The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 166
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:
166
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
that they stood tipon a sandy foundation. Their
system was a gigantic monster; it was a monster in
legislation; it was a monster of injustice; and it was
only necessary to unveil this ungodly idolatry, and
the hideousness of itsjfeatures would cause every
one to shrink from it with horror and disgust. He
had attempted to perform this office. He had hum-
bly attempted* to tear off the veil and expose the
monster. He had done his duty, and the rest he
left to God.
Mr. -EVAN'S said it had not been his intention to
enter further into the question than he had done on
yesterday. He then abstained from going into the
argument now before the Senate; not from any wish
to shun it, nor because he dared not meet it, but from
a knowledge of the disastrous effects that all discus-
sions of the kind must have on the revenue and busi-
ness of the country. Nothing, he maintained, could
be more disastrous to the welfare and interests of
any country, than the entertaining of discussions in
a legislative body on questions threatening the over-
throw; of legal and acknowledged institutions, and
holding out to the people expectations that could not
be realized. However, since the honorable Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. McDoffie] had brought
on this discussion, it was not his purpose to shrink
from it.
Mr. McDUFFIE here proposed an adjournment.
Mr. BAYARD suggested to the honorable Sena-
tor from South Carolina that there was business of
importance to be transacted in executive session.
Mr. EVANS was willing that the continuance of
the debate should be postponed until Monday.
And the Senate went into executive session, hav-
ing first resolved, on rising, to adjourn over until
Monday next.
The Senate, then, after some time spent in exec-
utive session, adjourned.
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, January 19, 1844.
The journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. JAMESON presented two petitions, one
from Charles Hunt, praying for the establishment
of a mail route: referred to the Committee on the
Post Office and Post Roads. The other praying
for an appropriation to build a bridge: referred to
the Committee of the Whole House.
Mr. VANCE moved that the rules be suspended
for the purpose of receiving reports from standing
committees.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON hoped the gentleman
would confine his motion to reports which would
not give rise to debate.
Mr. VANCE agreed to the limitation, and the
rules were suspended.
Mr. VANCE, from the Committee of Claims,
made adverse reports upon the petition of J. M.
Hernandez. The report was laid upon the table.
On motion of Mr. VANCE, it was
Ordered, That the Committee of Claims be dis-
charged from the further consideration of the peti-
tion of David H. Burr; and that it be referred to
the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.
On motion of Mr. VANCE, it was
Ordered, That the Committee of Claims be dis-
charged from the consideration of the petition of
Richard Pollard, late charge d'affaires to Chili; and
that it bo referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
Mr- HOPKINS, from the Committee on the
Post Office and Post Roads, asked to be discharged
from the consideration of the petition of certain citi-
zens of Ohio, asking an additional salary for the
postmaster at Sandusky, and moved that the me-
morial he laid upon the table; which was agreed to.
Mr. ADAMb inquired of the chairman of the
Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads whether
that commitee intended to report a bill for a re-
duction of the rates of postage, and how soon a re-
port might be expected from that committee upon
that subject.
Mr. HOPKINS replied that he was not able to
say precisely at Vv-hat time the committee would be
prepared to report; they had the subject now under
consideration, and would probably report in a few
weeks? They had not yet, however, come to any
determination as to the character of the bill which
they would report.
Mr. DILLINGHAM, from the Committee on
the Judiciary, presented a report, accompanied by a
bill, to refund the fine imposed upon the late An-
thony Haswell, to his legal heirs and representatives.
The bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole
Jriouse to-morrow, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. FISH, from the Committee on Military Af-
fairs, asked that that committee be discharged from
the further consideration of the memorial of
; and that so much of it as relates to the mili-
tia, be referred to the Committee on the Militia.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. RATHBUN, the papers in the
case of Obadiah Newcomb were recommitted to the
Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.
Mr. STEENROD reported a bill for the relief of
Thomas Hudson; which was read twice, and refer-
red to the Committee of the Whole House to-mor-
row, and ordered to be printed.
Also, a bill for the relief of Elizabeth Jones;
which was read twice, and referred, to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House to-morrow, and ordered to
be printed.
Mr. ALBERT SMITH, from the Committee on
Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of
Thomas Harrison; which was read twice, and re-
ferred to the Committee of the Whole House, and
made the order for to-morrow, and ordered to be
printed.
Mr. J. BRINKERHOFF, from the same commit-
tee, asked to be discharged from the further consid-
eration of the memorial of Israel Thomas, and
moved that it be referred to the Committee on
Claims; which motion was agreed to.
Mr. B. also reported favorably upon the petition
of Enoch McDonald, and introduced a bill for his
relief; which was read twice, and referred to the Com-
mittee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Mr. R. SMITH reported a bill for the relief of
James Reed; which was read twice, and referred to
the Committee of the Whole House to-morrow, and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. TILDEN, from the Committee on Indian
Affairs, presented a report, which was laid upon the
table, accompanied by a bill for the relief of Hugh
Wallace Vemon; which was read twice, and refer-
red to the Committee of the Whole House to-mor-
row, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. OWEN, from the Committee on Roads and
Canals, reported a bill directing a transfer of the stock
held by the United States in the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company, to the State of Maryland, and
the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alex-
andria, so as to secure the early completion of the
canal to Cumberland; which was read twice, and
referred tu the Committee of the Whole House to-
morrow, and ordered to be printed.
