si*

b* .^'« il.

"irJJ^

^m^

*r^w>f'*.'

';^r'i^},

re^. ssys.^i ^^.^;l

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in 2010 witii funding from

Associates of tine Boston Public Library / The Boston Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/reportofselectco1836unit

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE

VPOK THE SUBJECT

OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

HAPE BT

HON. M. E.. FIA^CKi^^EY,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 18, J 836.

TO WHICH IS' APPENDED

VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

rPOX TEB

SEVERAL RESOLUTIONS WITH WHICH THE REPORT CONCLUDES.

WASHiKGTOJf:

•»e»::":::!;»: 1^€.

cesssi^^s-i ^o.p?^

E P 0 R T.

SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF CO- LUMBIA.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. In the House of Representatives,

FebrvMry 8, 1836. Resolved, That all the memorials which have been offered, or maj'^ hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and, also, the i-esohitions offered by an honorable member from Maine, (iMr. Jarvis,) with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia (Mr. Wise); to- gether with every other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to the subject, be re- ferred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report :

That Congress possesses no constitutional au- thority to interfere, in any M'ay, with the mstitution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy; and

That, in the opinion of this House, Congress- ought not to interfere, in any v/ay, with slavery in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation of public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union. Assigningsuch reasons for these conclusions as, in the judgment of the com- mittee, may be best calculated to enlighten the pub- lic mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to secure and maintain the just rights of the slave- holding States, and of the people of this District, •and to restore harmony and tranquillity among the various sections of this Union.

Mr. PiNCKNEY of South Carolina, Mr. Hamer of Ohio, Mr. Pierce of New Hampshire, Mr. Hardin of Kentucky, Mr. Jarvis of Maine. Mr. Cv.'Exs of Georgia, Mr. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, ^Tr. Dromuoole of Virginia, and Mr. Turrii.l, of New York, were a^^pointed a committee in pursuance of the resolution.

Attest : W. S. FRANKLIN, Clerk.

REPORT OF MR. PINCKNEY.

The Sekcl CmnviiUce, appoinled under the following resohttion of the Hmise of Representatives of the United Stol£s, of the »th of February, lS36,"ri,r .• "Resolved, That all tlie memorials v-hich have been offered, or m,ay Iw.reafter be ipresented to this House, pro.ying for tlie abolition of sla.very in the District of Columbia. ; a,nd, also the resolutions offered by an hono'rable member from MaAne, (^Mr. Jarvis,) vnth the ajnendmeni thereto 2>roposed by an

honorable member from Virginia {Mr. Wise); to- gether with every-other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to this subject, be re- ferred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report : That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the insti- tution of slavery in OMy of the States of this Con- federacy; and that, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere, in any ivay,- tcith slavery in the District of Columbia, because it v;ould be a violation of the public faith, umHse, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union : assigning such reasons for these conclusions as, in the fadg- ment of the committee, may be best calculated to en- lighten the public mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to secure and maintain the just' rights of the slaveholding Slates, and of the people of this District, and to restore harmony and tran- quillity amongst the various sections of this Union ;" respectfully submit the following report, in tchich they have u7ianimously concurred : The subject referred is one of grave import. Your committee approach it with a deep sense of its magnitude and absorbing interest. They have long considered the movements in relation to this matter as fraught with incalculable evils, not only to the slaveholding States, but to every portion of our common country. They rejoice, therefore, that the great body of the people of the non-slavehold- ing States have come forward, as they have done, in the true spirit of American palrioiism, to sustain ' their constitutional obligations to their Southern brethern, and to arrest the disturbance of the public peace. They rejoice paiticularly, that the Federal Legislature, acting under a deep sense of its re- sponsibility to the nation, has also interposed its warning voice, and given a solemn expression of its judgment upon this exciting subject; and they feel assured, that a.s the Representatives have re- sponded to the people, so the people will firmly and patriotically sustain the posiiion now takeii by their Representatives.

As moderation is essential to the discovery of truth, your committee will carefully abstain from every thing that may cau<e offence, or inflame ex- citement, in any section of the Union. But while they would make every allowance for the inotii'es of individuals, where the objects contemplated are utterly desti uctive to society, thcy^cannot too strong- ly express their comlemnation oi" the conduct of the abolitionists, and their utter abhorrence of the coa- sequeuces to which, if persisted in, it must inevita- bly lead. T'ipy feel assured that no man, or set oC men, will be pcrmiUed to put ihe country and the Government at defiance, by persevering in machi- nations wiicli threaten to bring the citizens of the

tlifierent States into collision, and to overthrow the whole system of civil society itself, in the slave- holdmg portions of the Union. Your committee believe that the strength of the agitators has been greatly exaggerated, by themselves and others; but whether their number be small or great, there can be no doubt that the\' have done, and are doing, in- calculable evil; and every true patriot must be aware that a crisis has now arrived in the political condition of the country, in which neutrality would be criminal, and in which he must determine be- tAveen the suppression of abolition, and the destruc- tion of the Union, and take his stand accordingly, for or against his country.

Your commiUee have learned Avith surprise, that the referrence of this subject has caused dissatis- faction in certain portions of the South. While they deeply regret this circumstance, they beg leave to remark, that it is not only abundantly jus- tiiied by precedent, but in entire accordance with the established usage and invariable policy, in re- laiicnto matters of tius character; memorials pray- ing for the abolition of slavery in the States, or in the District of Columbia, having always been citlier referred or laid upon the table. On the pe- ^cnt occasion, the subject was referred for the ex- press purpose of having a report '"calculated to sus- tain tJie just rights of the slaveholding States, and of the people of this District, and "by allaying ex- citement, and repressing agitation, to insure the future repose and periiiaEent tranquillity of the €(waitry. The House was unwilling, on the one side, to invade what was believed to be the rir<ht of petition, [a right equally dear to every portion of our people, and which, it is thought, could not have been denied in this instance, without establishing a precedent at least as hazardous to the South, as to a:ay other section of the Union] ; and it was desir- ous, en the other, to accomplish for the South, what could not have been elfected by refusing to receive the memorials, the union of an overwhehn- ang majority, in a solemn and determined stand -figainst the views and objects of the applicants. Whilst the denial of the right of petition could have produced none other than the most mischiev- cus effects, your committee are thoroughly satisfied that the course adopted by the House will produce a state of public opinion ajid feeling in the non- i-.Javeholding Slates, eminently favorable to the con- stitutional rights and interests of the slaveholding sections of the Union.

The resolution imder Avhich your committee were appointed, naturally divides i tself into several "branches or propositions, each of which shall be •considered in its order.

They are instructed to report, in the first place —

ThatXI^ongress possesses no constitutional autho- rity to interfere in any v/ay with the institution of slavery, in any of the States of this Confederacy.

Yonr commiUee will merely allude to this pro- ^posiiion, ill obedience to the express direction given nhem by the House, and not for the purpose of en- tering into any argument respecting it. Unques- tionably, if there is any political or constitutional pfinciple,' which the people of the United States consider as settled beyond all possible dispute or ■controversy, it is that the 'institution of slaverj', as it exists in the States of this Confederacy, is rauni- <ipal, not national, and that it belongs exclusively to the State-', and can only be attected by State le- ■gisiatiori. The power lo regitlate or act ttpon it, is -cne cf the reserved vosvers of the Spates: a rcwcx"

I which was not only not given, nor ever intended to be given, by the framers of the constitution, to the General Government, but which the States express- ly and carefully guarded and retained to them- selves, by that amendment of tliat instrument, (article 10) in which it is declared, that " all powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- served to the States respectively, or to the people." The subject of slavery in the States, then, is not an open question or matter of debate. The fact that Congress possesses no authority whatever to legis- late respecting it, is one that can neither be strengthened by argument, nor made clearer by discussion. And your committee consider it most fortunate for the peace of the country, that it is so. Fie is indeed but little acquainted Avith tlie human heart, and has derived but little advantage from the lessons of history, Avho can imagine foi» a moment, if he knows any thing of the general character, or considers the political and physical strength of the people of the South, that eA'en if the poAvcr of legis- lation on this subject had been expressly conferred on Congress by the constitution, it could be exer- cised against the consent of the States interested, Avithout the certainty of civil Avar, and the probable dissolution of the Union. The declaration, how- ever, which the Hotise has so solemnly and disci- sively made upon this point, cannot fail, as your committee believe, to produce the most beneficial results. As the abolitionists care little for emanci- pation in the District, except as the percursor of a far more extended and general scheme, the pre- sumption is, that having now no possible hope of Governmental interference with the States, and seeing themorethan probable consequences of the exercise of such a poAver, if it AA'cre possessed, they will discontinue their machinations in relation lo the District ; a consummation devoutly to be wish- ed by every patriot, in every section of the Union. But be the issue Avhat it may, the House of Re- presentatives has done its duty by placing this solemn declaration upon record. It is not only pe- culiarly proper in itself, considering the present state of the abolition question, but, if any justifica- tion vcere necessar}-, it is amply justified by prece- dent. In 1790, (and from that period to the present, the abolitionists haA'e steadily aimed at general emancipation) several petitions, praying for. the abolition of slaA^ery in the States, haAing been pre- sented and referred, the House finally a.dopted a resolution, amongst others, in AA^hich it annotmced to the petitioners, ami to the country, " that Con- gress has no a,uthority to interfere in the emanci- pation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the States, it remaining AA'ith the several States alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity or policy may require.'' Upon the Avhole, your committee consider the instruction give« them by the House upon this point, rather as a de- cisive expression of a great fundamental principle of constitutiona.1 laAv, than as a call upon them to sustain a questionable position. They are aAvare that some members voted against the instruction upon this point, under the impression that, Avhilst the principle asserted is unquestionable in itself, its assertion by the House, in this form, might seem to imply doubt, and to countenance the idea that it is rerdlv debateable. In this view, the members who thus voted, mf.y be joined perhaps by roan',' iiitelli- gentand v.-orthy citizens of the slaveholdhig States; but vsur committee cannot believe that the asser-

