will

our hands be against every man, and every man’s hand against us; and

Americans will become the scorn of mankind.

On what principles, whether moral or political, I do not know; but so it

was, that about the close of the Revolutionary war, the Quaker society

in South Carolina brought the slave trade, or perhaps slavery itself,

under their serious consideration, and declared it to be unjustifiable.

They afterwards, in 1796 or 1797, addressed Congress on the subject; but

failed in their object, and for no other reason, probably, than that the

powers of Congress did not reach it.

Some years ago the States, even those in which slaves abound most, loudly

exclaimed against the further importation of that class of people, and

by their laws prohibited their traffic. Either they did this on moral

principles or considerations of policy. In 1802, Congress stretched

out her arm to aid the State Governments against the evil they so much

deprecated, and passed a law inflicting fines and forfeitures on every

man who should be found importing slaves into the United States. What

might have been the issue of these combined exertions, or how far they

might ultimately secure their end, I cannot tell; but, as to South

Carolina, they have become nugatory; by repealing her prohibitory law she

has rejected the interference of Congress. Why that State has done so;

why she has abandoned a measure which, the other day, was considered so

much her interest, I know not, nor is it for me to offer any conjectures.

South Carolina is a sovereign State, and has a right to consult and

pursue her own interest, so far as the general good will permit; for

hitherto she may come, and no further. Every State has a right to import

slaves if it so chooses, and Congress has a right to tax all the slaves

imported; but when the powers of a State, though constitutional, operate

against the general interest, then the exercise of those powers is

politically wrong, because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of

society, the public good, which is paramount to law and the constitution

itself. And, in my opinion, the importation of slaves is hostile to the

United States: to import slaves is to import enemies into our country; it

is to import men who must be our natural enemies, if such there can be.

Their circumstances, their barbarism, their reflections, their hopes and

fears, render them an enemy of the worst description.

Gentlemen tell us, though I can hardly think them serious, that the

people of this description can never systematize a rebellion. I will

not mention facts, it is sufficient to say that experience speaks a

different language--the rigor of the laws, and the impatience of the

slaves, will mutually increase each other, until the artifices of the one

are exhausted, and until, on the other hand, human nature sinks under

its wrongs, or obtains the restoration of its rights. The negroes are

in every family; they are waiting on every table; they are present on

numerous occasions when the conversation turns on political subjects,

and cannot fail to catch ideas that will excite discontentment with

their condition. And what is to be expected from the people of this

description, but that they will some day, and especially if their

importation continues, produce a disturbance that may not be easily

quieted, or kindle a flame that may not be readily extinguished. If ten

thousand of them have been, as it is said, smuggled into the United

States, in the course of a year or two past, and if ten or fifteen

thousand of them may now be legally brought annually into our country,

for four years to come, it will hardly be imagined that the general

interest will be unaffected by such an importation.

If they are ignorant, they are, however, susceptible of instruction, and

capable of becoming proficients in the art of war. To be convinced of

this we have only to look at St. Domingo.

There the negroes felt their wrongs, and have avenged them; they learned

the rights of man, and asserted them; they have wrested the power from

their oppressors, and have become masters of the island. If they are

unarmed, they may be armed; European powers have armed the Indians

against us, and why may they not arm the negroes? And if they are already

as numerous as is consistent with safety, it must be extreme impolicy to

import more; it is to accelerate an event which we cannot contemplate

without pain.

Slavery is not only impolitic as it affects the strength and tranquillity

of the United States, but as it prevents their wealth, which can only

grow out of society where the arts, sciences, and manufactures, are

cultivated and improved. But, sir, I despise to argue on the advantages

or disadvantages of what is contrary to the genius of our Government;

what is radically unjust, and violates the principles of morality.

The Americans boast of being the most enlightened people in the

world--they certainly enjoy the greatest share of liberty, and understand

the principles of rational government more generally than any other

nation on earth. They have denounced tyranny and oppression; they have

declared their country to be an asylum for the oppressed of all nations.

But will foreigners concede this high character to us, when they examine

our census and find that we hold a million of men in the most degraded

slavery? This is nearly one-fifth of our whole population; in some of the

States nearly the half. Here, then, is a fact that must have weight to

sink our national character, in spite of volumes to support it. It is a

fact, from which foreigners will infer, that we possess the principles of

tyranny, but want the power to carry them into operation, except against

the untutored and defenceless African. If, then, we hold a consistency of

national character in any estimation, we will give every discouragement

in our power to the importation of slaves. It is in this view that the

tax contemplated by the resolution is principally to be considered, and

only incidentally as matter of revenue.

But, sir, I presume, on permission, to say, that the importation of

slaves is in direct contradiction to the principles of morality. On these

principles the Constitution of the United States is founded; on them

every law ought to be founded; otherwise legislation will progress in the

dark, and every step deviate still more from its true direction. “Do unto

others as you would that others should do unto you,” is a law paramount

to all human institutions; it is the fundamental law of human nature, of

Christianity, and of every rational Government; it is a law which we wish

all men to respect in their dealings with us; and it is a law which every

man confesses he ought to observe, and, in spite of all the sophistry of

depravity, must acknowledge himself subject to its cognizance. I need

not, nor will I, ask if we have observed this law as to the Africans; for

it must be obvious to every man that it is not possible to violate it in

a greater degree than we have done towards that unfortunate and wretched

people.

But, notwithstanding all the information our country enjoys, numbers

in the Eastern States have been embarked, for some years past, in the

cruel traffic of slaves, and smuggling them into other States. And it

is to be feared that many of them are, at this moment, preparing means

to stimulate the barbarous tribes of Africa to war against each other;

mutually to torture every human feeling; to violate the strongest ties

of nature and affection; to tear the husband from the wife, and the

wife from the husband; the parent from the child, and the child from

the parent; and are coolly and deliberately forging irons, that they

may have the infernal pleasure of coolly and deliberately riveting them

on the unfortunate men, women, and children, who may fall into their

hands. Such an enterprise, such a traffic as this, must affect our

national character; it is self-evidently wrong, and, at first view, must

receive the disapprobation of every disinterested man. The genius of our

constitution, the mildness of its administration, and the prevailing

sentiment of the nation, must sanction every measure to discourage the

further admission of a people whose numbers already excite most painful

sensations. In a word, the tax is constitutional; no article can bear a

tax better than the one here proposed; it is a uniform tax, and justified

on the ground of sound policy; and so far as it tends to discourage the

slave-trade, it is supported by every principle of virtue. If I have

uttered a word offensive to any member of the House, it will not be

attributable to design, but to an honest solicitude to promote the honor

and interest of our country.

Mr. BEDINGER said he differed widely, as to the effects of this motion,

from the gentleman who had just spoken. He was as hostile to the

slave-trade as any man in the Union; and if he could believe that the

imposition of a tax of ten dollars upon every imported negro would check

the importation, he would vote for it. But he believed the resolution

would have a different effect, and would rather sanction than discourage

the trade. In point of revenue, the tax was of little consideration.

Suppose a thousand slaves to be imported monthly, the amount of the tax

would be about $100,000 a year; which in four years, at the expiration of

which Congress would have power to prohibit the trade altogether, would

amount to $400,000--a sum too trifling to be put into competition with

the adoption of any measure that went to sanction such a trade.

Mr. MACON (the Speaker) believed the resolution was not founded in good

policy. All the declamation and appeal to the passions urged in its

behalf appeared to him unnecessary and irrelevant. The avowed object of

the proposed tax was to show the hostility of Congress to the principle

of importing slaves. How could this opposition of Congress be manifested,

when it would become the duty of the armed ships of the United States,

as soon as the tax was imposed, to protect this trade, as well as all

other trade on which taxes were laid? He asked whether vessels engaged in

this trade would not, under such circumstances, possess the same right

to the protection of the Government as any other vessels engaged in any

other kind of trade? Can this House tax this trade, and refuse it the

same protection that is extended to all other trade? The question is not

whether we shall prohibit the slave trade, but simply whether we shall

tax it. Gentlemen are of opinion that the State of South Carolina has

done wrong in permitting the importation of slaves. Suppose that this is

the case. May not this measure be wrong also? Will it not look like an

attempt in the General Government to correct a State for the undisputed

exercise of its constitutional powers? It appeared to him to be something

like putting a State to the ban of the empire. It will operate as a

censure thrown on the State. To this, said Mr. M., I can never consent.

As far as the law that may be founded upon this resolution can go, it

will hold forth an evidence of the opinion entertained by Congress of

the act of the Legislature of South Carolina. I know that these ideas

may be unpopular in some parts of the Union, but I, notwithstanding,

consider them just. There does not appear to me to be any necessity for

our interposition, as, since the adoption of the constitution, no slaves

have, I believe, been permitted to be imported, and as only four years

are yet to run before Congress will be possessed of the constitutional

right of prohibiting such importation altogether. And the simple question

now is, whether for a trifling revenue, we will undertake to protect

this trade. My idea is, that those who at present go into the traffic,

have no right to claim your protection; but once legalize it by taxing

it, and they will acquire the right thereto, and will demand it. All

that has been said on the circumstances connected with the slave trade

either here or in England, and on its morality or immorality, are in my

opinion foreign to the true point involved in this debate, which is, Is

the measure contemplated by the resolution politic, or is it not? In my

opinion it is impolitic, for the reasons I have assigned, and for many

others which might be added. I shall therefore, on this ground, vote

against it.

