The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 85
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL G&OBE.
of proof, I take it for granted the petitioner is not a
free man, or he would have been discharged before
this hour. Why refer this memorial? Is it con-
templated that we can examine witnesses and decide
upon the legality of his confinement? Such powers
do not belong to this House; and the reference is
asked only to open a discussion which is so much
desired by some members on this floor. I am
(said Mr. Haralson) utterly opposed to the con-
tinued agitation of this question; it engenders bad
feelings, excites sectional jealousies, and disqualifies
this body from acting in the liberal spirit of legis-
lators of the whole country. I assure gentlemen
(said Mr. Haralson) that the South demands
neither army nor navy to defend her constitutional
rights: retrench in these departments of the Govern-
ment as much as you may think the general interest
of the whole Union requires; the South will have
citizen soldiers enough to protect their property
from abolition aggression, come in what form
it may. I trust, sir, (said Mr. Haralson,)
that no necessity may fever occur for the exer-
tion of her own means of defence. They
know the difference between sound and reality,
between the shadow and the substance. Strip
them of their constitutional rights, and Union,
as sacred as they hold it, and as devoted as they
are to it, would be to them an empty sound.
They will defend their rights at every hazard. I
regret many remarks (said Mr. H.) which the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. Davis] has felt it his
duty to make. T shall only express my dissent to
the doctrine which he advances as to the operation
of law, as applied to the existence of slavery in this
District, and the Territories under the government
of this country. He has been pleased to tell us
that he, and he thinks the whole North, would ob-
ject to immediate abolition at the South. No un-
easiness need be felt upon the subject of abolishing
slavery at the South—it will not be done; but should
she choose to do so, neither the gentleman from New
York, nor the abolitionists, will be consulted. The
very authority by which we act here in this House
is derived from the Constitution, and that instru-
ment throws ample shields around our rights.
Those distinguished statesmen from the slavehold-
ing States, who talents were called into requisition
to form the Constitution, were never asked whether
they would abolish slavery! It is subversive of the
dignity of this House, and injurious to the public
interests, to have this subject introduced into every
discussion, no matter what shall be the question. I
have made these remarks, (said Mr. H.,) that our po-
sition may be understood. We extend the hand of
friendship to every part of the Union, but make no
concessions of a solitary right. We anxiously avoid
disei.issi.on upon a subject over which we have no
power to legislate, for the preservation of harmony:
but shrink from no responsibility, here or at home,
which may be necessary to the defence of our prop-
erty. I have (said Mr. H.) spoken perhaps m
too much feeling in the few remarks which I have
offered; but let my apology be, that I am a South-
ern man—a Georgian—interfering in no way with
the rights of the North, and unwilling to hear these
repeated assaults upon the peculiar institutions of
the South, and the rights of my constituents, with-
out a reply.
Mr. BEARDSLEY, observed that the question
before the House was merely whether they should
refer the petition, and to what committee; ana wheth-
er it should be referred with instructions or not.
Now, if so slight a question as this was to work up
such a tempest as it had done, what might they not
expect when they came to the important business of
the session? Upon this memorial, as he understood
it, only three questions could arise. First, whether
the law of the District on this subject had been prop-
erly administered in this case. Now, as this ques-
tion was purely a judicial one, he did not think the
House had anything to do with it. They were not
called to sit here as a court of appeals, to revise
the proceedings of the courts of this District.
This House had no such power. Then the next
question was, whether the law under which the
local courts act is a just and proper one, and such
as ought to remain on the statute-book. Now
as to that question, whether they should abol-
ish the law or amend it, or in fact whether it was
such a law as ought to remain on the statute-book, he
thought that it was a proper subject of reference. He
voted for the reception of the petition; and he should
vote for its reference, in order that the committee might
inquire and report upon the ease to the House, so
that they might be enabled to correct the evil, if such
was found to exist. This would not be legislating
for a particular case, as had been suggested; to do
which, he admitted Congress had 110 power. There
was another view of this question which might de-
serve a passing notice; and that was, whether the
judge who had these matters under his particular
cognizance had acted correctly in the premises.
If the committee should find such to be the fact,
they might impeach him; but, as he had heard no
allegation of that kind, he would dismiss that part
of the question. He was of opinion, however, that
the petition should be referred to some appropriate
committee. Why were petitions referred at all?
It was because a committee could inquire and report
the information they obtain to the House; and, if
they have a bad law, they may, by this means, be
able to apply the correction. The last question was,
what committee the petition should go to. Should
it be sen^to a select committee? When the question
was one of amending or repealing a law, could they
doubt that the Committee on the Judiciary—the
law committee of the House—was the proper one
to refer it to? Why send this to a select committee
more than any other question involving the wisdom
and propriety of a law? He saw no propriety in
sending this question to a select committee, but he
did see great propriety in sending it to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary; and he would, therefore,
vote for that reference. He was opposed, however,
to giving the committee power to send for persons
and papers; because, as the House was not to sit in
judgment to reverse the decisions of the court of
this District, such a power would be useless and un-
necessary. It seemed to him that, on this simple
proposition, the general question of slavery, either
111 the States or this District, was not involved; and
he therefore deprecated the discussion of it.
Mr. STEPHENS was in favor of the reference of
the petition to the Committee 011 the Judiciary,'and
for the reasons given by the gentleman from New
York, who had just sat down. He thought it a
Sroper subject of inquiry, whether the laws of the
'istrict, in relation to the question before the House,
were such as required revision, so that the House
might be able to apply the remedy if necessary.