Mr, PRATT, from the Committee on Public
Buildings and Grounds, asked that that committee
be discharged from the further consideration of the
petition of James Dixon, and moved that the same
be referred to the Committee for the District of
Columbia. The motion was agreed to.
COPY-RIGHTS.
Mr. WINTHROP, from the Select Committee
on Copy-rights, moved that certain memorials on
the subject of copy-rights, and a bill of the last ses-
sion on the same subject, be printed: carried.
UNITED STATES COURTS IN NEW YORK.
Mi*. RATHBUN, on leave, and in pursuance of
notice given, introduced a bill, entitled k'An act con-
cerning the circuit and districts courts for the north-
ern district ofNew York:" read the first and second
time, and referred to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
PRE-EMPTIONS.
On motion by Mr. SAMPLE,
The joint resolutions of the Legislature of Indi-
ana of the last session, on the subject of pre-emp-
tion rights, reduction of postages, marine hospitals,
&c., was ordered to be printed.
Mr. COBB observed, that a report had just been
made by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. V^sceJ
from the Committee of Claims, in opposition to the
claim of Joseph M. Hernandez. He asked leave,
from the minority of the committee, to make a
minority report. Leave was accordingly granted.
REPORT ON THE RULES.
The CHAIR then announced that the first busi-
ness in order was the report of the Select Com-
mittee on the Rules.
Mr. HUDSON, who had the floor, continued the
argument commenced by him yesterday, contending
that there was nothing in the deeds of cession from
Maryland and Virginia prohibiting the legislation
by Congress on the subject of slavery. From this,
he"went on to show that the question of slavery
had been discussed but a few years ago in the Vir-
ginia Legislature; and was also discussed in the
course of the debates on the adoption of the Consti-
tution. Mr. H. having spoken up to the expiration
of his hour—
Mr. SAUNDERS took the floor, aift commenced
with a few preliminary remarks, in too low a tone*
to be heard. He then went on to say, that he
should proceed at once to reply to the objections
that had been urged to the 21st rule. We have (said
he) repeatedly asked those gentlemen who are op-
posed to the 21st rule, what it was they meant by
the sacred right of petition, when they talked of its
being violated? Where did it commence, and where
did it end? If they said that the people had the
right to petition when and where they pleased, and
on any subject, for the redress of grievances, wheth-
er real or imaginary, then he would say that there
was no necessity for their travelling up to Magna
Charta to support that position, for no one ques-
tioned it. He would go one step farther than some
of these gentlemen had done. He admitted that the
people not only had the right to petition, but the
right to an unqualified answer from this House.
Even on this admission, he was prepared to sustain
the 21st rule. What was the language of the Con-
stitution, on which gentlemen relied in their opposi-
tion .to the 21st rule? It was, that "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances." Now,
the rule passed by Congress, called the one hour
rule, which limited the speeches of members to one
hour's time, was an abridgment of the freedom of
speech. But the advocates of that rule contended
that there was an existing abuse impeding the trans-
action of the business of the House, which required
correction, and the rule was passed for that purpose.
The rule establishing the previous question was not
only an abridgment of the freedom of speech, but a
total suppression of it, as it cut off debate; but that
was justified by the argument that this rule was ne-
cessary for facilitating the business of the House.
Congress (said the Constitution) should not have
power to abridge the freedom of the press; and yet
laws were made on that subject, with which the
House was familiar. But it was said this rule viola-
ted the right of petition, because it did not allow pe-
titioners to be heard here, and their petitions to be
deliberated upon. In this there was a great error.
A colleague of his had said the House could not
know whether the petitions prayed for a constitu-
tional or an unconstitutional act, or indeed for an im-
proper act, unless the petition were heard; and a gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. Duncan] had said that the
inhabitants of this District could not petition for the
abolition of slavery in this District, unless this rule
was repealed. In all this there was great fallacy.
The House knew what the rule was/ It was that
no petitition, memorial, resolution, or other paper
praying the abolition of slavery m the District of
Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave
trade between the States or Territories of the United
States in which it now exists, shall be reochcdby
this House, or entertained in any way whatever.
That was the rule which the Speaker, as the presiding
officer of this House, was required to enforce; and
he could not enforce that rule until the agent of the
petitioners had announced the purport of the petition
which he rose to present. The House was then in-
formed of the purport of such petitions, and the peti-
tioners were then shown, by that rule, that the House
had considered the subject and given its judgment.
Here, then, the facts were ascertained, the piayer wns
heard, and it, was then met by the Speaker, as the
presiding officer, who interposed this rule as the
judgment of the House thereon. Tie illustrated this
point m various ways, and then came to ihr ques-
tion whether this rule v. as richt and proper. Re
understood the gemlennn from New York [Mr.
Beardsley] to say, the other day, that a petition ask-
ing the House to interfere with slavery m the States,
was to ask Congress to do that which it could not
do, and that he would not receive such petition.
Why Because it asked for an unconstmitional
thing. But the same gentleman said, when a peti-
tion asked Congress to abolish slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, that that was a different question,
and it then became a matter of expediency w hc-ther
the petition should be received and acted upon.
Now, he intended to meet the gentleman fiom New
York on that proposition. Who was to decide on
the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the sub-
ject prayed for? It must be done by a^majomy of the
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/m1/190/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.