Mr. FINDLAY was of opinion that the policy of the measure embraced by

the resolution, and nothing else, was before them. Gentlemen seemed all

to unite in their abhorrence of the slave trade; they differed only

about the means of preventing it. It was well understood that a large

majority of the Federal Convention were inimical to the slave trade. That

convention had only acted upon it in a commercial point of view. As they

considered imported slaves an article of commerce, the House possessed

the same liberty of acting with regard to them, as with regard to other

articles of trade. In some of these articles, Congress had the right of

exercising unlimited taxation; in this case, their power was limited to a

certain amount. Imported goods, on an average, were subjected to a duty

of about 20 per cent. On this subject, a difference of opinion exists as

to the propriety of making imported slaves an article of revenue. This

is the true question, and not whether we shall cast a censure upon any

particular State. It does not follow, that, because we lay a particular

tax, we censure those who pay it. Considering this, then, as an article

of trade, the tax might have been long since laid, had not all the States

prohibited the traffic. Under those circumstances, it could not be taken

up as a subject of revenue.

Mr. F. observed, that, though it might be unbecoming in the House to be

influenced by resentment against the State of South Carolina, yet it

was proper that they should be influenced by the policy of the case.

As a profitable article of commerce, it appeared as eligible a subject

of taxation as could be found, and as justly liable to taxation as any

other. As to the disgrace, which some gentlemen were of opinion would

arise from taxing it, that arose from the existence of the slave trade.

In laying the tax, we shall do all we can to discourage it; and if we do

not like to use the money derived from taxing it in the common way, we

may apply it to special objects--to ameliorate the state of slavery, or

to any other object.

Mr. F. concluded his remarks by observing, that this question being

brought forward, he could not justify himself in neglecting to embrace

the opportunity it presented of discountenancing the importation of

slaves. He considered it proper that Congress should take up the subject

as the constitution presented it to them. At a certain period they would

possess the right of prohibiting it altogether, and until then they

enjoyed the power of taxation. This being the only constitutional power

they did possess, he trusted they would exert it.

Mr. S. L. MITCHILL declared his wish that the proposition of the

gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. BARD) should be considered merely as a

subject of political economy. In the remarks which he proposed to offer

upon it, he should, therefore, confine himself to that object. He would,

therefore, say nothing on the immorality of a trade which deprived a

large portion of the human species of their rights. He should pass over,

in silence, every thing that might be urged to exhibit it as impious

and irreligious; and he would not utter a word on its repugnance to

the principles of our equal jurisprudence, and the spirit of our free

Government. The slavery of a portion of our species was a copious theme,

when viewed in either of these aspects; but, on the present occasion, he

was willing to waive them all. The proposition was to be considered only

in its commercial, economical, and fiscal relations; and on each of these

it would be proper to make a few observations.

It was much to be regretted that the severe and pointed statute

against the slave trade had been so little regarded. In defiance of

its forbiddance and its penalties, it was well known that citizens and

vessels of the United States were still engaged in that traffic. During

the present session, memorials had been presented to Congress praying

for exoneration from the exportation bonds, which had been given to

one of the collectors of the customs, to ensure the landing of a cargo

of New England rum in Africa, which it was not pretended to be denied

was bartered away for slaves. These voyages were said to be carried on

under the flag of a foreign nation; and the common practice, as was

alleged, was, to go to the island of St. Croix and procure Danish papers

and colors. Under this cover, the voyages were performed. To prevent

the confiscation of the vessels under the law, on conviction of being

engaged in the slave trade, it had been customary to sell that article of

property in a foreign port.

Mr. M. observed that the extent of this shocking commerce was very

considerable at this time. Some time ago, he had seen a list of the

American vessels then known to be hovering on the coast of Guinea

in quest of captive negroes. They were numerous and active, and so

fatally busy as to excite the apprehensions of the benevolent Sierra

Leone Company. In various parts of the nation, outfits were made for

slave-voyages, without secrecy, shame, or apprehension. The construction

of the ships, the shackles for confining the wretched passengers, and all

the dismal apparatus of cruelty, were attended to with the systematic

coolness of an ordinary adventure. Regardless of legal prohibitions,

these merciless men, as greedy as the sharks of the element on which they

sailed, collected their slaves along the shores, and at the factories

of Negroland, from the river Senegal to the countries of Congo and

Angola. Countenanced by their fellow-citizens at home, who were as ready

to buy as they themselves were to collect and to bring to market, they

approached our Southern harbors and inlets, and clandestinely disembarked

the sooty offspring of the Eastern, upon the ill-fated soil of the

Western hemisphere. In this way, it had been computed that, during the

last twelve months, twenty thousand enslaved negroes had been transported

from Guinea, and, by smuggling, added to the plantation stock of Georgia

and South Carolina.

So little respect seems to have been paid to the existing prohibitory

statute, that it may almost be considered as disregarded by common

consent. And, therefore, as was observed by a gentleman from South

Carolina, (Mr. HUGER,) the Legislature of that State had lately repealed

their restrictive law, and legitimated a trade which neither that

regulation of their common wealth, nor the concurrent authority of the

nation, could prevent. And it may be received as a correct general idea

on this subject, that the citizens of the navigating States bring negroes

from Africa, and sell them to the inhabitants of those States which are

more distinguished for their plantations.

Thus in spite of the spirit of our republican institutions, and the

letter of our laws, a commerce in slaves is carried on to an alarming

extent--a species of slavery peculiar in its form and character, and

unlike that which was practised in ancient or modern Europe--a kind of

servitude unheard of by the civilized world, until it was made known

among the discoveries of the Portuguese along the western coast of that

continent which reaches from Ceuta to the Cape of Good Hope. There it

seems to have been extant from time immemorial, among the barbarous

powers of a country who have eradicated all the tender relations of

society, and established in their place the forceful and ferocious

distinctions of MASTER and SLAVE. From those rude and uncivilized tribes,

did Christian people learn the lessons of negro slavery. Under such

instructors, and with such examples before them, have the Europeans and

their descendants carried those savage customs of Africans into the

New World, and most unfortunately tainted with them the manners and

ordinances of a more refined race of men. For a delineation of this

peculiar state of society, in its native regions, the world is much

indebted to the undaunted enterprise of Mr. Parke; as, for its baneful

effects upon the white nations who have adopted it, they will long

remember the disclosures of Mr. Wilberforce, and the researches of Mr.

Clarkson.

This doleful traffic it was not in the power of Congress to prevent by

any present regulations. By the 9th section of the first article of

the constitution the power of admitting such persons as they please

is reserved to the States, until the year 1808. South Carolina has

authorized the importation of negro slaves from Africa. This Congress can

neither prohibit nor punish. But the National Legislature can exercise

the authority granted by the same paragraph of the constitution, “of

imposing on such importation a tax or duty not exceeding ten dollars for

each person.”

There could be no doubt of the power of Congress to declare and levy such

an impost on imported slaves for four years to come. The only question

therefore was, whether it would be good policy to do so? Mr. MITCHILL

contended that it would. On this point he replied to a gentleman from

South Carolina, (Mr. LOWNDES,) who had argued that such a tax would

discourage agriculture. He contrasted the cultivation of lands by the

labor of freemen, with the more expensive management of them by slaves.

He compared the husbandry of the Northern and Middle States, with the

rural economy of the South. He examined in detail the moderate profits of

a plantation on which bread, corn, grass, and live stock, were raised,

and the enormous income derived to the proprietor of an estate employed

in the culture of tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar. He examined the

smaller expense of feeding, clothing, and housing laborers in warm

than in cold climates. It has been computed by men of observation,

that a working slave on a cotton plantation would, besides supporting

himself, clear for his master a net sum of two hundred dollars a year.

On the average course of crops, where the plants were not attacked by

the cherille, this estimate was considerably below the mark. And on this

conviction he believed there was no important article whatever that would

bear an impost so well.

Mr. M. then replied to an argument of the gentleman from North Carolina,

(Mr. MACON,) that the imposition of the tax would be a recognition of

the right to trade in slaves, and bind the nation to protect it with

the force of the navy. He considered slavery already recognized in many

of the States, and permitted by the constitution. It was a fact that it

did exist, and Congress could not put an end to it. But this body might

interpose its authority, and discountenance it as far as possible; and by

laying the duty as high as the constitution permitted, a very desirable

addition would be made to the revenue. Two hundred thousand dollars might

be computed to be derived from this sort of merchandise imported into

the country. Nor would Congress be bound to protect the African commerce

on the high seas; the existing statute would be in force against it; the

trade would still be unlawful as far as the power of Congress extended.

And under the proposition now under debate, this species of traffic would

be so far from receiving encouragement, that it would be punished in

cases where Congress could punish it, and taxed in the cases to which the

power to punish it did not extend.