He regretted much to see the excitement indulged
in by some gentlemen on that floor, when any thing
connected with the interests of the South was al-
luded to. He saw 110 necessity for any excitement
on this question, and did not believe that the in-
terests of the South depended on so trivial a matter
as the reference of a petition. For his part, he
wished to know what the laws of the District
011 this subject were, for gentlemen on differ-
ent sides did! not agree as to the effect of them;
and he wished the committee also to report to the
House whether they required amendment or repeal.
As to what the gentleman from Ohio stated in regard
to the selling of free men for their costs, he, for one,
desired to see such a law repealed; and he undertook
to say to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Saunders] that such a law did not exist in the State
he represented. There, when an individual is arraign-
ed, he is, upon being acquitted, dismissed without
the payment of costs.
Mr. KING of Massachusetts agreed with the
gentleman who had just taken his seat, that there
was no occasion for excitement, though he consider-
ed the question before them as one deserving
the most serious consideration. It was time
that the House should take it up and
make it the leading question of the session.
It was for this reason that he was opposed to refer-
ring the petition to the Committee on the Judiciary;
for that committee was so much burdened with
business that it could not give to the subject that
consideration which its importance deserved. _ This
was 110 new question; ithaalong since been agitated,
and formed the subject of one of the presentments of
the grand jury of this city. Mr. K. here read an
extract from a presentment of the grand jury for
Washington county, D. C., recommending a modifi-
cation of the laws of the District on the subject of
slaves and free negroes, so as to prevent _ the influx
of such persons into the city. Mr. K. said he read
this, because the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Sawders] had stated that it was not the wish
of the people of the District that Congress should
legislate on the, subject.
Mr. SAUNDERS asked leave to make an explana-
tion. What he said was, there was no petition
showing the desire of the people of the District for
legislation on the subject. He, however, took the
occasion to thank the gentleman for the document he
had just read; for from it he learned that' the grand
jury, so far from wishing the laws in relation to
negroes to be relaxed—had asked for additional
restraints to prevent the influx of such a population
into the District.
Mr. KING then referred to and quoted the opin-
ions of Judge Cranch, in favor of the abolition of
slavery in the District, and the repeal of the laws
which authorize the arrest and confinement of fugi-
tive slaves. He also read a' letter from (as he said)
a distinguished individual, which spoke of the cruel-
ty and injustice of the laws which authorized the
taking up of persons of color on suspicion of being
slaves. He read these extracts (Mr. K. said) in order
to impress upon the House the importance of speedy
legislation on this subject. Congress had the pow-
er, and it was its duty to exercise it. He was in
favor of referring the matter to a select committee,
because the exigencies of the case required prompt
action, and the quantity of business in the hands of
the Judiciary Committee would prevent them from
bestowing a proper and early consideration upon it."
Mr. COBB could not agree with his colleague,
[Mr. Stephens,] nor with the gentleman from'ifew
York, in the opinion that this subject should be refer-
red either to a select committee, or that on the Judi-
ciary; but in expressing his dissent from their views,
he would confine himself to the simple question in-
volved, and not permit himself to be at all excited by
it, though some degree of feeling on such questions
might be palliate^ if not excused, in members from
the Southern States. When this petition was pre-
sented, the objection was raised by a gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Dellet] and a gentleman from South
Carolina, [Mr. Campbell,] that the House could not
entertain jurisdiction over it; that it was purely a
judicial question; and, that if the petitioner told the
truth in his statement, there was no difficulty in his
obtaining the amplest redress under the existing
laws. He then saw, or thought he saw, a disposition
on the part of the House to abandon the proceeding
and lay it on the table; and this feeling, he thought,
continued until the very available argument of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Beardsley] was
presented, and which was immediately caught up
by his colleague [Mr. Stephens.] What was it?
It was not "that the House should interpose
its authority to release the petitioner from
confinement; not that it should resolve MMf
into a superior court to revise _ the proceed-
ings of the courts of this District. For what
purpose, then, was the reference to be made? Why,
to inquire into the constitutionality of the lawunder
which this petitioner was arrested and confined.
Now he wished to inquire of these gentlemen, (and
he expected tliem to answer him, if they could,) did
they propose to introduce a new principle into the
legislation of Congress? Was Congress, instead of
passing laws intended to have a general application,
to take up particular cases and make laws to suit them?
Did the Legislatures of the States shape their legis-
lation on such principles? If gentlemen began in this
way, where were they to end? To-day, they had a
petition from a'negro, who professed to be a free man,
unjustly confined on suspicion of being a slave; and
they legislate to suit his case. The next day, a ^par-
ticular individual, confined under^a ca sa., may petition
Congress on the hardships of his case; and legis-
lation is invoked to relieve him. Now, to all this
kind of legiglation he was opposed. If the law#
were defective and required a remedy, let them _ oe
taken up and amended, or repealed, without beirig
connected with the case of any particular individual.
For what purpose should this memorial be referred.
He would ask the gentleman from Ohio, who pre-
sented the petition, if he expected Congress to ap-
ply a remedy to this particular ease. If the -gentle-
man answered in the affirmative, the House
would then discover that it was called on to ex-
ercise judicial, not legislative powers. He trust-
ed that the House would frown down this new
principle, by which an attempt was made to
legislate on the hardships of particular cases.
He wotild make one remark more. As his col-
league had observed, there was no law in his
State, by which a person, arrested as a &giUve
slave was, after proving himself free, held m con-
finement for his costs. There, when a negro proved
his title to freedom, he was not subjected to the
payment of costs, but they were paid.by the Start.
It was for the purpose of stating this fact that he
had endeavored to obtain the floor before his col-
league rose to address the House. Though op-
posed to the reference of this case to a committed,
he had no objection to remedying the laws on the
subject, if they were defective. But, to ascertain
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/109/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.