■tion, in any form, by the House of Representatives, of a principle so important, and at the same time of- so strong a local bearing, and particularly by a vote so nearly approaching unanimity as is record^ ed on its journal in favor of this instruction, can have a tendency to weaken that principle, or its binding and paramount influence upon Congress and the coumry m all time to come. The prece- dent above quoted from !hL- Congress of 1799, sliows that the House of Representatives of that day, so far from fearing the effect of such action upon its part, sought to record its solemn conviction upon this question of power in themselves, and has handed down to us its judgment, in precise accordance with our ovv^n. That House was "largely, if not entirely, composed of men of the revolution, and many of its members are known to have been aJso mem^bers of the convention which formed the i ederal Constitution. Since that pe- riod, nearly half a centary has rolled away, and now that the successors of that House, acting under the same considerations, solemnly reaffirm, the principle laid down b)^ those great and good men, and avovv it to be not only the settled opinion of this Congress, but of the great body of the people of the United States, may we not hope, and indeed con- clude, that it will be hereafter deemed a solemn •and deliberate exposition of the constitution, and that all attempts iti future to violate those sacred comprom.ises, v/hich lie at tlie very foundation of our constitutional compact, or to excite apprehen- sion on this subject, will be effectualh"" counteracted and defeased. Your committee cannot but indulge a most confident and animated hope that these good effects will be produced by the present action of the Heuse.

Your committee are instructed to report, in the second place —

That, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere, in any way, v/ith slavery in the District of Columbia.

1st. Because it would be a violation of the pub- ic faith.

To obey this instruction of the House in the manner pointed out by the resolution, it -will be ne- cessary to examine, to some extent, the relations between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia; the probable objects of the provi- sion in the constitution, authorizing the cession of the District to tiie UnitCil States ; and the conse- quent expecta.tions which may have been rationally entertained by the Slates that made the cession, as to the exercise, by Congress, of the pov/ers granted to it over the ceded territory. Bei'ore entering upon this examination, however, it may be vvrell to re- mark that the powers of Congrcs ever this Dis- trict involved in this discussion, are v/holly inde- pendent of, and derived from a source entirely separate from, the gene'-il Ir^^i^lntive pov/ers grant- ed to Congres-; by the <■• ;; .r;, I'ui. As the legisla- ture of confederated S ii; . i!;c pov.-ers of Con- gress are eq'ial, and of universal application, throughout all the States, and they were given to Congress before the cession of the district, and ■were he;d au'l exercised indep^---.dently thereof. This will be made manifest by n brief statement of facts. Tlie first Congress, under the constituuon, assembled on the 4lh of. March, 1789, and the Go- vernment provided for by the constitution was or- ganized on that (lay. The general powers confer- red on the different branches of the Federal Go- vernment were exercised from that day forward ; and the union of the States, under constitutional

government, was then perfected and put in practi- cal operation. The ce'jsion from Virginia, of that portion of the District of Columbia that belonged to her, v/as not made until the 3d of December of that year — nine months after the Federal Govern- ment had been in opeitition ; * a.nd the ce sxon by Maryland of that portion of the District that be- longed to her, (and in v.^hich the Seat of Govern^ ment is in fact located,) was not made until the 19th day of December, 1791 + — more than two years and nine months after the existence of the Govern- ment in its present constitutional form. Congress did not, in fact, remove to the District thus ceded, nor did the District thus ceded become practically the Seat of Government until the year 1800 ; and the laws of the States by which the District was ceded v/eie declared, by an act of Congress of the 16th July, 1790, t " to be in force within the District until the" removal of the Government to it, andam- tii Congress shall otherwise by law direct."

It appears, then, that the Federal Government was in operation under the constitution nearly a year before Congress possessed any power of local legislation over any portion of the District of Co- lumbia, and nearly three years before thai power became as extensive as the present bounds of the District, or included that portion of the ten miles square in Avhich the Seat of Government is in fact located. It also appears, that the first act of the Federal Legislature in reference to its jurisdiction then partly acquired, and partly to be acquired, was to provide for the continuance, in ali their force, and in every particular, within the District, of ;he laws of the States that made the cession, un- til December, 1800 ; a period of nine years after tiie time v/hen the powers of Congress, as a local legislature for the District, were perfected by the State of Maijdand. Nor is this all : by the act of 1790 it was declared, as has been already shown, that the laws of Maryland and Virgiriia should be the laws of the Dist*dct, not only " imtil the time fixed for the removal of the Government thereto," but also " until Congress shall otherwise provide" by law." No alteralion, however, to any consider- ' able extent has yet been made, and the laws of Virginia and Maryland which were in force at the time of their respective, cessions, and in force resy.ectively in the portions of the District ceded by each, still continue tobe, in almost every particular, the local laws of tlie District of Columbia.

Such are the relations at present existing between the Federal Government and the District, so far as local legislation is concerned. The powers of Con- gress, as the local legislature of the District, were derived from the cessions by Virginia and Mary- land, and the special grant of exclusive legisla- tion, and not from the general pov/ers conle,rred upon it by the constitution; and these special and local powers which Congress has now possessed for nearly half a centiuy, have been exercised only to tlie extent above described; and, from the best information your committee have been able to obtain, to no other or greater extent.

The right of Congress to accept the cession of this territory from the States of Virginia and Maryland, is found in the eighth seel ion of the fir.st 3.rticlc ni' liie r.'diistitution'of the United States, Y.'liich gr ■ ii li iwer "to exerci.se exclusive le- gislation m all ci'.ses whatsoever over such District,

* LawK District of Columbia, p. 59. tLaws District of Columbia, p. 64. t Laws United States, vol. ii, p< 113.

not exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of particular'' States, and the acceptance of Con- gress, become the Seat of Government of the United States ;" and the purpose for which the cession was to be made and received, is declared in the lan- guage of the constituiion itself, " such District as may become the Seat of Government of the United State?." The cession, therefore, was to be made for this purpose, and for no oiher ; and as regards its use by the Federal Government, the object of this provision evidently was simply to a,uthorize Congress to accept the grant, and to exercise the pov/ers of legislation therein provided for.

It will be conceded by the committee, for the purpose of this report, that the cession was m^ade in conformity with the power of Congress to receive, and that, therefore, by the cession from Virginia and Maryland, Congress is- in possession, of the powers which the constiti'/aon intended it should possess over the district intended to be ceded.

This brings ii,s to the inquiry, as to the probable objects of the grant of "exclusive legislation in all

' cases whatsoever," over the territory which was to constitute the seat of Government of the United States. In consulting the conrmentators upon the consifiiution, it will be foimd that the old Congress encountereci inconveniences, and even dangers, froiXL holding their sessions where State legisla- tures had exclusive local jurisdiction, and vdiere Slate aiuhordties alone were to be depended oir in matters of police and personal protection. Indeed, an adjournment of that Congress from the State of Pennsylvania to New Jersey, for a cause of this

■ description, V\diich occurred at the close of the re- volatioiiary war, no doubt contributed greatly to the introduction of this clause into the constitution of the Union. The proceedings of the old Con- gress shov.' distinctly, that the acquirement of a lerriuiiv for the seat of the Federal Legislature, ever which it siiould have exclusive or special ju- nsdic^ioa, was a favorite id(?a with that body, as early as the year 1'783, and that it continued up to the time of the formation of the constitution. Upon this point your committee will only detain the House with a few of the resolutions adopted by the old Congress that go to establish it. On the 7th of October, 1783, a resolution was passed, " that buildings for the use of Congress be erected on or near the banks of the Delaware,* provided a sui-

j table district can be procured on or near the banks ' ,.of the said river for a federal town, and that the right of soil, and exclusive, or such other jurisdic- tion as Congress may direct, shall be vested in the United States." On the 21st of the same month (October, 1783) another resolution was passed, pre- ceded by a preamble as follows : " Whereas there is reason to expect that the providing buildings for the alternate residence of Congress'in tw6 places will be productive of the most salutary effects, by securing the mutual confidence and affections of the States, Resolved, That buildings be provided for the use of Congress at or near'the lower falls of the Potomac, t or Georgelown, provided a sui- table district on the banks of the river can be pro- cured for a federal tov-n, and the right of soil, and an exclusive jurisdiction, or such other as Con- gress may direct, shall be vested in the United States."

