The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 24

24
28th Cong 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Abolition Petitions—Mr. Weller.
Dec. 1843.
H. of Reps.
cause he had the slightest objection to the Commit-
tee on Commerce, or entertained the least doubt of
the sincerity of their professions of friendship, but ^
because the question involved great and important *
interests—of a nature in some respects local, and in
other respects general and universal—requiring an
accurate knowledge of the condition of the country,
its resources, its navigable streams, the obstructions
to be removed, and the trade, commerce, and varied
Interests connected with the proposed improvements.
A thorough examination of subjects so various, ex-
tensive, and intricate, and requiring so much patient
labor and toil, cannot be expected from those who re-
side at a great distance, and who have other duties to
perform, and other interests to protect, and whose
sense of duty in regard to this question is not
quickened by a sense of interest. All he desired at
this time, was a full, elaborate, and detailed report
from those whose local positions would stimulate
them to embody the statistics—the mass of facts and
information—requisite to enable the House to form a
just and enlightened opinion upon the subject.
Grant this, and the friends of the measure will be
content to leave its policy and propriety, in a na-
tional point of view, to the judgment of the House.
Mr. D. said this was not the appropriate time
to discuss the constitutional question raised by
the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Belser.]
When a report shall have been made, and shall
come up for definite action, he would be ready
to meet that question fairly and directly, and
would be able to show, he hoped, to the satis-
faction of all parties, that the improvement of
those great natural and national channels of com-
merce, and trade, and travel, would not violate the
most strict and rigid rules of construction. The
people of the West desired nothing which they were
not clearly entitled to under the Constitution of their
country; and if they failed to demonstrate the pow-
er of Congress to protect the internal as well as the
external commerce of the nation, they would aban-
don their claim to that equal protection with the
other States, under the Constitution and laws which
they supposed was secured to them.
REMARKS OF MR. FRENCH,
OF KENTUCKY.
In the House of Representatives, December 21, 1843.—
Pending the motion made by Mr. Adams to refer
the resolutions of the Legislature of Massachu-
setts, offered by him, to a select committee.
Mr. FRENCH said:
Mr. Speaker: I thank the House for its kindness
in extending to me its unanimous consent to make a
few remarks; and hope, as the honorable gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] desires to be
heard, that the same privilege may be extended to
him.
Sir, before I entered upon my duties as a member
of this House, I took an oath to support the Consti-
tution of the United States; and it is my purpose
to prove, that to carry out the objects of abolition
petitions would be a violation of the Constitution of
the United States. I am opposed to the reception
of abolition petitions; because Congress has not the
power to abolish slavery.
Sir, it seems to be conceded on all hands—as well
by the friends of the abolitionists as by then oppo-
nents—that as to the States, Congress has 110 power
to abolish slavery; but that, as to the District of
Columbia, it is contended—on the part of the aboli-
tionists Congress has the powpr to abolish slavery.
Sir, the position that Congress cannot abolish
slavery m the States is true—is a well settled princi-
ple, and the fundamental law of the land.
To prove this, and to show the interest which the
slave States have in its maintenance, I will read, from
the Constitution, part of the sccond section of the
first article, to wit:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor-
tioned among the several States which may be in-
cluded within this Union according to their respect-
ive numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole number of free peisons, including
those bound to service for a term of years, and ex-
cluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other per-
sons."
Sir, the three-fifths of all other persons spoken of
i>i tiiis cjausp, includes that proportion of the slaves
within the enumeration of the federal numbers up-
on which, when added to the whites, the slave
States are entitled, according to the ratio, to elect
members to this House. I will give an illustration,
and will select the State which my honorable friend
now before me [Mr. Dawson] in part represents.
Suppose three-fifths of the slaves of Louisiana
should equal in numbers the white population in that
State: in that event, one-half of the members from
Louisiana in this House would be based upon three-
fifths of the slaves of that State. If, then, slavery
be the grievance under which the Abolitionists la-
bor, and that grievance could be removed, it would
require this clause of the Constitution to be
stricken out; and with it would go the right of
the slave States to that portion of their members in
this House based upon three-fifths of their slaves.
To remove the grievance complained of, (to wit,
slavery,) would, therefore, lead to this violation of,
the Constitution; and this important guaranty to the
slave States—resting, as it does, upon the Constitu-
tion itself, and inserted, too, under the compromises
of that instrument, as it was, in behalf of the slave
States—would be cut off.
But, sir, my principal object in wishing to ad-
dress the House, was to present to the consider-
ation of its members, and to their sober judg-
ments, a view of the Constitution which, upon ex-
amination, I think will be found to be worthy of
their regard. It is to prove, from the face of the
instrument itself, that Congress has has no constitu-
tional power to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia—no more than in the States.
The only clause in the Constitution which speaks
of the District of Columbia, reads in these words:
'fThe Congress shall have power to exercise ex-
clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
district not exceeding ten miles square, as may by
cession of particular States and the acceptance of
Congress, become the seat of Government of the
United States, and to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by consent of the Legislature of
the State in which the same shall be, for the erec-
tion of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and
other needful buildings."
Then follows the clause delegating to Congress
the power to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the forgegoing powers, &c.