He then delineated the wretched condition of a man subdued by fraud or

force, deprived of the exercise of his will and judgment, subjected to

the dominion and caprice of another, robbed of his rights and privileges,

divested of moral power and agency, degraded from the rank of a human

being, and brutalized into a _chattel_--a _thing_--and divested of the

character of a _person_. In this point of view, such articles, bought and

sold publicly in the market, were to be considered as mere merchandise,

as working machines, or animals of labor? Distressing as the recollection

was to every sympathizing or patriotic heart, it was useless to dwell

upon it, as it was beyond our reach to grant relief. He would therefore

treat it strictly as a case of foreign merchandise heretofore admitted

free, but upon which it was now intended to impose a duty. For his own

part, he should be glad if it could be laid, _ad valorem_, upon the price

of the article. But, as the matter was circumstanced, there was no other

method that could be adopted than to impose it, _per capita_, upon the

individual persons imported. By laying the tax, he would imitate the ways

of Divine Providence, and endeavor to extract good out of evil.

Concluding thus that the tax was constitutional, that the subject would

bear it, and that it would be a seasonable and proper expression of the

Congressional sentiment on the subject. Mr. M. proceeded to show what an

abundance of excellent purposes could be answered by $200,000 collected

annually for four years.

In the course of his remarks, Mr. M. said, he had endeavored to avoid all

harshness of expression on a topic of a peculiarly delicate nature, and

prone to excite much sensibility in debate, but considered it strictly as

a matter of political economy. In his attempt to state his reasoning to

the committee, not as an abstract speculator, but as a man of business,

he hoped he had given no offence to any gentleman by any severity of

animadversion. He looked upon negro slavery as a dark spot on some of the

members of the national body, which was spreading wider, turning blacker,

and threatening a gangrene all around--and he felt a confidence that

all friends to the health of this body would take warning by its fatal

progress in a neighboring island--which had so mortified in St. Domingo,

as to make that extreme part rot and drop off from the system to which it

once belonged.

Mr. SLOAN said he rose to observe, in a few words, that however

afflicting it might be to contemplate a certain part of the creation used

as articles of traffic, imported and exported the same as cattle, he

did not consider the morality or immorality of the practice before the

House. We must take the constitution as we find it, and as it is not in

our power to prohibit the importation, the only question to be considered

is, whether we shall most encourage the traffic, by letting the articles

imported remain free of duty or by imposing a tax upon them. This view,

he believed, presented to the mind the true question, and believing

himself that a tax would, in some degree, discourage the importation, he

should vote for the resolution.

Mr. T. MOORE.--I am astonished to hear gentlemen, who advocate the

resolution now under consideration, reprobate a traffic as horrid and

infamous, and yet wish to draw a revenue from infamy, if it is an infamy.

I differ very widely in opinion from the honorable gentleman from

Pennsylvania, who thinks that a tax of ten dollars per head will operate

as a check to the growth of this horrid traffic. If I thought it would

have that effect I would cheerfully vote for the resolution. I believe a

tax of ten dollars will not prevent the importation of a single person of

this description.

The gentleman told us that he hoped the General Government were disposed

to discourage this traffic as far as they are authorized by the

constitution. I hope this House will discourage this impolitic act of

the Legislature of one of the Southern States--not by imposing a tax on

those unfortunate people imported into the United States, but by passing

a resolution expressive of its disapprobation of all acts permitting the

importation of certain people into the United States. As the General

Government cannot prohibit this traffic before the year 1808, I hope

this House will reject the resolution under consideration, and totally

disapprove every measure which attempts to draw revenue from an act that

rivets the chains of slavery on any of the human race.

Mr. HUGER regretted that he could not see the subject in the same light

with other gentlemen who had taken a part in the debate. He had no

hesitation in saying that he had always been hostile to the importation

of slaves. Nor had he any hesitation in saying that if he had the power

he would prohibit the importation. But the situation in which they

were now placed was very different from that in which they would find

themselves in the year 1808, when they would possess the constitutional

power to prohibit the introduction of slaves. The constitution was known

to be the offspring of concession and compromise, and in no part of

it was this feature more apparent than in that which related to this

subject. When the Southern States were admitted into the Union, they

were in the habit of carrying on this species of trade, and they, by the

express language of the constitution, retained the right of continuing

it until the year 1808. Under this constitution the State of South

Carolina enjoyed the exclusive right of judging of the propriety of

allowing the trade or of prohibiting it. Had he had the honor of a seat

in the Legislature of that State, Mr. H. certainly would have opposed

the passage of this law. But he was only one of that community, standing

here as their Representative, and after the State had exercised their

undoubted right, however he might dislike the measure, it was his duty to

defend the right which they had to adopt it. That State had in truth done

no more than she possessed a constitutional right to do, and he believed

there was in that State as much true compassion as in any other in the

Union. He said he could not therefore but feel sensibly the attempt to

single out this particular State to censure her for doing that which she

had an undisputed right to do.

This was not, as contended by some gentlemen, a mere question of revenue;

but it was a question whether the Government of the Union should come

forward and condemn the act of a State, which she was fully authorized

to pass. If it is necessary to increase the revenue, let us meet that

subject fairly and fully, and not single out a particular resource of

a particular State. It is on this ground that I principally object to

this measure. The gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL) has endeavored

to prove that because in the Southern States the article of slaves

produces a great profit, it is therefore proper to make it the subject

of taxation. I ask if there should be a profitable species of trade

carried on in any other part of the Union, would it be deemed politic

or just on that account to lay an additional tax upon it? The fair

principle of taxation is, that every part of the Union should contribute

equally. When any branch of trade is profitable in New York, I, though

a Southern man, rejoice at it. When the fisheries of the Eastern States

prosper, I feel highly gratified--not because those whom I represent are

particularly interested in them, but because I consider myself as a part

of the whole, and that whatever advances the interests of any part of

this Union must promote the interests of every part of it.

With regard to the moral principle involved in the slave trade, we have

nothing to do with it. On this point the Union ought to be silent. On

this subject can any thing be more pointed than the provisions of the

constitution, which, contrary to most of the other provisions, cannot

be altered but with the consent of every State in the Union. Why then

shall we cry over what we cannot prevent, like a school boy? Each State,

so long as she confines herself within the limits of her constitutional

powers, must be the exclusive judge of her own conduct; and it becomes

not one State, influenced by different feelings, habits, and interests,

to pronounce upon the conduct of another. All, so far as regards

themselves, are judges of right and wrong. We, too, have as strong a

conviction of the propriety of our measures as those who differ from us

in sentiment on this subject. We may perhaps think it more blamable to

make slaves of white people than of the blacks.

I confess I have not been able clearly to understand the ideas of the

gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL.) A few days since that gentleman

offered a report, the object of which was to free raw materials from

duty. Will the State of South Carolina profit by this? No. It will

conduce to the benefit of other parts of the Union; but we shall bear the

burden: and still, on this occasion, because we derive a certain profit

from a particular description of trade, the gentleman contends for taxing

it.

Let gentlemen also consider that we are not to be hurried away by our

feelings or passions. We are sent here to attend to the business of the

nation, and, to do that as it ought to be done, we must yield to a spirit

of mutual deference and compromise, we must act fairly and impartially.

All we ask in the present case is, to do as we would be done by. We

permit the Eastern States to import German redemptioners and others.

Let them then permit us to enjoy our constitutional right of importing

slaves, especially when that right will exist but for a short time.

We do not pretend to advocate the act, but the right of our State to

pass this law. It is not to be inferred that we are friendly to the

importation. I believe, on the contrary, every Representative of the

State on this floor is hostile to it. But how can gentlemen expect that

we will disregard the voice of our own State, and especially when the

measure may have been dictated by good and substantial reasons. One good

reason may be that the importation could not be prevented, and that the

restraining law was extensively broken. This we know was the fact. If

so, may it not have been sound policy in the State to repeal it? There

may have been another reason for the measure. It may have been conceived

to have been better to import slaves directly from Africa than to be

indebted for them to New York and other States, in which they may have

been surreptitiously introduced.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL) observes that it is

demonstrable that, even in a pecuniary point of view, slaves are an evil;

and that they impoverish those who hold them. What does this show, but

that in the North they kept slaves as long as their interest dictated,

and then got rid of them; and that because it is a misfortune to have

them, we must be punished for our poverty. Though young, I am happy to

state that I have seen the evil decreasing in the State I have the honor

to represent. Let us alone, and we will pursue the best means the nature

of the case admits of. Interfere and you will only increase the evil;

for, whenever the Government of the Union interferes in the peculiar

concerns of a State, it must excite jealousy and a spirit of resistance.

I beg gentlemen to lay aside, on this occasion, the prejudices to which

local circumstances and peculiar State interests and feelings expose

them. When I see the lowest of the animal tribe tortured, I feel for

them; but does it follow that my interference will mitigate their pain?

Do we not all know, that by interfering between a man and his wife,

we only aggravate the difference; and do we not likewise know that

any interference between a master and his slave induces the former to

be more severe. I believe the State of South Carolina has as great an

inclination as any State similarly circumstanced, to do away this evil.

But they must, and ought to take their own course. It is a circumstance

well known, that the people to the North, who make the most noise on this

subject, are those, who, when they go to the South, first hire, then buy,

and last of all turn out the severest masters among us.