* Journals of the Old Congress, vol. iv. p. 288. t Journals of the Old Congress, p. 299.

On the 20th of December, 1784, the o]d Congress passed, among others, the following resolutions:

"Resolved, That it is expedient that Congress proceed to take measures for procuring suitable buildings to be erected for their accommodation.

'■^Resolved, That it is inexpedient for Congress, at this ti-ne, to erect public buildings for their ac- commodation at more ihan one place."

These resolutions by the continental Congress, as to the expedfency and iKBcessity for a territory for the seat of the Federal Government, over which it should have peculiar if not exclusive ju- risdiction, are produced to shov/ the origin of the provision in the constitution upon that subject, and the object ibr which the acquisition of such a terri- tory was desired. That object, beyond all ques- tion, was to secure a seat for the Federal Govern- ment, where the power of self-protection should be ample and complete, and where it might be exer- cised without collision or conflict with :he legisla- tive powers of any of the States, so far as its exer- cise should be required for the great national pur- poses for Vv'hich the peculiar or exclusive jurisdic- tion was sought to be obtained. The jurisdiction was made exclusive, not as your committee believe, and as they think every considerate citizen will ad- mit, to change the object of the grant of the juris- diction when it should be made, but to secure that object more eflectually by making the Federal Go- vernment independent of State interference, and of State protection, within the district where it was to be located, and where its deliberations sliould be- held. Had the legislative povv'er oi Congress over this District not been made exclusive, one of the great and wise objects intended to be secured, tlie prevention of conflict between Federal and State legislation, Vv'ould have been necessarily defeated. Every statesman will admit the extreme inconve- nience and danger of granting powers of legisla- tion of the same character, and to be exercised within the same territory (pov.'ers of local and mu- nicipal legislation,) to two distinct ?jid independent legislative bodies; a,nd the extreme difiiculty, if not im40ossibility, of so defining the portions of power to be exercised by each, as to prevent con- stant conflict and collision. This must have been the result, if any division of the powers of local legislation, within the District of Columbia, had been made between Congress and the States by which the territory was ceded to the United States, Congress required all that power which, through all time, would be indispensably ne^ essary for its own protection, and also to render a] I the depart- ments of the Federal Government independent of State authority, and entirely dependent on, and obedient to, the Federal Legislature, and it alone, in all matters of police or 'municipal legislation. The adoption of the Federal Constitution by the people of the several States Avith this provision in it, shows that the attainment of these objects was considered of paramount importance; and hence, in the judgment of your committee, the power in question was made exclusive.

Assuming the correctness of these preniises, the next inquiry is, what expeciations were the States bv vrhich the District v/as ceded, as v/ell as their sister States, authorized to entertain as to the exer- cise by Congress of the legisla-tive powers derived from these cessions'? The cessions included not only a portion of (lie territory of those States, but also a portion of their citizens. To secure the great national objects intended by the cession, the

jurisdiction of the States over those citizens, as ■well as over the territory of the District, was trans- ferred to the Federal Legislature. This transfer, from the necessity of the case, abridged the rights of the citizens within the territory, who had been formerly entitled to vote for their legislators and other rulers, by subjecting tliem to a Government composed of persons in whose election they were to have no choice. Their governance, however, was confided to those entrusted with the common government of all the States ; and when we reflect upon the confidence reposed in Congress by the States thar made the transfer, and by the citizens transferred, it accounts at once for the readiness with which the cession was eifected. Still, the ques- tion recurs, what expectations might reasonably be entertained by the States making the cession, by the other States of the Confederacy, so far as their in- terests were directlj'' or indirectly involved, and by the citizens 'thus placed under th@ peculiar care of Congress, as to its exercise of the powers conferred upon it by this cession of territories for a seat of the Federal Govermnenf?

Your committee have no hesitation to say, in an- swer to this inquir)'-, that those expectations, by all the parties interested, not only might, but must have been, that Congress would exercise the powers con- ferred, so far as their exercise should be found necessary for the great national objects of the ces- sion, with strict reference to the accomplishment of those objects; and that all other powers conferred by the cession would be exercised with an equally strict reference to the interests and welfare of the inhabitants of the District — those citizens of tv.~o free States vdio had been made dependent on Con- gress for their local legislation, for the protection of life, liberty, and property — rights gTiarantied by the constitution to a,ll the citizens of the Confede- racy— in order that a seat for the Federal Govern- ment, subject to the exclusive control of Congress, might be granted to it. If these positions are cor- rect, it follows necessarily that the institutions, the customs, the rights, the property, and every other incident pertaining to ihose citizens, and municipal in its character, which they enjoyed as citizens of the States to which they belonged before the cession of the District, and which did not then, and have not yet, interfered with the great national rights and privileges intended to be secured by the ces sion, should have been hitherto, and should be in all time to come, guarded and preserved with the same paternal care and kindness with which the Legislatures of the States, to which they belonged, would ha'.'G guarded and protected them if they had continued to be intrusted to their respective jurisdictions.

Your committee rely confidently upon this as lli.e great rule for the faithful action of Congress in reference to this subject. They feel assured that no rational man will differ with them. Two ques- tions, then, remain to be considered, to determine whether Congress should or should not attemjit to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia viz:

L Do the great national objects which were in- tended to be secured to the Federal Governmeiit by the cession of the territory require such action on the part of Congress 1

Your committee will make no argument upon so plain a proposition. No individual within their knowledge, not even the most deluded fanatic, has ever asked, or attempted to justify, a measure of

this description upon such a pretext. The security and independence of Congress, from the moment of its removal to this District to the present hour, have been as perfect as the framers of the constitu- tion could have desired. No intimation has ever been heard that the existence of slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia has ever produced the slightest danger or inconvenience either to the interests or to the officers of the Federal Govern^ient withm it. Surely, then, Congress cannot be called upon to interfere with that'institution v.dthin the District as one of its duties growing out of the national objects connected with the cession; and if such interference is demanded fi'om it, the demand must grow out of its relations to the District as a local leigslature. This brings the committee to the remaining ques- tion.

2. Would the States of Maryland and Virginia, if the cession of this territory to the Federal Go- vernm.ent had not been made, from any thing which has been shown to Congress, be induced to interfere with, or abolish, the institution of domestic slavery within it 1

At the time of the cession from those States, slavery existed in every portion of their territory, in the same degree, and subject to the same laws and regulations by which it was authorized and regulated in the territory ceded to the Federal Go- vernment. It still exists in those States, Avithout any material variation or modification of their laws respecting it. As those States, then, have not abo- lished it within the territories remaining under their jurisdiction, is it reasonable to suppose that they would have abolished it in the territory com- prising the District, had they continued to retain their original jurisdiction over if? Can any reason v/hatever be given for the abolition of slavery in this particular District, which does not apply with equal force to every, other slaveholding section of the country 1 Can any cause be shown why the States of Maryland and Virginia would have abo- lished, or would now abolish, slavery in this Dis- trict, had it continued to form a part of those States respectively, which Avould not have wa,rranted or produced general abolition throughout those States'? Mo^t unquestionably not! As those States, then, have not abolished slavery in the residue of their territory, it is evident that they would not have abolished it in the District of Columbia, if it had continued subject to their action. It follows conclu- sively, therefore, that Congress, as the local legisla- ture of the District, and acting independently of the national considerations connected with its powers over it, is bound, for the preservation of the public faith, and the rights of all ths parties interested, to ■ act upon the same reasons, and. to exercise the same naternal regard, which would have governed the States by which the District was ceded to the Fede- ral Government. And it is unne-.essary to add, that Congress has acted wisely in treating the in- stitutions found in existence at the time of the ces- sion as the institutions of the people of the District; in continuing their laws and customs, as the laws and customs to which they had been used, and which should never be altered, or interfered with, except where the people themselves may be de- sirous of a change.

Your committee must gp further, and express their full conviction, that any interference by Con- "■ress with the private interests or rights of the citi- zens of this District, without their consent, would ibe a breach of the faith reposed in the Federal Go-

8

vernment by the States that made the cession, and as violent an infraction of private rights as it would have been if those States themselves, supposing their jurisdiction had remained unimpaired over their territory, had abolished slavery within those portions of their respective limits, and had continued its existence, upon its present basis, in every other portion of them. And surely there is no citizen, in any quarter of the country, who has the smallest regard for our laws and institutions, State and na- tional, or for equal justice, and an equality of rights and priifileges among citizens entitled to it, who would attempt to justify such an outrage on the part of those States. The question then is, Are the citizens of the District desirous of a change themselves 1 Has any request or movement been made by them that would justify an interference with their private rights on the part of Congress ? None, whatever! The citizens of the District not only have not solicited any action on the part of Congress, but it is well known that they earnestly deprecate such action, and regard, with abhorrence, the elTorts that are made by others, who have no interest whatever in the District, to effect it. It is impossible, therefore, that any such interference on the part of Congress could be justified, or even pal- liated, on the ground that it was sought or desired by those who are alone interested in the subject. If, therefore, Congress were to interfere with this description of property against the consent of the people of the District, your committee feel bound to say, that it would be as gross a breach of public faith, and as outrageous an infraction of private rights, as it would have been if such an interference had been committed by the States of which the Dis- trict was formerly a part^ supposing that it never had been ceded to the United States.