The language of this clause is broad—"In all
cases whatsoever.1' And this is the clause under which
it is contended Congress can abolish slavery in this
District. Sir, is this position correct' Is there no
limitation upon the power of Congress over the Dis-
trict' Yes, sir; the power to legislate for the Dis-
trict is subject to the limitations and restrictions con-
tained in the Constitution. In order to prove this,
I ask, Can Congress make a law establishing a re-
ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the
District of Columbia? No, sir. Can Congress, by
law, abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press,
in the District? No, sir. Can Congress grant titles of
nobility in the District? No, sir. Can Congress create
or require a religious test, as a qualification for office,
in the District? No, sir. Can Congress deprive the
citizcns of the District of the right of trial by jury,
or require excessive bail, or impose excessive fines,
or inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon
them' No, sir. Can Congress take from the citi-
zen of the District private property for public use,
without paying to the owner a just compensation?
Certainly not. And why may not Congress do
these things? Because, notwithstanding the broad
terms of the clause delegating to Congress the power
to legislate for the District, the action of Congress
must necessarily and always be subjected to the lim-
itations and lestnetions contained in that instru-
ment. Sir, the Constitution is a unit; the Congress
created by it as a unit; and whenever that one Con-
gress created by that one Constitution acts, it is
alone by force of the powers delegated, but subject
always to the limitations, restrictions, or drawbacks
contained in the Constitution. These limitations
are coextensive with the Constitution; they extend
from its centre to its circumference. They are so
many banicrs thrown aroung the rights of all who
live under the mantle of its protection; and the
lights of life, of liberty, of reputation, and of prop-
el ty, cue, upon this principle of construction, as safe
and secure within the District of Columbia and
Territories as within the States.
These barriers or restrictions upon the power of
Congress are like the great law of nature, preseiv-
ing bounds to the ocean—"Hitherto shalt thou go,
but no farther."
Sir, this construction does not deny to the citizens
of the District any of the benefits which an enlight-
ened patriotism could desire to dispense. It has,
however, been said that Congress lias all the power
to legislate for the District, that a State has to ^
•ate for a State. Agreed: this, however, does not
prove the construction for which I contend to be
wrong; because the States themselves are also
bound by certain limitations contained in the Fede-
ral Constitution.
If I am wrong, however, in the construction for
which I contend, what is it that Congress cannot
do? If its powers over the District be tmlimited,
then, sir, Congress is made, as to the District of Co-
lumbia—the seat of the only free Government in the
world—a despot. Congress can, by law, establish
a religion, or prohibit a free exercise thereof in the
District; grant titles of nobility in the District; re-
quire a religious test, as a qualification for office, in
the District; deprive the citizens of the District of
the right of trial by jury; require excessive bail of
them; impose excessive fines; inflict cruel and unu-
sual punishments upon them; and take from them
private property, for public use, without paying a
just compensation for it.
Such a construction, so fraught with despotic
power, cannot be right; but if we adopt the construc-
tion for which I contend,J the Government is made
to accomplish the end for which it was instituted—
to promote alike the happiness of all, by protecting
alike the rights of all her citizens. Let us then
live up to the bargain we have made; as one great
political family, unite for the public good; and, as a
band of brothers from the North and South, East
and West, look alone to peace, the union, and the
general welfare.
REMARKS OF MR. WELLER,
OF OHIO,
hi the House of Representatives, December 21, 1843.—
Pending the motion made by Mr. Adams to re-
fer the resolutions of the Legislature of Massa-
chusetts, offered by him, to a select committee.
Mr. Beardsley of New York, having concluded,
Mr. WELLER obtained the floor, and expressed
a desire to address a few remarks to the House in
answer to what had fallen from the gentleman who
had just taken his seat. Leave being granted—
Mr. W. said that, he desired to express his dissent
from the doctrines advanced by the honorable gen-
tleman from New York, [Mr. Beardsley,] viz:
that the best way to put down the abolitionists of
the country was to receive their petitions; and that,
in their rejection, the Constitution was violated.
Some years since, these abolition petitions were all
received in this House, referred to a committee, and
a calm and dispassionate report presented. What
was the effect? Did this respectful consideration of
their petitions put down the excitement? Sir, (said
he,) the fact is, that the next session fifty thousand
more abolition petitions were presented than in the
preceding year. The able argument against their
schemes, so far from satisfying them, increased their
efforts and infused new zeal into their actions. But
(said Mr. W.) the gentleman from New York has
made the grand discovery that the best way to put
down the abolitionists is to encourage them in their
hellish designs against the Constitution and the
peace and tranquillity of the Union! That the only
way to prostrate them was to encourage them! A
grand discovery, indeed! for which the gentleman is
entitled to the thanks of the nation! The House
was to receive all the stuff they may choose to send
here, refer it to a committee, and expect, by sober
argument, to induce them to relax their efforts to
dissolve the confederacy. No, sir; no. This is not
the remedy. Such a proceeding would increase the
evil, and add to their strength.
Why (said Mr. W.) are petitions received and re-
ferred to a committee? It was that the committee,
being a small body, might examine the matter, and
report the facts to the House in a succint form, in
order that they might act understanding^ upon the
case. But if each member has made up his mind;
if we have predetermined to icject their unconstitu-
tional prayers, why go through the formality of
receiving, and referring, and reporting on them?
Why not reject their prayers upon the presentation
of the petition, as well as upon a report'
Mr. W. said the gentleman had been pleased to
insinuate pretty broadly, that, in refusing to receive
these abolition petitions, the House had been
guilty of a violation of the Constitution. Now, Mr.
W. claimed to be quite as warmly and devotedly
attached to that Constitution which we had all
sworn to support, as the gentleman from New York,
or any other member on that floor. And he. must