Mr. LUCAS observed that, though much had been said on the merits of the

resolution, he would take the liberty of adding a few remarks. It was

a maxim that, to justify the raising of a revenue, a Government ought

previously to stand in need of money. The pecuniary wants of a Government

were absolute and relative. The fit objects of taxation were likewise

various. Some objects bore taxation better than others. When Governments

want money to satisfy indispensable demands, taxes must be laid; and even

when they are not in immediate want of money for pressing emergencies,

there are frequently important purposes that might be answered in case

they possessed resources. On this occasion it is said that the Government

is not in want of money, that the existing revenue meets the wants of the

nation, and that, consequently, a new tax ought not to be laid. This may

possibly, strictly speaking, be correct. But to say absolutely that we do

not want money, he must deny; for he believed if they had money in the

Treasury, not required for pressing exigencies, they could find abundant

occasions for spending it to good effect. It was known that there were

many claims preferred against the Government, of a meritorious kind,

and which had been disallowed, not so much on their intrinsic merits,

as from the operation of the statute of limitations. This limitation,

said Mr. L., it is my wish should be removed, and one way of effecting

that end will be to increase our revenue, as we shall thereby be enabled

to discharge all just demands exhibited. The laying out, likewise, of

roads was an important object. One is contemplated from this place to New

Orleans. Without going further into a view of the various demands on the

Government, we shall see the occasion that exists for more money being

drawn into our Treasury.

As to the nature of the slave trade, we must, in my opinion, consider

slaves imported as so much produce or merchandise. This article ought,

in my opinion, likewise to be taxed, because the trade is odious; also,

because it affords a great profit to those who carry it on. It was

yesterday stated by a gentlemen from New York that a slave employed in

the Southern States would pay for himself in two years; that is, that a

slave that costs four hundred dollars will give a profit to the owner of

two hundred dollars a year. As, therefore, no article imported into the

United States gives a greater profit, so no article can better bear a

tax. It ought also to be taxed, because the importation of slaves into

the United States operates injuriously on the poor whites who draw their

subsistence from labor. Their comparative situation in relation to the

rich, is reduced; for if you increase the black laborers, so as to make

them work for a lower compensation, you virtually reduce the value of the

labor of the whites, and proportionally lessen the chance of a poor white

man getting employment on favorable terms. It is well understood that

competition always reduces the price of an article in the market; and

although the blacks may not, in all respects, enter into a competition

with the whites, yet, so far as respects labor, the competition will be

complete. The rich part of the community will not employ a white man who

feels the spirit of a freeman, and who will not submit to be subservient

to the caprices of his employer, so long as they can employ a slave

whom they can control as they please, and at a smaller expense. The

indisputable effect, therefore, of the introduction of additional slaves

will be the reduction of the value of labor, and the augmented severity

of the lot of the poor white man, who is entirely dependent on his labor

for the support of himself and family.

Gentlemen tell us we ought not so closely to scrutinize the conduct

of the Legislature of South Carolina. I am, said Mr. L., far from

scrutinizing in this instance the conduct of that State. I respect the

people of South Carolina. Their situation may, perhaps, be such as in

a great measure to justify their conduct, though I am far from saying

that I approve it. But when we lay a tax on the importation of slaves,

it is a sufficient reply to such remarks to say that the tax is not laid

exclusively on slaves admitted into South Carolina. It does not therefore

apply to South Carolina alone. That State has an undoubted right to admit

the importation; but Congress have also an undoubted right of taxing

them. The resolution, therefore, does not encroach on the rights of that

State. The United States and South Carolina form two bodies politic, both

of which are possessed of constitutional rights. To the one belongs the

right of importing, to the other, the right of taxation; and this last

right may be exercised without involving any censure of the State of

South Carolina. The only necessary inquiry is, whether the proposed tax

will be oppressive or unjust. I believe it will be universally agreed

that an imported article worth four hundred dollars will not be taxed

high compared with other articles, when it pays a duty of ten dollars. As

to the constitutionality of the tax not a word need be said; that has not

and cannot be disputed.

WEDNESDAY, February 15.

_Importation of Slaves._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on Mr.

BARD’s resolution to impose a tax of ten dollars on every slave imported

into the United States; the debate on which occupied the remainder of the

sitting.

Mr. LUCAS supported, and Mr. HOLLAND opposed the resolution.

Mr. EARLE moved that the committee rise and report progress. His

reason for this motion was, that, from information received from South

Carolina, on which he placed much reliance, it was expected that the

Legislature would meet in April, and would then repeal the act admitting

the importation of slaves. Should the committee rise, he would move a

postponement of the consideration of the resolution to the first Monday

in May.

Mr. GREGG.--I hope the motion for the committee to rise will prevail;

and that any further proceeding on this subject will be postponed for

the present. It has been said by the gentleman from South Carolina

who made the motion, and I have heard it mentioned by others, that a

considerable ferment has been excited in that State by the passage of

the law authorizing the importation of slaves, and that it is highly

probable the Legislature, at its next session, will repeal that law. That

session, it is expected, will be held in April, the Governor having it

in contemplation to convene the Legislature at that time for the purpose

of submitting to their consideration the proposed amendment to the

constitution.

Let it not, Mr. Chairman, be inferred, from what I have said, that I am

in principle opposed to the effect which I am confident the mover of the

resolution expected it would produce. No member of this House is, or can

be, more decidedly opposed to slavery than I am. In the State from which

I come slavery is scarcely, if at all, known. I do not know whether,

at this moment, it has any existence there. However the inhabitants of

that State may differ on other points, on the subject of slavery we are

all united. All parties have joined in abolishing it. I sincerely wish

that Congress possessed a constitutional power to abolish it, or at

least to check its further progress in the United States. If they did

possess such power, I would most cordially concur in putting it into

operation. Instead of ten dollars, I wish the constitution would warrant

us in imposing a tax of one hundred, or of five hundred dollars on each

imported slave. I would willingly vote for that sum, because it would

amount to an entire prohibition of such importation, and effectually

destroy the traffic which I consider highly impolitic, as well as

contrary to the principles of justice.

When the present constitution was adopted, there were no laws in several

States to prohibit the importation of slaves. It is but a few years

since such a law was passed by the State of Georgia. During all that

period money was much wanted. The revenue was not adequate to the demand.

Government was compelled to have recourse to loans, and in some instances

had to submit to a heavy interest; yet in all that time the idea, I

believe, was never suggested in Congress of supplying the deficiency

by imposing a tax on slaves, although numbers were then imported. From

this it may be inferred, that at that time the power vested in Congress

by the constitution of imposing a tax of ten dollars on each person

imported into any of the then existing States, agreeably to its laws,

was not considered as given for the purpose of raising revenue. It was

given, it may be presumed, for the purpose of being used as a check to

the trade, and at the time the constitution was adopted, the exercise of

that power might have contributed to produce such effect. The price of

slaves was then low; their labor was not so productive to their owners,

and, of course, ten dollars in addition to the then current price might,

in some measure, have checked the spirit of purchasing. But soon after

that period, by the introduction of the cultivation of cotton, the labor

of slaves became more valuable, and their price enhanced in proportion.

Ten dollars then bore some proportion to the price of a slave, but at

this time it is comparatively as a cipher. A planter who can find his

advantage in giving four hundred dollars, which is said to be the present

current price of a good negro, will think but little of ten additional

dollars. In the present state of things, therefore, I take it the

proposed tax cannot effect the object contemplated by the mover of the

resolution--it can neither prevent nor remedy the evil; and as it has

the appearance of giving legal sanction to the trade, and may have an

influence on the Legislature of South Carolina, inasmuch as it is an

implied attack on their sovereignty, and a censure on them for passing

an act which, however important it may be in our view, the constitution

certainly did authorize them to pass, I think the further consideration

of the subject had better be postponed for the present; perhaps always,

until Government may have it in its power to adopt measures calculated to

produce an entire prohibition of the trade.

Mr. HUGER said the arguments urged by the friends of the motion were

two-fold. One class of gentlemen say they are not in favor of this tax

for purposes of revenue, but to manifest the opinion of the National

Legislature; while another class declares their only reason for laying it

is the revenue it will bring into the Treasury. A decision, therefore,

by the House, will settle no principle; for supposing that a majority

of the members shall be found in favor of the tax, one-half of them

will vote for it on one principle and one-half on another. Under these

circumstances, he appealed to gentlemen inclined to favor the resolution,

whether it would not be the best policy to wait until the Legislature

of South Carolina had an opportunity of repealing the obnoxious law. Is

it a pleasant thing to any gentleman on this floor to throw a stigma

upon a State? And will not gentlemen from the Middle and Eastern States

recollect that the situation of South Carolina is very different from

that of their States? Let them, then, do as much good as they can at

home; but let them, in God’s name, permit us to act for ourselves. It is

a very easy thing to make some harsh remarks on the conduct of particular

States, even of the State of Pennsylvania, much as that State is

deservedly respected. Mr. H. said he did not believe that State stood one

iota higher than other States in the Union. For he believed that peculiar

interest operated there as well as in other States.

Mr. H. said, from what had been expressed to-day, he did not believe the

people of South Carolina friendly to the act admitting the importation

of slaves. Every Representative of that State on this floor wished, he

believed, that it had never been passed. But as it had passed, they

conceived it to be their duty to resist a measure which went to censure

the State for the exercise of an undoubted right.