Your committee will here anticipate an objection which may be urged against this reasoning and these conclusions. They have shown that the pov/ers of Congress over this District divide them- selves into two classes, national and local; that in reference to the former, the action of Congress should be governed by the interests of the whole country, so far as they are connected Vv'ith the branches of the Federal Government located v.'ithin the District; that in reference to the latter, its powers are, and its action should be, those of a lo- cal and municipal legislature, extending i:ts paternal care and protection over the citizens dependent up- on, and subjected to, this branch of its authority; that in the exercise of its powers, the safest stand m reference to slavery is, what Avould the States to which the District originally belonged, and of which its citizens were originally citizens, have done in case their jurisdiction had never been transferred to Congress ; and that those States would certainly not ha,ve interfered with the institution of slavery in the District, had the power to do so remained v/ith them. The obiection anticipated is, that the States in question have pursued an unv-ase policy as to themselves, and that their having done so should not have bound Congress, as the local legislature of the District, to a similar policy m relation to its government. To this, however, your committee consider it perfectly conclusive to repty, that under ofour institutions, 'that people is the best governe which IS governed most in accordance with its own habits, interests, and wishes; that the policy hitherto pursued by Congress in reference to slavery within the Distiict, your committee have every reason to believe, has been in perfect conformity with the

wishes and interests of the citizens concerned; and that it will be time enough for Congress, acting as the local legislature of the District, and in that ca- pacity bound to consult the governed, as the regu- lators of its action, to move in any matter relating to their private interests and rights when they them- selves shall ask such movement.

There is another consideration connected with this part of the argument, which your committee think Avorthy of attention. It is this : that there is no law in the District prohibiting the master from manumitting his slaves, which he may do at his OAvn discretion, and without incurring any respon- sibility whatever. Certain it is that'no such law has been passed by Congress. The citizens of the District, therefore, have no necessity for the aid of Congress, should they wish the abolition of slavery among them. They have only to exercise an ex- isting right, and their wish will be accomplished. Can there be more decisive evidence, then, that they do not wish the abolition of slavery, than that it continues to exist among them 1 or can any one desire more conclusive proof that any attempt by Congress to effect this object by the force of law would be an interference with the rights of private property, against the wishes and consent of those concerned, and for none of the purposes for v,'hich Congress is authorized by the constitution to take private property for public use 1

Hence, your committee believe they have proved, beyond the power of contradiction, that an inter- ference by Congress with slavery in the District of Columbia would be a violation of the public faith — of the faith reposed in Cc ngress by the States which ceded the territory to the Federal Govern- ment, so far as the rights and interests of those citi- zens residing within the ceded territory are con- cerned.

Your com.mittee will novi^ consider this proposi- tion in reference to the interests of the States o Maryland and Virginia,. They Avere slavehokling States at the time they made their cession, and they are so still. They entirely surround this District, from which th'ey are only separated upon all sides by imaginary lines, They made the cession for the great national oJDJects which have been already pointed cait, and they made it from motives of pa- iriotism alone, and Avithout any compensation from the Federal Government for the surrender of juris- diction oA^er commanding positions in both States. The surrender Avas made for purposes deemed suflicieutly important, by ail the original States, to be provided for in the constitution of the United States; and it Avas made in conformity Avith that provision of the constitution. It is surely unne- cessary, after this statement of facts, to undertake to shoAv that those patriotic States made this cession for purposes of good to the Union, and conse- quently to themselves, and not for purposes of evil to themselves, and consequently to the Union; and that the Government of the United States accepted the cession for the same good, and not for evil, pur- poses.

If, then, it can be demonstrated that tlie abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia Avould pro- duce evil, and not good, to the States that made the cession, the conclusion is ineA'"itable that such an a,ct on the part of Congress AA'Ould be a violation of the faith reposed in it by those States. To all to Avhom this is not perfectly palpable without an ar- gument, the following considerations kre presented :

It has been already said that the States of Mary-

land and "Virginia surround the District. It has also been sho-mi that, in reference to slavery within the District, the relations of Congress are entirely those of a local legislature, and that its action therefore, in this capacity, should be governed by the same reasons which would have governed those States themselves in relation to this subject, if their jurisdiction over this territory had never been surrendered. Let us suppose, then, that this jurisdiction had never been surrendered by Mary- land and Virginia, and that it was now proposed that they sLould abolish slavery, and relinquish all power of legislation over free blacks, within the portions of those Slates which constitute the Dis- trict of Columbia, retaining their respective insti- tutions of slavery in all the remaining portions of their territory. Who is there that would not be amazed at the folly of such an acf? Who does not see that such a step would necessarily produce dis- content and insurrections in the remaining portions of those States 1 Who does not perceive that under such circumstances the District would constitute at once a neutral ground, upon which hosts of free blacks, fugitive slaves, and incendiaries, would be assembled in the work of general abolitionism; and that from such a magazine of evil, every conceiva- ble mischief would be spread through the surroun- ding country, with almost the rapidity of the move ments of the atm^osphere? Surely n o one can doubt the certainty of the consequential evils in the case sup- posed. How then can any doub: or deny the dan- gers in the case before us"? The territory is the same ; it is surrounded by the same portions of slaveholding States; and the only difierence is, that in the case supposed, the abolition would be the work of State authorities, Avhile, in the other, it is sought to accomplish it by the authority of Con- gress. The condition of things before and after it is done, is the same in both cases, and the opportu- nities for mischief, in case the work be accom- plished, are equal in both. Can it be necessary to say more, to establish the position, that any inter- ference Avith slavery in the District of Columbia, on the part of Congress, would be a violation of the public faith, the faith reposed in Congress by those States, and without v.rhich they never could have been induced to have made that cession 1

It only remains under this head to show that Con- gress could not interfere with slavery in the Dis- trict of Colmnbia, without a violation of the public faith, in reference to the slaveholding States gener- ally, as well as to the States of Virginia and Ma,ry- land. The provision in the constitution authoriz- ing Congress to accept the cession of a territory for a seat of the Federal Government, and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it, was as general and universal as any other provision in that instrument. In its national objects all the States Avere equally interested, and so far as there was any danger that the powers of local legislation conferred on Con- gress niiglit interfere with, or injuriously affect, the institutions of the various States, each State pos- sessed an interest proportioned to the probable dan- ger to itself. As far as your committee know or believe, however, no apprehension of an interfer- ence on the subject of domestic slavery was enter- tained in any qua)tcr, or expressed by any states- man of the day. An examination of the commen- taries on the constitution Avill show that variotis apprehensions were entertained, as to the powers conferred on Congress, by this clause, such as that privileged classes of society might be created within

the District; that a standing army, dangerous to the liberties of the country, might be organized and sustained within it, and the like; but not a sugges- tion can be found that, under the local powers to be conferred, any attempt would be made to interfere with the private rights of the citizens who might be embraced within the District, or to disturb, or change, direclly,or by consequence, the municipal institutions of the States, or that the subject of do- mestic slavery, as it existed in the States, could be in any way involved in the proposed cession. At that time, all the States held slaves. Many of them have since, by their own independent action, with-- out influence or interference from the Federal Go- vernment, or from their sister States, effected, in their own time and vvay, the work of emancipation ; others of the original States, remain as they were at the time of the adoption of the constitution, in reference to this description of , property, and seve- ral new members have been admitted into the Union as slaveholding States. All the States which have held, or nov/ hold, slave property, have invariably considered the institution as one exclu- sively subject to State authority, and not to be affected, directly or indirectl)^, by Federal inter- ference. The practice of the Government, as well as its theory, has established this doctrine, and the action of the States, in retaining or abolishing the institution at pleasure, has conformed entirely to this principle. Now the subject of Federal inter- ference has become one of some agitation, and Congress is solicited to adopt measures in relation to the District of Columbia, which have been shown to be most dangerous and destructive to the security and interests of the two slaveholding States by which it was ceded to the Federal Go- Arernment. Your committee v/ill not trouble the House to prove, that any measure of the Federal Legislature, which would have this tendency in those two States, would, from the very necessity of the case, and the unity of the interest wherever it exists, have the same tendency, measurably, in all the other slaveholding meml5ers of the Union. This position is too plain for argument. If, then, all the States Avere equally interested in the national objects for Avhich this territory Avas ceded as the seat of the Federal GoA'crnment: if that cession Avas designed by the framers of the constitution, to enure to "the benefit of the whole confederacy, and Avas made in furtherance of that design; and if Congress, contrary to the obvious iuient and spirit of the cession, shall do an act not required by the national objects contemplated by it, but directly re- pugnant to the interests and Avishes of the citizens of the ceded territory, and calculated to disturb the peace, and endanger the interests, of the slave- holding members cf the Union, such an act must be in violation of the public faith; of the faith re- posed in Congress by the States that made the ces- sion, and which Avould be deeply injured by such an exercise of power under it ; and also of the faith reposed in that body by all the States, inasmuch as no independent State in the Union can be injured in its peace, or its rightful interests, by the action of the Federal Gouernment, Avithout a corresponding injury to every member of the confederated Stales., Your committee have already shown that an in- terference with slavery in the District of Columbia, Avould involve a violation of the public faith, as regards the rights and interests of the citizens thereof. They recur to this topic, however, on ac- count of its importance, and for the purpose of put-

10

ting it in another light, and, as they consider, upon unanswerable ground. They are aware that, under the constitution,* Congress possesses " exclusive legislation" over the aforesaid District; but the power of legislation was given to be exercised for beneficial purposes only, and cannot, therefore, be exercised, consistently with public faith, for any object that is at war with the great principles npon which the Government itself is founded. The con- stitution, to be properly understood, must be taken as a whole. Wherever a particular power is grant- ed, the extent to which it may be carried, can only •be inferred from other provisions by v/hich it may be regulated or restrained. The constitution, while it confers upon Congress exclusive legislation vjith- m this District, does not, and could not, confer un- limited or despotic authority over it. It could con- fer no power contrary to the fundamental princi- ples of the constitution itself, and the essential and unalienable rights of American citizens. The right to legislate, therefore, (to make the constitu- tion consistent with itself,) is evidently qualified by the provision that "no man shall be" deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,"t and various others of a similar character. We lay it down as a rule, that no Government can do any thing directly repugnant to the principles of natural jus; ice and of the social compact. It wouM be totally subversive of all the purposes for which governmeru is instituted. Vattel says : "The great end of civil society is, whatever constitutes happi- ness with the peaceful posse.-jsion of property." No republican would tolerate that a man should be punished, hy a special statute, for an act not legally punishable at the time of its commission. No republican could approve any system of legislation by which private contracts, lawfully made, should be declaied null and void, or by which the property of fin inui Vidua], lawfully acquired, should be arbi- trarily wrested from him by the high hand of power. But these great principles are not left for their sup- port to the natural feelings of the human heart, or to the mere general spirit of republican govern- ment. They are expressly incorporated in ihe con- stitution, aiid they have aJso been recognised, and insisted on, by the Supreme Court of the United States, which lays down the following sound and incontrovertible doctrine : " There are acts which the Federal or State Legislatures cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican Government , which will determine and overrule an apparent and fla- grant abuse of legislative power ;^ as to authorize manifest injusiice by positive law, or to take away that security fo r personal liberty or private property, for the 'protection whereof the Government was established. Ah act of the legislature, contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of lestslative oai- thority. The obligation. of a law, in Governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded. ' A ieAv instances will sufiice to explain. A law that punished a citi- zen for an innocent action, or that was in violation of an existing law ; a law that destroys or impairs the obligation of the lawful private contracts of citizens ; a law that makes a man a judge in his own case ; or a lav/ that takes property from A, and

* Article 1, section 8.

t Amendments lo the Constitution, art, 5.

gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such pow- ers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The legislature may enjoin or per- mit, forbid or punish ; they may declare new crimes,, and establish rules of conduct lor future cases; but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the rightsi of an antecedent lawful private contract, or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal or State Legislatures possess such powers, even if they had not been expressly restrained, would be a, political heresy, altogether inadmissible m our free republican Governmcnl."t Now, every principle here affirmed by the court, applies to, and protects, the people of this District, as well as the people of the States. The inhabitanis of this Dis- trict are a part of the people of the United States. Every right and interest secured by the constitu- tion to the people of the States, is equally secured to the people of the District. Congress can there- fore do no act aifecting property or person, in rela- tion to this District, which it is prohibited to do m. relation to the citizens of the States, without a di- rect violation of the public faith. For insta.nce, it is a well settled constitutional principle, that " pri- vate property shall not be taken for public use, •■ ith- out just compensation." Now, the true meaning of tills provision obviously is, that private property shall be taken only for public use, but shall not be taken, even then, without adequate remuneration. It is evident, however, in reference to slavery, either that the Government would use the slaves, or that it y/ould not. If it would use them, then thejr would not be emancipated • and it v/ould be an idle mockery to talk of the freedom of those who would only cease to be private, to become pub- lic, slaves. If it would not use them, then how- could it be said that they were taken for the public use, consistently with the provision just recited'? But even if they could be taken without reference to public use, they could not be taken v/ithout just compensation. It is exceedingly questionable,- however, whether Congress could legally apply the public revenue to such an object, even Avith the con- sent of the owners of the slaves. As to emancipa- tion without their consent, and without just com- pensation, your committee will not stop to consider it. It could not bear examination. Honor, huma- nity, policy, all forbid it. It is manifest, then, from all the considerations herein stated, (and there are others equally forcible that might be urged) that Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, without a violation of the public faith.

Your committee will only add one or tv/o reflec- tions upon this interesting point.

What is the meaning of the declaration adopted by the House, in relation to the District of Colum- bia ?• Is it not, that Congress cannot, and will not,, do an act which it has solemnly proclaimed to in- volve a violation of the public faith 1 Does it not afl^brd every security to the South which it is in the power of the Federal Grovernment to afibrd '? Is it not tantamount, in its binding obligation u,pon the Government, to a positive declaration, that the abo- ' lition of slavery in the District of Columbia would be unconstitutional 1 Nay, is it not even more efficacious in point of fact? Constitutional provi- sions are maUers of construction. The opinion of

t Dallas's Rep. vol, 3, p. S88.

11

one House, upon an abstract controverted point, may be overruled and reversed by another. But when Congress has solemnly declared that a f arti- cular act would be a violatio?i of the public faith, is it to be supposed that it would ever violate a pledge thus given to the country"? Can any abolitionist expect iti Need any citizen of a slave ytate fear it 1 What is public faith but the honor of the Go- \ vernment 1 Why are treaties regarded as sacred and inviolable 1 Why, but because they involve the pledge, and depend upon the sanctity of the national faith 1 Why are all compacts or promises made by Governments held to be irrevocably bind- ing ■? Why, but because they cannot break them without committing perfidy, and destroying all con- fidence in their justice and integrity "; Surelj^then, your committee may say with the utmost confidence, "(and the sentiinent will be ratified by every Ameri- can heart) that the declaration now promulged in relation tolhis subject, will not be departed from by any succeeding legislature, except under cir- cumstances (should any such ever arise in the pro- gress of oar country) in which a departure- from it would not be regarded by the slaveholding States themselves, as a. wanton or arbitrary infraction of the public faith!

Your committee are further instructed to report, that, in the opinion of this House, Congress oiighi not to interfere in anj^ way with slaveiy in the Dis- trict of Columbia —

•2dly. Because it would be unwise and impolitic !

It will be palpable to the nrinds of all, that if the committee have succeeded in establishing, as they think they have, that any such interference on the j^art of Congress would be a violation of the public faith, it would be a work of supererogation to at- tempt to show, that such an act would be unv/ise and impolitic : as there may be some, however, who may not agree with them in their arguments or conclusions upon that point, they feel bound, under the instruction of the House, to ofier a few sugges- tions under this head.

The Federal Government v\'as the creation of the States of the Confederac)', and the great objects of its creation and organization " were to form amore perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillit}', and provide for the common defence and general welfare."

Appi)' these principles, then, to an interference by Congress with slaveiy in the District of Colum- bia. Sucn action, to be politic, must be in accord- ance with some one of those great objects ; and it will be the duty of the committee, in as concise a manner as possible, to show that it would not be in accordance with either of them.

First, then, as to the District itself.

It has already been shown, thatanj'' interference, unsolicited by the inhabitants of the District, can- not " establish justice," or promote the cause of jusfice within it,, but directly the reverse. No greater degree of slavery exists here now, than did exist vv'hen the constitution was adopted, and then the inhabitants of the District were citizens of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and had a voice in the adoption of that instrument. Surely their subsequent transfer to the jurisdiction of Congress, i made in conformity with that constitution, could not | deprive them of the protection to which tl)ey were j entitled by these great leading principles of it. On the contrary, they had every right to expect that Congress woukl •' establish justice," as to them, in strict compliance with the great charter under

wh,ich it acted, and by which it is forbidden to in- terfere with the rights of private property, with- out their consent, or in any way to affect, inju- riously, their domestic institutions. Of those in- stitutions, slavery w'as, and is, the most important; and any attempt on the part of Congress, acting as the local Legislature of the District, to abolish it, Avouid not only be impolitic, but an act of gross in- justice and oppression.