Mr. STANTON.--Mr. Speaker: I am highly gratified to find honorable

members in every part of the House who reprobate the infamous traffic of

buying and selling the human species. On this occasion but a few remarks

are necessary, if morality, humanity, and justice, are conducive to the

happiness of society. It is not my duty nor intention to criminate the

State of South Carolina, whose late conduct has created serious and well

founded alarm. It is a duty I owe to my constituents and myself not

to connive at a measure that, in my humble opinion, goes to shake the

pillars of public security, and threatens corruption to the morals of our

citizens, and tarnishes the American character. Sir, while I deprecate

the repeal of the non-importation act of South Carolina, I console myself

with the pleasing expectation that the State will retract the error they

have recently and unguardedly fallen into, and I cannot doubt but the

honorable members from that State, on this floor, will lend their aid to

effect so desirable a measure--to enact again the prohibitory statute.

We are told if the House adopt the resolution, it will irritate South

Carolina, notwithstanding the opposers of the resolution confess the

impolitic conduct of South Carolina. I wish not to offend any of our

sister States, much less, that important State whose wisdom, virtue, and

patriotism, have been conspicuous on every other occasion. The opposers

of the resolution inform us its adoption will both encourage and sanction

the importation, and that they have a constitutional right to import

until 1808. I grant it, but I hope better things of that State; and

things that accompany reformation. She has recently, with other States,

emancipated herself from tyranny and oppression, and will she sully her

fair fame by commencing tyrant herself? Sir, the speakers from the State

of South Carolina, and particularly the honorable member who offered a

resolution as a substitute for the one under consideration, delivered

himself in sentiments of the most admirable humanity, and constitutional

love and zeal for his country; and, if he were a member from any other

State in the Union, I should have the honor, I make no doubt, of voting

with him for the resolution on your table. Sir, I am sensible the General

Government cannot prohibit the traffic previous to the year 1808. This is

one of the most humiliating concessions made by that venerable convention

which framed the constitution, and we are bound by it. I ask, is the

policy of the measure embraced by the resolution sound? I believe it is.

I consider slaves a luxury--they are considered by the constitution,

three-fifths of them, to give a Representative, and I ask why not tax

them? It is a sound maxim that representation and taxation should go hand

in hand. To lay a tax being the only constitutional power the General

Government possesses, I think it good policy to exercise it.

The State of Rhode Island, from whence I came, passed a law declaring

negro children born posterior to 1784, as free as white children.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this statute merely to obviate the erroneous

impression, that otherwise might be made with a view to mislead the

public mind, that the citizens of Rhode Island are disposed to favor the

villanous traffic. I wish not to egotize, but I can assure the House this

traffic has been abhorrent to me upwards of forty years, and if I should

live to see 1808--that auspicious period in our national compact which

shall be exonerated from the tragic feature that has cast a shade on that

valuable instrument--if the important acquisition of Louisiana gave ample

cause for festivity, still greater cause shall we have when the glorious

period shall arrive of 1808. That shall be my jubilee.

After a few further remarks, by Mr. HUGER and Mr. LUCAS, the question was

taken on the rising of the Committee, and passed in the negative--yeas

58, nays 60. When the resolution was agreed to.

The committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolution, which

the House immediately took into consideration.

Mr. WYNN moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution

till the first Monday in January, and required the yeas and nays.

The question was then taken on the postponement, by yeas and nays, and

passed in the negative--yeas 54, nays 62, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, George Michael

Bedinger, Silas Betton, William Blackledge, Walter Bowie,

John Boyle, William Butler, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Thomas

Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,

Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dawson, William Dickson,

Thomas Dwight, John B. Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot,

William Eustis, John Fowler, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger

Griswold, Samuel Hammond, Wade Hampton, Seth Hastings, Joseph

Heister, James Holland, Benjamin Huger, Michael Leib, Thomas

Lowndes, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Thomas

Moore, Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Randolph, John

Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford, Tompson J. Skinner, John

Cotton Smith, James Stephenson, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher,

Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, Lemuel

Williams, Richard Wynn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Isaac Anderson, John Archer, Simeon Baldwin, David Bard,

Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Chamberlin,

Clifton Claggett, Matthew Clay, Frederick Conrad, Ebenezer

Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Gillespie,

Peterson Goodwyn, Gaylord Griswold, John A. Hanna, William

Helms, William Hoge, David Holmes, David Hough, John G.

Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Joseph

Lewis, jr., Henry W. Livingston, John B. C. Lucas, William

McCreery, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah

Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Beriah

Palmer, Thomas M. Randolph, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney,

Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan,

John Smilie, John Smith of New York, John Smith of Virginia,

Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart,

Samuel Taggart, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,

Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Hornee, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg

Wadsworth, Matthew Walton, Marmaduke Williams, and Joseph

Winston.

And then the main question being taken that the House do agree to the

said resolution, as amended to read as follows:

_Resolved_, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on every slave

imported into any part of the United States:

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 71.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said

resolution; and that the Committee of Ways and Means do prepare and

bring in the same.

FRIDAY, February 17.

_Importation of Slaves._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of

yesterday, viz: “What day should be made the order to the Committee of

the Whole to consider the bill laying a tax of ten dollars upon every

slave imported into the United States.”

Mr. LOWNDES moved that the further consideration of the bill should be

postponed till the first Monday in December.

Mr. LOWNDES.--In moving a postponement of the bill to the first Monday

in December next, my object is to get rid of it altogether. Gentlemen

have supported the resolution upon which this bill is founded, upon

such a variety of, and contradictory grounds, that their arguments are

not very susceptible of a reply. I am, however, very glad that it has

been conceded by every gentleman who has spoken upon the subject, that

this tax, if laid, would not have the effect of diminishing the number

of Africans imported into the country. When it was admitted that the

object for which the resolution was avowedly brought forward, would not

be obtained, I did hope that the resolution itself would not have been

persevered in. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) to whose

arguments I generally listen with pleasure, has told us that he would

not for the world give his vote for this tax, for the purpose of raising

revenue; but that he would be obliged to vote for the resolution, to show

his disapprobation of the trade. The gentleman did, however, manifest

a disposition to get rid of the question, without taking a direct vote

upon it. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) has told us,

that he too is averse to this tax with a view to revenue, but that he

must vote for it, for if he does not, it will be an admission, on his

part, that Congress is favorable to the trade. What am I to infer from

this observation? Am I to infer that Congress until this time has been

favorable to the trade; and am I to infer that the gentleman himself, who

has for so long a time been an active member of Congress, has also been

favorable to it? This trade has from the adoption of the constitution

until a few years ago, when it was first prohibited by Georgia, been

carried on; and yet Congress have never exercised their power of imposing

any tax, nor have I heard that the gentleman did ever bring forward a

resolution for the purpose. There is another description of persons

imported into the United States--I mean those bound to serve for a term

of years. The comparison I admit is not analogous throughout, but it is

to a certain extent. These persons are chiefly introduced into the States

of Pennsylvania and New York; none, or at least very few of them, into

New England. Were it proposed to embrace them by this tax, would the

Representatives from those States be satisfied with the arguments that

it was a tax upon merchandise, and a general one, and therefore fair?

Their discernment would quickly point out to them, that whatever was the

appearance, it was a tax principally falling upon those States, and they

would resist.

Entertaining the opinions which I have expressed against the principle

of the bill, and wishing to get rid of it in a manner most agreeable to

those gentlemen who feel a difficulty of voting directly upon it, I move

that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until December

next.

Mr. BEDINGER said he felt the greatest veneration for the honorable mover

of the resolution, as he thought it proceeded from the purest motives.

But as he thought the slave trade was but little better than murder,

he felt a difficulty in his mind as to the propriety of admitting one

shilling of it into the treasury of the United States, lest those traders

should think themselves entitled to protection; but as the mover and

many others declare their assent towards the appropriation of said tax

hereafter to humane purposes, he believed he should vote for a bill, if

drawn in correspondence with such principles.

Mr. FINDLAY observed that it was not his wish to go into a lengthy

argument on this subject; but merely to observe that this was the first

instance of a law prohibiting the importation of slaves being repealed,

and that it might not be the last; and that, therefore, if the argument

advanced by gentlemen was good against taking it up in the first

instance, it would be equally good against taking it up in case all the

States should repeal their prohibitory laws. He also wished gentlemen to

consider that the friends of the motion were conscience-bound as well as

they, and that they considered it a moral duty to restrain, as far as

they could, the continuance of the slave trade. As, however, a question

of expediency was involved in this measure, he entertained no desire

to hasten its decision; on the contrary, his wish was to allow ample

time for considering its merits. He should therefore vote against the

postponement to December; but would move a postponement to the 2d Monday

of March, not with the view of getting rid of the subject altogether, but

to allow an opportunity of considering it fully.

Mr. HUGER did not rise with the view of going into the merits of the

bill, but to impress the propriety of agreeing to the postponement. It

was a painful subject, which necessarily excited unpleasant feelings. He

thought, if gentlemen suffered it to lie over to the next session, there

was a probability that by giving the Representatives of South Carolina an

opportunity of returning home and expressing the sentiments of Congress,

the Legislature of that State would repeal the law; whereas, should the

tax be laid, it would prevent this desirable effect. Where we differ,

said Mr. H., it is proper for us to accommodate--to meet each other half

way.