Secondly, as to the States of the* Union. Here again, your committee have but to refer to their former remarks, to show that the abolition of slavery in the District vi'oukl not "establish justice," but work great injustice to the surrounding States in. particular, and to all the slave States in general,, and in a degree proportioned to their proximity to the District, and to the influence upon the institu- tion of slaver}^ in the Union, of such action on the part of Congress. They have also shown that the abolition of slavery here, so far from tending to "ensure domestic tranquillity," would have a direct tendency to produce domestic discord and violence, and servile w^ar, in all the slaveholding States. As these consequences, then, would foUovi^ such action, in reference to the States, yoiu' committee need not say, that, instead of providing for " the common de- fence by it,'' Congress would be called upon to pro- vide for the common defence" in consccfuence of it, and to an extent which cannot nov/ be foreseen. Seeing, then, that the American Confederacy was formed for the great objects of providing for "the common defence and general v/elfare," it follov.-s, necessarily, that Congress is not only restrained frotn the commission of any act by v/hicli tliese ob- jects may be frustrated, but that it is bound to ^sus- tain and promote them. The same provision of the constitution* which requires it to call out the militia to " suppress insurrections," unquestionably im- poses the corresponding obligation upon it, to com- mit no act by which an insurrectionary spirit may be excited. "The same provision wdiich enjoins it on the Federal Government to "guaranty to each State a republican form of government, and to aid and protect each State against domestic vioience,"t evidently nnplies the correlative obligation to take no step, of which the direct and inevitable tendency would be to overthrovv^ the State Governments, and* to involve them in wide .spread scenes of misery and desolation. In one word, if it be the duty of Congress, as it most clearly is, to support and pre- serve the constitution and the Union, tb.en it is manifest, that it is bound to avoid the adoption of any legislation which may lead to their de-i ruction. Your committee consider these positions too ob- vious to require argum.ent or illustration. They consider it equally manifest, that any attempt to abolish slavery in" the District, would necessarily tend to the deplorable consequences to wlrichthey have adverted. Congress, therefore, is bnnnd, by every principle of duty which forbids ir to interfere with' slavery in any of tlie States, io abstain from any similar interfence in the District of Columbia.

Your committee have already adverted to the evils that would necessarily result to the stirroulid- ing States, and to the slave States generally, from any interference by Congress with the inslitution of slavery in the District of Columbia. The nature and rnagnitude of those evils, however, require that they should be exhibited more fully and dis-

* Cnn. art. 1, gee. 8. \ Art. 4, sec. 4.

12

tinc'Jy. The question is, whether slavery ought to be abolished m the District of Columbia 1 Npw suppose the affirmative of this proposition were sus- tained by Congress, what would it be but indi- rect legislation, or rather direct interference, as re- gards the rights and property of the southern States. And can any one imagine that such a state of things would be patiently borne 1 But this is not all ; nav, it is not half the evil that would follow. Could slavery be abolished in the District without leading directly and inevitably to insubordination and re- volt throughout the south'? And can anyone de- sire to produce such results'? Is there a man who has forgotten the history of St. Domingo, or the in- surgent attempt at Charleston, or the tragical scenes at Southampton ! or the recent and lamentable occur- rences in the States of Louisiana and Mississippi'? or is there an individual who would wish them re- peated, and extended throughout the entire region of the south "? Why , then , will infatuated individ u- als persist in pressing a scheme, which is not only impracticable, as regar»3 the States, but fraught with evil to the verj objects it is proposed to benefit "? True philanthropy would avoid this sub- ject, seeing the distraction it creates, and the dread- ful consequences it involves. It would leave it to those whom ii most concerns, and who alone are competent to act upon it. It would trust to time, and to tljc gradual operation of causes which may arise of themselves, but which can neither be pro- duced ncr hastened by foreign interference, or the power of ibis G!-overnment. Why, Hi en, your com- mittee earnestly repeat, why urge a measure whiclx is clearly impracticable in itself, which none but he slaveholding States have a right to act on, and which has increased, and will always' increase, the hardships and restraints ot those for whose im.agi- nary benefit they arc waging this cruel and fanati- cal crusade 1

^ We have said that the scheme of general eman- cipation is impracticable. The slightest reilection must satisfy every candid mind of the truth of this assertion. ,

_ Admitting that the Federal Government had a right to act upon this matter, which it clearly has "not, it certainly never could achieve such an opera- tion without full compensation to the owners. 'And what would probably 'be the amount required'? The aggregate value of' all that species of propertv is not less probably than four hundred millions of dol- lars ! And hov/ could such an amount be raised 1 Will the people of this coumry ever consent to the imposition of oppressive taxes, that the proceeds niay be applied to the purchase of slaves '? The idea is preposterous ; and not only that, but it is susceptible of demonstration, that even if an annu- alappropriation of ten millions were actually ap- plied to the purchase and transportation of slaves, the Avhole number \vox\\A not be sensibly diminished at the expiration of half a ceniuiy, from the natural growih and multiplication of the race. Burthen the Treasury as we might, it would still be an end- less expense and an inrerminable work. And this view of the subject surely is sufhcient of itself to prove, that of all the schemes ever projected by fanaticism, the idea of universal emancipation is the most visionary and impracticable.

But even if the scheme were practicable, what would be gained by effecting if? Suppose that Congress could emancipate all the slaves in th- Union, is such a resuU desirable'? This question is addressed to the sober sense of the people of

America. Would it be politic or advantageous'? Would it contribute to the wealth, or grandeur, or happiness of our country 1 On the contrary, would it not produce consequences directly the reverse'?) Are not the slaves unUt for freedom ; notoriously ig- norant, servile, and depraved '? and Avould any ra- tional man have them instantaneously transformed into freemen, with all the rights and privileges of American citizens'? Are they ca;pable of under- standing correctly the nature of our Government, or exercising judiciously a single political right or privilege. Nay, would they even be capable of earning their own livelihood, or rearing their fami- lies independently by their own ingenuity and in- dustry ! What then would follow from their libera- tion, but the most deplorable state of socieiy with which any civilized country was ever cursed '? How would vice and immorality, and licentious- ness, overrun the land '? How many jails and penitentiaries, tliat now seldom hold a prisoner, would be crowded to suffication '? How many fer- tile fields, .that now jaeld regular and abundant harvests, would lie unoccupied and desolate '? How Vi'ould the foreign commerce of the south, decline and disappear 1 How many thousands of seamen, of whom southern agriculture is the very life, vrould be driven for support to foreign countries'? And how large a portion of the federal revenue, derived from fcreig-n commodities exchanged for southern products, would be lost forever to tiiis Government ■? And, in addition to all this, what would be the con- dition of southern society, were all the slaves eman- cipated '? Would the whites consent that the blacks should be placed upon a full footing of equality with them'? Unquestionably not ! Either the one class or the other would be forced to emigrate, and, in either case, the Vv'hole region of the south would be a scene of poverty and ruin. Or, what is stili more probable, the blacks would every where be driven before the whites, as'the Indians have been, until they were exterminated from the earth. ■ And surely it is unnecessary to remark, that decaj^ and desolation could not break down the south, with- out producing a corresponding depression upon the wealth and enterprise of the northern States. And here let us ask, too, what would be the condi- tion of the non-slaveholding States themselves, as regards the blacks "? Are they prepared to receive myriads of negroes, and place them upon an equali- ty with the free white laborers and mechanics, who constitute their pride and strength '? Will the new States consent 'that their territory shall be occupied by negroes, instead of the enterprising, intelligent, and patriotic white population, which is, daily seek- ing their borders from other portions of the Union'? Shall the yeomanry of those States be surrounded by thousands of such bemgs, and the white laborer forced inl,o competition and association with them'? Are they to enjo3''lhe same civil and political privi- leges as the free white citizens of the north and west, and to be admitted into the social circle as their friends and companions'? Nothing less than all this will constitute perfect freedom and the princi- ples now maintained by those who advocate eman- cipation wouVl, if carried out, necessarily produce this state of things ! Yet, Avho believes that it would be tolerated for a moment % Already have laws been passed in several of the non-slaveholding Stntps to exclude free blacks from a settlement wLhi:- their limits; and a prospect of general and immediate abolition would compel them, in self- defence, to resort to a system of measures much

13

more rigorous and eflTective than any which have yei been adopted. Driven from the south then, the blacks would find no place of refuge in the north ; and, as before remarked, utter extermination would be the probable, if not the inevitable, fate of the whole race. Where is the citizen then, that can desire such results'? Where the American who can contemplate them without emotion'? Where the abolitionist that will not pause, in view of the direful consequences of his scheme, both to the whites and the blacks, to the north and the south, and to the whole Union at large 1

Your committee deem it their duty to say that, in their opinion, the people of the south have been very unjustly censiued in reference to slavery. It is nol their purpose, however, to defend them. Their character, as men and citizens, needs no vindica- tion from us. Wherever it is known it speaks for itself, nor would any wantonly traduce it, but those assassins of reputation, who are also williEg to be the destroyers of life. Exaggerated pictures have been drawn of the hardships of the slave, and every effort made to malign the south, and to enlist against it both the religious and political feeliug of the nurth. Yotir committee cannot too strongly ex- press their unanimous and unqualified disapproba- tion of all such movements. The constitution, un- der which we live, was framed by our common an- cestors, to preserve the liberty and independence achieved by their united efforts in the council and the field. In all our contests with foreign enemies, the south has exhibited an unwavering attachment to the common cause. Where is the spot of which Americans are prouder than the plains of York- town 1 Or, when was Britain more humbled, or America more honored, than by the victory of New Orleans'? All our history, from the revolution down, attests the high, and uniform, and dev iicd, patriotism of the south. Her domestic institutions are her own. They were brought into the Union with her, and .secured by the compact which maJ-zes us one people ; and he who would sow dissensions among members of the same great political family, by assailing the institutions, and impugning the character of the citizens of the south, should be re- garded as an enemy to the peace and prosperity of (jiir conmon country.

If there is a feature by which the present age may be said to be clraracterizcd, it is that sickly senti- mentality which, disregarding the pressing claims and wants of its own immediate neighborhood, or town, or State, wa.stes and dissipates itself in visionary, and often very mischievous, enterprizes, for the imaginary beneiit of remote communities. Trae philanthropy, righlly understood and pro- perly applied, is one of the purest and most enob- ling principles of our nature; but, misdirected or perverterl, it degenerates into that fell spirit of fanaticism which disregards all ties, and tramples on all obstacles, however sacred or venerable, in the relemles.s prosecution of its horrid purposes. Experience proves, however, that, when individuals in one place, mistaking the true character of bene- volence, rashly undertake, at the irnmenent hazard of conflict and convulsion, to re:ncdy what they are pleased to consider evils and distresses in another, it is naturally regarded by those who are thus in- jured, either as a species of madness which may be repelled or resisted, as any otl.er madness may, or a<; manifesting afecling of hostility on the one side which must necessarily produce corresponding aljc-na'.ion on the other. It k all important, thcre^

fore, that the spirit of abolition, or in other wordSj of illegal and officious interference with the domes- tic institutions of the south, should be arrested and put down ; and men of intelligence and influence at the north should endeavor to produce that sound and rational state of public opinion which is equally due to the south and to the preservation of the Union.

And this brings your conunittee to the last posi- tion they have been instructed to sustain; and that is, that, in the opinion of this House, Congress- ought not to inlerlere, in any way, with slavery in. the District of Columbia.

3dly. Because it would be dangerous to the Union.

The first great object enumerated in the consti- tution, as an inducement to its adoption, was to " form a more perfect union." At that time, all the States held slaves, to a greater or less extent; and slavery in the Slates was fully recognised and provided for, in many particulars, in that instru- ment itself It was recognised, however, and all the provisions upon the subject so regarded it, as a State, and not a national institution. At that time, too, as has been before remarked, the District of Columbia constituted an integral part of two of the independent States which became parties to the Confederacy and to the constitution itself. Since that time an entir* emancipation of slaves has taken place in several of the old States; but in all cases this has been the work .of the States them- selves, without any interference whatever by the Federal Government. New States have also been admitted into the Union, with an interdiction in their con.stitutions against involuntary servitude, n this way, the slave States have become a mi- nority in representation in the Federal Legislature. Their interests, however, as States, in the institu- tion of domestic slavery, as it exists within their limits, have not diminished, nor has their right to perfect security under the constitution, in reference to this description of property, been in any way, or to any degree, surrendered or impaired, "since the adoption of that instrument by themselves and their sister States.

The operation of causes, to a great extent natu- ral, and proceeding from climate, soil, and conse- quent production, has rendered slavery a local and sectional institution, and has thus added another to the most alarming apprehensions of patriots lor the perpetuity of this Union — the apprehension of local and geographical interests and distinctions. How immensely important is it then, that Congress should do no act, and assume no jurisdiction, in, reference to this great interest, by which it shall ever appear to place itself in the attitude of a local, instead of a national tribunal — a partial agent, pro- viding for peculiar and sectional objects and feel- ings, instead of a general and paternal legislature, equally and impartially promoting ihe general wel- fare of all the Stales. No one can fail to see, that any other course on the part of Congress, must weaken the confidence of the injured States in the federal authority, and, to the same extent, prove " dangerous to the Union."

Since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the Distiict of Columbia has been ceded to the United Stales as a seat of ilie Federal Government; but not only many eminent staUismen of tlie coun- try, but all of the sUtveholding States, speaking tli'rough their legislative a.sseml>lies. firmly believe and itisist that the cession so niade has conferred

14

upon Congress no constitutional power to abolish slavery wrthin the ceded territory. Your commit- tee have abstained from an examination of this question, because they were not instructed to dis- cuss it. But the)'' have no hesitation to say, that, in the view they have taken of the whole question, the obligations of Congress not to act on this sub- ject are as fully binding and insuperable as a posi- tive constitutional interdict, or an open acknow- ledgment of want of power.

Considering the subject in this light, your com- mittee have already proved, that any interference by Congress with the subject of slavery, would be evidently calculated to injure the interests and dis- turb the peace of the slaveholding States; and if the}'' hafe succeeded in establishing this position, no argument is necessary to show, that such con- sequences, springing from the action of Congress as the local legislature of the District, would emi- nently endanger the existence of this Union. It has also been s>iown, that Congress, as the legisla- ture ol the Union, can have no constitutional power over this subject ; and that its powers, as a local legislature of the District, were granted for the mere purpose of rendering its general powers per- fect and free from conflict and collision with State authorities. It has also been shown that these local powers should be so exercised as to confer the greatest benefits upon the citizens residing within the District, Aviih the least possible injury to the peculiar interests of any State, or the general interests of all the States. Your committee have also shovrn, as they think successfully, that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia would be a deep injury to the citizens of the Dis- trict, and, therefore, a violation of the trust reposed in Congress as the local legislature of the District; and, also, that it would inflict an incurable injur^'' upon all the slaveholding States, and would, there- foi'e, be an equal violation of the trust reposed in that body as the Legislature of the Union. If, then, they have established these positions, as they think iliey have, can any one doubt that the action contemplated would be " dangerous to the Unionl" ■being directly calculated, as it would be, to v.'eaken the confidence of the District in Congess as a safe and faithful local legislature, and the confidence of the slaveholding States^as an impartial guardian of their in; crests.

Important as the Union is to each State, and to the whole American people, every one will admit that, as lar as possible, strict impartiality and kind feelings to all the interests and all the sections of the country should characterize the action of the Federal Government. The Union was formed for the common and equal benefit of all the States, and for the perfect and equal protection of the rights and interests of all the citizens of all the States. Its onlv strength is in the confidence of the States, and of the people, that these great benefits will ccm- tinue to be secured to them, and that these great purposes will be accomplished by its preservation . Any action, therefore, on the part of Congress, which shall weaken or destroy that confidence in any portion of our citizens, or in any State of the Union, mu*^!, inevitably, to that extent, endanger the Union itself! Who can doubt this reason iiigl Who does not know that the agitation of any ques- tion connected with domestic slavery, as it exists

his country, among any portion of our citizens, creates apprehension and excitement in the slave- holding States "? Who does not know that the agi-

tatioa of any such question in either branch of Congress, shakes their confidence in the security of their most important interests, and, consequently, in the continuance to them of those great benefits, to secure which they became parties to the Union 1 Who then does not believe tliat any action by Con- gress, having for its object the abolition of slavery in any portion of the Union, however narrow or limited it may be, would necessarily impair the confidence of the slaveholding States in their se- curity in relation to this description of property, put an end to all their hope of benefits to be derived to them from the further continuance of the Union, and alienate their aiTections from itl Were Con- gress, in a single instance, to suffer itself to be im- pelled by mere feeling in one portion of the Union, to attempt a gratification of that feeling at the sacrifice of the dearest interests and most sacred rights of another portion, who can doubt that the Union would be seriously endangered, if not destroyed! But this conclusion does not depend upon reasoning alone. The evidences of public sentiment on this point, are equally abundant and decisive. Your committee having already extend- ed their report beyond the limits to which they could have Avished to confime it, will enter into no details upon this portion of their duty. Suflice it to say that the Legislatures of several, if not all, the slave- holding Slates, have solemnly re.solved that " Con- gress has no constitutional authority to abolish sla- very in the District of Columbia." It would be ut- terly impossible, therefore, that any such attempt should be made by Congress, without producing an exciiement, and involving consequences, Avhich no patriot can contemplate without the most painful emotions. It would be regarded by the slavehold- ing States as an entering wedge to a scheme of general emancipation, and, therefore, tend to pro- duce the same results, in relation to the Federal Government and the Union, that would be pro- duced by the adoption of any measure directly af- fecting the domestic institutions of the States them- selves. Your committee will not dAvell upon the picture that is thus presented to their minds. The reflection it excites is one of mingled bitterness and horror. It is one, they trust, which is never to be realized. Looking upon their beloved country, as it now stands, the envy and admiration of the world; contemplating, as they do, that unrivalled constitution, by which a beautious family of con- federated States, each independent in its own sepa- rate sphere, revolve around a Federal head with all the harmony and regularity of the planetary system; and knowing as they do, that under the beneficient influence of our free institutions, the people of this country enjoy a degree of liberty, prosperity and happiness, not only unpossessed, but scarcely imagined, by any other upon earth; they cannot "and v.ill not advert to the horrors, or depict the consequences of that most awful day, when the sun of Arnerican freedom shall go down in blood, and nothing remain of this glorious Republic but the bleeding, scattered, and dishonored fragments It would, indeed, be the extinction of the world's last hope, and the jubilee of tyranny over All the earth !