Mr. EPPES, believing that either motion of postponement would defeat

the main measure, said he should vote against both. It was not his wish

to erect the Government of the United States into a national tribunal

to censure the proceedings of the Legislature of South Carolina, or to

wound their feelings; but he was not prepared to say that Congress,

in exercising a constitutional right, erected such a tribunal. It was

in some respects immaterial whether they interfered or not, so long

as the world knew that a Legislature of a respectable State, in the

eighteenth century, passed an act allowing the importation of slaves.

That Legislature ought not to complain if the United States availed

themselves of the measure to raise revenue from it. According to the

estimate of some gentlemen, there would probably be an importation of one

hundred thousand in four years, which if this tax shall be laid, will

produce a revenue of a million of dollars. And yet we are entreated by

the gentleman from South Carolina not to molest the trade. Mr. E. said he

was not surprised at this anxiety, as, by gaining a delay of one year,

that State might be saved from the payment of above one hundred thousand

dollars.

Mr. E. said he came from a Southern country, where slaves were as much

a subject of taxation as lands; and he did not know that the statute

books of Virginia or South Carolina were stained by imposing taxes upon

them. He believed them as fair a subject of taxation as any other species

of property. He believed it as fair to lay taxes upon them as to make

the poor pay a tax upon brown sugar and other articles of the first

necessity. For these reasons he was against the postponement either to

December or March.

Mr. R. GRISWOLD considered a postponement till December as destructive

to the bill. He said he would as soon meet it on its merits, but being

prepared, as far as his vote went, to reject the bill, he should vote

for what he considered equivalent, a postponement to December. He did

not think it proper for the House to go into the measure contemplated by

the bill. There were but two principles that would justify the laying

a duty on imported articles: the one to discourage the importation of

particular articles, and the other with a view to revenue. As to the

first principle, under the constitution as it at present stood, Congress

had no right to interfere; as the States had an undoubted right to admit

the importation of slaves until the year 1808. The constitution, on this

point, had gone so far as to restrict the right of the General Government

to a tax not exceeding ten dollars upon each slave imported. This would

not amount to a prohibition or prevention of the importation. Congress

was, therefore, precluded the right of taxing, with this view, until the

year 1808. This part of the argument, on which gentlemen support the

measure, must be laid, therefore, out of view. The question then recurs,

whether we shall lay this tax for purposes of revenue? For one, (said

Mr. G.,) I am unwilling to do this. I abhor the slave trade as much as

any member on this floor, and therefore I will not consent to give it a

legislative sanction. For this measure will certainly be viewed in that

light by the people of this country and by the civilized world. It will

appear to the world that Congress are raising a revenue from a commerce

in slaves. I am not for introducing such a law, calculated to have this

impression, on our statute book. Were it in our power to prohibit the

trade, there is not, I trust, a member on this floor that would not unite

in the prohibition. But on this point our hands are tied.

Mr. GREGG observed, that when this subject was on a former day before

the House, he assigned his reasons at some length, in favor of a

postponement. The same reasons would influence his vote this day, and

he should not trouble the House with a repetition of them. He only rose

to suggest to his colleague that, by attending to one consideration, he

would be induced, he thought, to change his opinion, and to vote for

the most distant day to which it was proposed to postpone this subject.

It had been stated by a gentleman from South Carolina, and he believed

correctly stated, that by the law lately passed in South Carolina, a

considerable ferment had been excited in that State, and that it was

probable that the Legislature would, at their next session, repeal it. If

it were probable that they would repeal this law in April, it appeared

to him improper to pass an act that would operate as a censure upon the

conduct of that State.

Mr. ALSTON was surprised how it was that he and his worthy friend from

Virginia (Mr. EPPES) differed so widely upon the present occasion,

living, as it were, in the same country, and owning property of the

same kind, and pursuing the same means of obtaining a living. My friend

advocates the resolution for laying a tax of ten dollars on each slave

imported into the United States, because a considerable revenue will be

derived from such a tax; it is for that very reason that he opposed it,

because he would not consent to pass a law which had for its operation

a partial effect. Can it be right to pass a law which will impose a

heavy tax upon one part of the community, and not a cent upon the

other? No State in the Union would be affected except South Carolina.

Gentlemen ought to take care how they acted towards a sister State, and a

respectable one too.

Mr. RODNEY said, he should not have troubled the House with any remarks

on the present occasion, had he not made up his mind to vote differently

from the vote which he had before given. He said he had before voted

against the postponement of the consideration of this subject; he should

now vote in favor of a postponement; and he would, in a few words,

assign his reasons. When the resolution for imposing a tax on imported

slaves was first laid on the table, he was of opinion that he could not

vote for it without sanctioning the practice it was meant to censure.

Reflecting further, he afterwards got his own consent to vote for it.

First thoughts were frequently best; we sometimes miss the mark by taking

sight too long. In this instance, after a more mature consideration, his

mind inclined to his original opinions, for reasons which he would assign.

It was agreed, on all hands, that the conduct of the Legislature of

South Carolina was such as to merit the disapprobation of the members

of that House. On many occasions there were political dissensions

within these walls. But he rejoiced that, when questions of this kind

presented themselves, they were sure to find us unanimous. Inhumanity

was considered as a common enemy, and so inhuman a practice was justly

reprobated by all. Every gentleman from the South, as well as the East,

deprecated the act and lamented its existence.

After a few additional remarks from several gentlemen, the question was

taken by yeas and nays on a postponement to the first Monday in December,

and passed in the negative--yeas 55, nays 62.

Mr. FINDLAY moved a postponement to the second Monday in March; which,

after some debate, prevailed--ayes 56, noes 50.

[To prevent an erroneous impression being made on the public by the above

proceedings, it is proper to remark that, during the whole discussion,

not a single voice was raised in defence of the act of the Legislature

of South Carolina, allowing the importation of slaves; but that, on the

contrary, while by some of the speakers its immorality and impolicy were

severely censured, by all its existence was deprecated. A large number

of those who voted for the postponement, advocated it on the express

and sole ground that it would give the Legislature of South Carolina an

opportunity, which they believed would be embraced, to repeal the act.]

MONDAY, February 20.

_Georgia Claims._

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said, the House would recollect that he had, on a former

day, offered a resolution barring any claims derived under any act of

the State of Georgia passed in the year 1795, in relation to lands ceded

to the United States. It was not his purpose in rising at this time to

trespass on the patience of the House; nor did he know that he should in

future offer any remarks additional to those he had already made. But he

conceived it his duty to place the subject in such a point of light that

every eye, however dim, might distinctly see its true merits. For this

purpose he withdrew the resolution which he had before offered, and moved

the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Georgia were,

at no time, invested with the power of alienating the right of

soil possessed by the good people of that State in and to the

vacant territory of the same, but in a rightful manner, and for

the public good:

That, when the governors of any people shall have betrayed

the confidence reposed in them, and shall have exercised that

authority with which they have been clothed for the general

welfare, to promote their own private ends, under the basest

motives, and to the public detriment, it is the inalienable

right of a people, so circumstanced, to revoke the authority

thus abused, to resume the rights thus attempted to be

bartered, and to abrogate the act thus endeavoring to betray

them:

That it is in evidence to this House, that the act of the

Legislature of Georgia, passed on the seventh of January,

one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, entitled “An act

for appropriating a part of the unlocated territory of this

State, for the payment of the late State troops, and for other

purposes,” was passed by persons under the influence of gross

and palpable corruption, practised by the grantees of the lands

attempted to be alienated by the aforesaid act, tending to

enrich and aggrandize, to a degree almost incalculable, a few

individuals, and ruinous to the public interest:

That the good people of Georgia, impressed with general

indignation at this act of atrocious perfidy and unparalleled

corruption, with a promptitude of decision highly honorable to

their character, did, by the act of a subsequent Legislature,

passed on the thirteenth of February, one thousand seven

hundred and ninety-six, under circumstances of peculiar

solemnity, and finally sanctioned by the people, who have

subsequently ingrafted it on their constitution, declare the

preceding act, and the grants made under it, in themselves

null and void; that the said act should be expunged from the

records of the State, and publicly burnt; which was accordingly

done; provision at the same time being made for restoring

the pretended purchase-money to the grantees, by whom, or by

persons claiming under them, the greater part of the said

purchase-money has been withdrawn from the treasury of Georgia:

That a subsequent Legislature of an individual State has an

undoubted right to repeal any act of a preceding Legislature,

provided such repeal be not forbidden by the constitution of

such State, or of the United States:

That the aforesaid act of the State of Georgia, passed on

the thirteenth of February, one thousand seven hundred and

ninety-six, was forbidden neither by the constitution of that

State, nor by that of the United States:

That the claims of persons derived under the aforesaid act

of the seventh of January, one thousand seven hundred and

ninety-five, are recognized neither by any compact between the

United States and the State of Georgia, nor by any act of the

Federal Government: Therefore,

_Resolved_, That no part of the five millions of acres reserved

for satisfying and quieting claims to the lands ceded by the

State of Georgia to the United States, and appropriated by

the act of Congress passed at their last session, shall be

appropriated to quiet or compensate any claims derived under

any act, or pretended act, of the State of Georgia, passed,

or alleged to be passed, during the year one thousand seven

hundred and ninety-five.

On considering the resolutions, the House divided--ayes 53. Carried.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH then moved their reference to the Committee of the Whole

on the bill providing for the settlement of sundry claims to public lands

lying south of the State of Tennessee. Carried--yeas 50, nays 30.