But 3'our committee feel, that with these painfsl impressions on iheir minds, they Avould but imper- fectly discharge their duty if they did not make an earnest appeal to the patriotism of the American People to sustain the resolution adopted by the House. And they would also appeal to the good

15

sense and good feelings of that portion of the aboli- tionists, who, acting under a misraken sense of -moral and religious dutj^, have embarked in this crusade against the South, solemnly invoking them in the name of our common country, to abstain from a system of agitation which has not only fail- ed, and wlir always fail, to attain its objects, but has even brought the Union itself into a state of imminent and fearful peril. It is confidently be- lieved that this appeal will not be made in vain, ■ and that hereafter all who truly love their country will manifest their patriotism by avoiding this un- happy cause of discord and disunion; and that they "will make no further exertions upon a subject, from the continued agitation of which nothing but augmented evils can result.

Your committee conclude by reporting thefol- lowing resolutions, conformably to the instructions given them bv the House :

Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitu- tional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy.

The following are the votes on the resolutions at the conclusion of the report, viz :

On the first resolution :

YEAS — Messrs. Anthony, Ash, Barton, Bean, Bockee, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Briggs, Brown, Buchanan, Burns, W. B. Calhoun, Cam- breleng, Campbell, Carr, Casey, Chaney Chap- man, Chapirj, N. H. Claiborne, J. H. F. Claiborne, Cleveland, Cotfee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushing, Cushman, Deberry, Dennj', Dicker- son, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Duulap, Fairfiehi, Farlin, French, Fry, P. C. Fuller, W. K. Fuller, Galbraith, J. Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Grautland, Grayson, Gritfin, Haley, J. Hall, Ha- mer, S. S. Harrison, A. G. Harrison, Hawes, Haynes, Henderson, Heister, Holsey, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingham, W. Jackson, J. Jackson, J. Johnson, R. M. Johnson, C. tlohnson, H. Johnson, J. W. Junes, B. Jones, Jud- son, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Lapsite, G. Lee, J. Lee, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lucas, A. Mann, Martin, W. Ma- son", M. Mason', May, McComas, McKay, McKim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Morgan, Morris, Muhlenburg, Owens, Page, Parker, Patterson, F. Pierce, Petligrew, Phelps, Pinkney, Potts, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Pv,ogers, Schenck, Seymour, W. B. Shepard, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Snangler, Speight, Storer, Sutherland, Ta)ior, Thomas, J. Thomas, Toucey, Towns, Turner, Turrill, Vandevpoel, Wagoner, V/ard, Wardwell, Webster, and White— 138.

NAYS— Mp^-;'^'-,. Adam^ H. Allen, Bailey, Bell, Bond, Bunch. G. Chambers, Clark, Everett, Granger, Graves, Grennell, H. Hall, Hard, Har- din, Harlan, Hazelline, Hoar, Howell, Hunt, Janes, Lawler, Lawre;ice, L.Lea, Lewis, Lincoln, Lyon, S. Mason, M^cKennon, Pafton, J. A. Pearce, Pickens, Rcncher, Russell, A. H. Shepperd, Slade, Sprague, S-andefer, 5 Steele, Taliaferro, Under- wood, Vinton, Whittlesey, L. Williams, S. Wil- liams, and Wise — 16.

Resolved, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Colmn- bia.

An"d wfiEKKA.s it is extremely important and de- sirable, that the agitation of this subject should be finally arretted, for the purpose of restoring iran- quilliiylo thj public mind, your committee respect-

fully recommend the adoption of the following ad. ditional resolution, vizr

On the second resol ution :

YEAS— Messrs. C. Allen, Anthony, Ash, Bar- ton, Bean, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Boon, Boul- din, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchannan, Bunch, Burns, Cambreleng, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, N. H. Claiborne, J. F. H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cush-' man, Deberry, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Fairfield, Farlin, French, Fry, W. K. Fuller, Galbraith, J. Garland, GiUett, Glascock, Grantland, Graves, Haley, Joseph Hall, Ha- mer, Hardin, Harlan, A. G. Harrison, Hawes, Hajmes, Holsey, Howard, Howell, Hubley, Hun- tington,Huntsman, Ingham, J. Jackson, J. Johnson, R. M. Johnson, C. Johnson, H. Johnson, J. W. Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kinnard, Klingensmith, • Lansing, Laporte, Lawler; G. Lee, Leonard, Lo- gan, Loyall, A. Mann, Martin, W. Mason. M. Mason, May, McComas, McKay, McKeon, Mc- Kim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenburg, Owens, Page, Patterson, Patton, F. Pierce, J. A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phelps, Pickens, Pinckney, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Rey- nolds, Ripley, Roane, Rogers, Schenck, Sey- mour, W. B.' Shepard, A. H. Sheppard, Shinn, Sickles, Spangler, Speight, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Taliaferro, Taylor, J. Thom- son, Tousey, Turner, Turrill, Underwood, Van- derpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, White, L. Williams, S. Williams— 132.

NAYS— Messrs. Heman Allen, Bailey, Bond, Borden. Briggs, W. B. Calhoun, Carr, George Chambers, Chdds, Clark, Cushin?, Denny Eve- rett, P. C. Fuller. Grennell, H. Hall, Hard, S. S. Harrison, Hazeltine, Henderson, Heister, Hoar, Hunt, IngersoU, W. Jackson, Janes, B. Jones, Kilgore, Lane, Lawrence, Joshua Lee, Lincoln, S. Mason, McCarty, McKennan, Morris, Parker, Phillips, Potts, Reed, Russel, Slade, Sprague, Vinton, and Vv^'hittlesey — 45.

Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolu tions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way or to an_v extent whatever, to the subject of slavery or ihc abolition of slavery, shall, without either being prini;ed or referred, he laid upon the table and that no further action whate'/er shall be had thereon

On the third resolution :

YEAS— Messrs. C. Allen, Ash, Ashley, Bar- ton, Bean, Bockee, Boon, Bovee, Eovd, Brov/n, Ruths, Cambreleng, Casey, Chaney, Chaoman' Chapia, N. H. Claiborne, J. F. H. ^^Claiborne, Cleveland, Ooflfee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cra- m.er, Cushman, J^eberry, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Fairfield, Farlan, French' Fry, W. R. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillett, Grantland,' Graves, J. Hall, Hamer, Hardin, Har'an, A. g! Harrison, Hawes, Haynes, Hov/ard, Edward B. Hubley, Pluntington. E[unt.sman, Ingham, J.Jack- son, J. Johnson, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klin- gensmith, Jr Lansing, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Jr. Martin, William Mason, Moses Mason, Jr. May, McComas, McKay, McKoon, McKim' McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Muhlenbergl Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Franklin Pearce, James A. Pearce, Pet,tiq:rew, Phelps, Pincicn-yj Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Revnolils, Rir)!e".% Roane, Rogers, Seymour, A. K. Slieppard,'

16

Shield, Sickles, Smith, Spangler, Speight, Stan- defer, Sulherlend, Talialerro, Taylor, Toxicey, Towns, Turner, Turrill, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, White, Lewis Williams, Sher- rod 'Williams— 117.

NAYS — Messrs. H. Allen, Ba,iley, Beaumont, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Buchanan, W. B. Cal- hoim, Carr, G. Chambers, Childs, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Denny, Everett, P. C. Fuller, J. Garland, Glascock, Granger, Grennel, Haley, H.

Hall, Hard, Harper, Hazeltine, Henderson, Heis- ter, Hoar, Holsey, Howell, Hunt, J. |R. Ingersoll, William Jackson, Henry F. Janes, John W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Lane, Laporte, Lawrence, Lincoln, Love, Sampson, Mason, McCarty, McKennan, Morris, Parker, Patton, D. J. Pearce, Phillips, Pickens, Potts, Jr. Reed, Robertson, Russel, Schenck, Shinn, Slade, Spra- gue. Steele, Storer, John Thomson, Vinton, Ward- well, Webster, and E. Whittlesey— 68.

I^'f«^^

e *-V''.«^- ■■■''■■• C-

t ,.-'-?,---r', ,.,',;. V ■

tV-'¥^ ■'.'■'''■- ■'■'■< ■

te^^'^-^ >•-.•■■

1^ :>^:'^vv«^.

6

7

8

9

10

11

•■'■■ ,k'

^lA

■^■,'':^i-'v;

;■ ,/ 7^ .-;■..;-«

OREGON RULE CO.

U.S.A.	2	1 1 i|i|i	F	l|M|MM|l 3	WFWF 4	Iff 5
^m^m
	'11	Vi			1 L
^■. K- -f .	iS.	M M: d	!!;0 jfe. 'jSi-' &^' A	.W\ ■#".' J	1^ r> 1

W.

>^--v

■Ay-^y

7

m 8

nil

10