WEDNESDAY, February 22.

_Naval Peace Establishment._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill supplementary to

an act providing for a Naval Peace Establishment.

[This is the bill introduced at the instance of Mr. NICHOLSON, with a

view to a more economical and beneficial arrangement in relation to the

national ships laid up in ordinary.]

Mr. LEIB moved an additional section, virtually abolishing the office of

Lieutenant Colonel Commandant of the Marine Corps, and authorizing the

President to make such other reductions of the subordinate officers as

he may think fit. The object of the bill being a reform of the expenses

attending the Naval Establishment, the measure contemplated in the

amendment was, in his opinion, a very proper one to be answered by it.

The bill, he said, contemplated an annual saving, in the single article

of provisions, of $7,000. By abolishing the office of Lieutenant Colonel

Commandant, a saving of sixty thousand dollars in addition might be

made. This officer made, it appeared, all the contracts, and it would be

seen by documents before the House, that while the price of the ration

in the War Department was fifteen cents, that fixed by this officer was

twenty cents--the difference made the sum of $3,750 a year. It would also

be seen that exorbitant sums were expended in postage and fuel. In the

single article of postage, $150 had been expended within three months.

The amendment was then agreed to--yeas 62.

Mr. EUSTIS moved a new section, for the allowance to captains, holding

themselves in readiness to enter the service, of the same rations they

are entitled by law to receive when in actual service. Disagreed to--yeas

37, nays 45.

The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendment of Mr. LEIB

without a division.

Mr. JACKSON moved a new section, for the allowance to captains, required

to hold themselves in readiness for service, of the same rations they are

entitled to receive when in actual service.

Mr. NICHOLSON supported the amendment, to which the House agreed--yeas

44, nays 40; when the bill was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.

On motion, the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, February 24.

_Contested Election._

Mr. FINDLAY, from the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred a

memorial of Andrew Moore, of Virginia, respecting the election of THOMAS

LEWIS, a sitting member, made a report, which, after stating the bad

votes given for each of the candidates, concludes with the opinion that

THOMAS LEWIS is not, and that ANDREW MOORE is entitled to a seat in the

House. The report is as follows:

“That, at an election held on three several days, in the month

of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and three,

directed by the law of the State of Virginia, for a member

of the House of Representatives of the United States for the

district composed of the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge,

Kenawha, Greenbriar, and Monroe, in the western district of

Virginia, it appears--

“That, of the polls taken in the county of Botetourt, Thomas

Lewis had one hundred and fifty-five votes, and Andrew Moore

had three hundred and five votes; that, out of the persons

who voted for Thomas Lewis, twenty-three were unqualified to

vote; and that out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore,

twenty-eight were unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Rockbridge, Thomas Lewis had

sixty-five votes, and Andrew Moore had three hundred and

twenty-one votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas

Lewis, there were four persons unqualified to vote; and out

of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore, there were twenty

persons unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Kenawha county, Thomas Lewis had

one hundred and sixty-one votes, and Andrew Moore had one vote;

that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis there were

ninety persons unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Greenbriar, Thomas Lewis had

five hundred and thirty-nine votes, and Andrew Moore had one

hundred and three votes; that out of the persons who voted for

Thomas Lewis two hundred and two were unqualified to vote; and

out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore thirty-two were

unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Monroe county, Thomas Lewis had

eighty-four votes, and Andrew Moore had one hundred and two

votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis

thirty-six were unqualified to vote; and out of the persons who

voted for Andrew Moore, forty-four were unqualified to vote.

Hence it appears--

“That all the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis in the several

counties aforesaid, which compose the western district of the

State of Virginia, were one thousand and four; and that all the

persons who voted for Andrew Moore in the said counties were

eight hundred and thirty-two.

“It further appears, on a deliberate scrutiny, that, of the

above votes, three hundred and fifty-five persons voted for

Thomas Lewis who were unqualified to vote, and that one hundred

and twenty-four voted for Andrew Moore who were unqualified to

vote; and that, by deducting the unqualified votes from the

votes given for each of the parties at the elections, Thomas

Lewis has six hundred and forty-nine good votes, and Andrew

Moore has seven hundred and eight good votes, being fifty-nine

more than Thomas Lewis. Whereupon,

“Your committee are of opinion that Thomas Lewis, not being

duly elected, is not entitled to a seat in this House; and

they are further of opinion that Andrew Moore, who has the

highest number of votes, after deducting the before-mentioned

unqualified votes from the respective polls, is duly elected

and entitled to a seat in this House.”

_Ordered_, That the report be committed to a Committee of the whole House

on Wednesday next.

TUESDAY, February 28.

_Louisiana Territory._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill

sent from the Senate, entitled “An act erecting Louisiana into two

Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof.”

The fourth section being under consideration, as follows:

“SEC. 4. The Legislative powers shall be vested in the

Governor, and in thirteen of the most fit and discreet persons

of the Territory, to be called the Legislative Council, who

shall be appointed annually by the President of the United

States, from among those holding real estate therein, and who

shall have resided one year at least in the said Territory,

and hold no office of profit under the Territory or the United

States. The Governor, by and with advice and consent of the

said Legislative Council, or of a majority of them, shall have

power to alter, modify, or repeal the laws which may be in

force at the commencement of this act. Their Legislative powers

shall also extend to all the rightful powers of legislation:

but no law shall be valid which is inconsistent with the

constitution and laws of the United States, or which shall

lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability, on

account of his religious opinions, professions, or worship;

in all which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not

burdened for those of another. The Governor shall publish

throughout the said Territory all the laws which shall be made,

and shall from time to time report the same to the President

of the United States, to be laid before Congress; which, if

disapproved of by Congress, shall thenceforth be of no force.

The Governor or Legislative Council shall have no power over

the primary disposal of the soil, nor to tax the lands of the

United States, nor to interfere with the claims to land within

the said Territory. The Governor shall convene and prorogue

the Legislative Council, whenever he may deem it expedient. It

shall be his duty to obtain all the information in his power

in relation to the customs, habits, and dispositions of the

inhabitants of the said Territory, and communicate the same,

from time to time, to the President of the United States.”

Mr. LEIB observed that he did not like the provisions of this section,

and least of all that which gave the Governor the right of proroguing

the Legislative Council. It appeared to him that that body was the most

dependent thing of its nature in the United States; and when the power of

prorogation vested in the Governor was considered, it seemed to him that

the people would do much better without any such body. This was a royal

appendage which he did not like. He, therefore, moved to strike out the

words “and prorogue.”

Mr. GREGG said he was not only in favor of the motion of his colleague,

but against the section generally. It would require much further

amendment to induce him to vote for it. He was opposed to the power it

gave the President to appoint the members of the Legislative Council. It

appeared to him a mere burlesque to say they shall be appointed by the

President. How is the President to get information of the qualifications

for office? This could only be obtained from the officers appointed by

him, and principally from the Governor, who will not fail to recommend

to the President the appointment of persons favorable to his own views.

Mr. G. said that they would, therefore, rather vest the appointment of

the members of the Legislative Council in the Governor; the mode pointed

out in the bill was only calculated to rescue the Governor from the

responsibility attached to his office, by dividing it among others.

Mr. LEIB said his amendment did not in the least interfere with that of

his colleague, with whom he fully accorded in sentiment.

Mr. VARNUM was of opinion that the section in the bill provided such

a kind of Government as had never been known in the United States. He

thought sound policy, no less than justice, dictated the propriety of

making provision for the election of a legislative body by the people.

There was not only the common obligation of justice imposed upon Congress

to do this, but they were bound by treaty. The treaty with France

expressly says:

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated

in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon

as possible, according to the principles of the federal

constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,

and immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The treaty makes it obligatory on the United States to admit the

inhabitants of Louisiana, as soon as possible, to the enjoyment of

all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United

States. In order to decide the principle of this section of the bill

by an expression of the sense of the committee, he would move that the

committee should rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, with

the view of refusing them leave, and afterwards referring the bill to a

select committee to receive a modification in conformity to the opinions

of the House.

Mr. HUGER trusted the committee would not rise. He knew not the

impressions on this subject on the minds of other gentlemen; but the

information lately received from Louisiana convinced him of the propriety

of proceeding with the bill immediately. In addition to the principles

contained in the section under consideration, there were others of great

importance. He thought it would be most advisable, in a future stage of

discussion, to commit the bill to a select committee, if any material

alterations should be made in it. It was best, at present, to deliberate

fully on the several provisions of the bill, and for gentlemen to make

an interchange of opinions. Were the bill now committed, the report of

the committee would not advance the business in the least, as that report

might be as objectionable to the House as the bill from the Senate.

Mr. ELLIOT, for like reasons assigned by the gentleman from South

Carolina, and for other reasons, hoped the committee would not rise. He

did not believe the section under consideration was, in its present form,

consistent either with the spirit of the constitution or the treaty; but

he believed that, by the introduction of a small amendment, the section

might be rendered perfectly consistent with them, and the passage of

the bill be greatly accelerated. He preferred a middle course between

the existing section and the amendment offered by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania. Whatever amendments were necessary would be easily offered

and discussed at present; whereas no desirable object could be effected

by a reference.

Mr. GREGG said it also appeared to him that no valuable purpose would

be answered by referring the bill to a select committee. What can such

a committee do? There exists no diversity of sentiment in the House on

principle. Some are for giving to the people of the Territory, instead of

the President, the power of electing members of the Legislative Council.

Here, then, are two distinct principles, and unless the House determine

which of them it will adopt, a select committee can do nothing. Let us

settle the principle of the bill first, and then refer it to a select

committee, to modify it in correspondence with them.

Mr. EUSTIS said this subject was, in his opinion, inferior to no other

discussed this session. With regard to the provisions of the section

under consideration, it was to be expected that there would be a

diversity of opinion. Gentlemen inimical to them had taken different

grounds. One gentleman desires the power of the Governor to prorogue the

Council to be rescinded; another gentleman wishes an entire change in

the formation of the Council; and a third is in favor of the committee

rising, that the bill may go to a select committee to report different

provisions for the government of the people of Louisiana from those

contained in the bill before us. This motion necessarily brings the

principle on which the Council is organized by the bill before us.

According to this bill, the Governor and Council are to make the laws.

Suppose the Council is in session, and the Governor possess no power to

prorogue them. Suppose they should engage in acts subversive of their

relation to the United States. Would not this power be of essential

utility? It appears to me indispensably necessary that a vein of

authority should ascend to the Government of the United States, until

the people of the Territory are admitted to the full enjoyment of State

rights. From that knowledge of this people which I have been able to

acquire, I have formed an opinion that authority should be constantly

exercised over them, without severity, but in such a manner as to secure

the rights of the United States and the peace of the country.

The government laid down in this bill is certainly a new thing in the

United States; but the people of this country differ materially from

the citizens of the United States. I speak of the character of the

people at the present time. When they shall be better acquainted with

the principles of our Government, and shall have become desirous of

participating in our privileges, it will be full time to extend to

them the elective franchise. Have not the House been informed from

an authentic source, since the cession, that the provisions of our

institutions are inapplicable to them? If so, why attempt, in pursuit of

a vain theory, to extend political institutions to them for which they

are not prepared? I am one of those who believe that the principles of

civil liberty cannot suddenly be ingrafted on a people accustomed to a

regimen of a directly opposite hue. The approach of such a people to

liberty must be gradual. I believe them at present totally unqualified

to exercise it. If this opinion be erroneous, then the principles of

the bill are unfounded. If, on the contrary, this opinion is sound, it

results that neither the power given to the President to appoint the

members of the Council, nor of the Governor to prorogue them, are unsafe

or unnecessary.

Mr. LUCAS was against the rising of the committee, inasmuch as the bill

under consideration offered the widest field of discussing the subject

before them, and inasmuch as it was proper, that the principles of it

should be settled by a majority, to enable a select committee to collect

the sense of the House. When this decision should have taken place, he

should have no objections to a recommitment for the purpose of modifying

the bill in consonance with it.

It was known, by the treaty, that the United States are bound to secure

to the people of Louisiana as large a portion of liberty and security of

rights, as though they remained under the Government of France and Spain;

and he trusted the bill as it stood secured to them much more. As an

instance, it might be mentioned that the privilege of habeas corpus had

never been enjoyed by them while they were connected with either Spain

or France. An argument was drawn from the treaty, that these people are

to be admitted to the absolute enjoyment of the rights of citizens; but

gentlemen would not deny, that the time when, and the circumstances under

which this provision of the treaty was to be carried into effect, were

submitted to the decision of Congress. It has been remarked, that this

bill establishes elementary principles of government never previously

introduced in the government of any Territory of the United States.

Granting the truth of this observation, it must be allowed that the

United States had never before devolved upon them the making provision

for the government of people under such circumstances. Governors must not

rest on theory, but must raise their political structures on the state of

the people for whom they are made. Mr. LUCAS said, that without wishing

to reflect on the inhabitants of Louisiana, he would say that they are

not prepared for a government like that of the United States. Governed by

Spanish officers, exercising authority according to their whim, supported

by a military force, it could not be said that a people thus inured to

despotism, were prepared on a sudden to receive the principles of our

Government. It was questionable whether there was a nation in Europe

whom these principles would be so advantageous to as they are to us.

It would be recollected by gentlemen, who so strenuously advocated the

abstract principle of right, that the people of Louisiana have not been

consulted in the act of cession to this country, but had been transferred

by a bargain made over their heads. It was a proof this act had not been

received with approbation by them, that when they saw the American flag

hoisted in the room of the French, they shed tears; this was a proof that

they were not so friendly to our Government as some gentlemen imagined.

He was persuaded the people of the Mississippi Territory would not have

acted in this manner. There is no doubt but that after they shall have

experienced the blessings of a free Government, they will wonder at their

having shed tears on this occasion; but they must, in the first instance,

feel these blessings.

Mr. L. said he was fully of opinion with the gentleman from Massachusetts

(Mr. EUSTIS) in the sentiments he had expressed. The United States had it

eminently in their power to make these people happy without an extension

to them of all our privileges. They will not be gratified from knowing

that the theory of liberty is extended to them, but from its practical

effects. The people of Louisiana know but little of political theories,

but they will feel the just operation of equal laws; and if they can

obtain practical justice, though it may not arise from an extension of

our elementary political principles, they will not find fault with it.

Mr. L. said he was not among those who considered the bill, in all its

provisions, perfect. He considered it susceptible of much amendment;

though not in the principle now under review. In this provision, by

declaring that the inhabitants of the Territory shall compose the

Legislative Council, a great point is gained by the people. For it

cannot be supposed that the inhabitants, thus called upon to discharge

high duties to society, will so far lose sight of their own permanent

interests as to sacrifice them, together with the good of the country, to

whim or corruption.

Their election by the President is another important security. Suppose

the Governor shall wish to render the Council his puppets. The President

will not feel an interest in gratifying his improper views. It is,

however, said that his information will be derived from the Governor. But

the fact is, he will receive it in part from the Governor, and in part

from others; and he will be sagacious enough to judge, not from a part,

but from the whole that reaches him.

A valuable effect will flow from composing the Council of the inhabitants

of the country; its members will thereby be initiated in the theory of

our Government and laws, and this knowledge will hereafter qualify them

for higher political trusts; they will acquire much political knowledge;

they will return home, and their conversation with their friends will

naturally turn on political topics, and on the laws they have passed;

thus will a spirit of inquiry and of political discussion spring up

in the country. When this effect shall be produced, it will be time,

and only then, to give them a government as liberal and free as that

contemplated by the amendment.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) observed that he coincided in opinion with the

gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. VARNUM,) whose object would, he

thought, be better tried by a motion to strike out the section. This

motion would bring the principle before the House. If the section should

be stricken out, the bill would be recommitted for new modification to

a select committee. Mr. M. accordingly moved to strike out the fourth

section.

This motion having been stated from the Chair,

Mr. MACON again rose. I will endeavor, said he, to compress my ideas on

this point in a few words. My first objection to the principle contained

in the section is, that it establishes a species of government unknown to

the laws of the United States. We have three descriptions of Government;

that of the Union, that of the States, and Territorial governments. I

believe the Territorial government, as established by the ordinance of

the Old Congress, the best adapted to the circumstances of the people

of Louisiana; and that it may be so modified as best to promote their

convenience. The people residing in the Mississippi Territory, are now

under this kind of government.[8] Is it not likely that the people

of Louisiana will expect the same form of government and laws with

their neighbors; and is it not desirable for the general peace and

happiness that there should be a correspondence between them? If they

are as ignorant as some gentlemen represent them, (and of this I know

nothing,) will they not expect the same grade of government with the

inhabitants of the Mississippi Territory, with whom they will have a

constant intercourse? Although they lived previously under the Spanish

Government, and although their number did not entitle them, when formed

into a Territory, to the second grade of government, no inconvenience

resulted. It is said, in reply to this observation, that a large number

of inhabitants of that Territory were Americans. It is true that many of

them were native Americans, but some also were Spanish.

The simple question is, what kind of government is most fitted to this

people? It is extremely difficult to legislate for a people with whose

habits and customs we are unacquainted. I, for one, declare myself

unacquainted with them; nor would I in fixing the government, unless

for the safety of the Union, do an act capable of disgusting the people

for whom it is adopted. It will be a wise policy to avoid whatever is

calculated to disgust them. My opinion is that they will be better

satisfied with an old-established form of government, than with a new

one. Why? Because they have seen it established in the adjacent Territory

of Mississippi, and know the manner in which it operates. If there are

bad men in Louisiana, will any thing be more easy than to disgust the

people against the General Government by showing that they have given

one kind of government to the people of the Mississippi Territory, and

a different kind to them? In my mind, it is sound policy to give them

no cause of complaint. We ought to show them that we consider them one

people.

I will not pretend to say that the people of Louisiana are prepared for

a State government, which differs most materially from a Territorial

government. The best way to prepare them for such a government, is to

take the system already known to our laws; one grade or the other of the

Territorial government. For myself, I would prefer the adoption of the

second grade, but I would prefer the first to any new system. For these

reasons, I hope the section will be struck out, and the bill referred to

a select committee.

WEDNESDAY, February 29.

_Government of Louisiana._

The House went again into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the

government of Louisiana.