Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

[NOVEMBER, 1797. that they could or would do any thing which would throw into disorder any part of the Union. On the contrary, he believed them to be good friends of order. Mr. G. said he wished to have avoided a discussion of the merits of the memorial; but when they were told it was improper to do any thing on the subject, it be

about. He could not suppose there was a disposition in the House to violate the property of any man; there was certainly as strong a disposition in the Middle States as in the Southern, to hold inviolable the right of property; nor could he see any reasonable ground for throwing this petition under the table. If these people were wrong in their understanding of this sub-came necessary. He knew it was in their power ject, it would be best to appoint a committee to set them right.

to do something. They might lay a duty of ten dollars a head on the importation of slaves; he Mr. GALLATIN said it was the practice of the knew a memorial had been presented at a House, whenever a memorial was presented, to former session respecting the kidnapping of nehave it read a first and a second time, and then to groes, which had been favorably reported upon. commit it, unless it were expressed in such in- Finally, the present memorial did not apply only decent terms as to induce the House to reject it, to the blacks, but to other objects. With reor upon a subject upon which petitions had been spect to plays, they had a motion last session lately rejected by a large majority of the House. before them for laying a tax upon them, which In no other case were petitions rejected without had a reference to the subject. By committing examination and without discussion. He said, this memorial, they should give no decision. Ĭ without examination and without discussion, the committee reported they could do nothing because it was impossible, upon a single reading in the business, and the House agreed to the of a petition, to be able to form a sound judg-report, the matter would be closed in a much ment upon it. Indeed, seeing the way in which more respectful way than by throwing the petithe gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUT- tion under the table. LEDGE) had treated the subject, no cool exami- Mr. SEWALL said, the gentleman last up had nation could be expected at present; in the mo- stated two cases in which petitions had been rement of passion it would be best not to decide, but ceived without a commitment. He might have to send the petition to a committee. What was added a third, more applicable to the present the objection to this mode of proceeding? It memorial. This was when a petition was upon was that the subject would shake a certain kind matter over which this House had no cogniof property. How so? A petition that re-zance, especially if it were of such a nature as minds us of the fate of certain blacks in this to excite disagreeable sensations in one part of country, which did not refer to slaves, but to the House, who were concerned in property free men. This petition was to shake property! which was already held under circumstances In the same manner it might be said that the sufficiently disagreeable. In such cases, they law of Pennsylvania for the gradual abolition of ought at once to reject the memorial, as it would slavery had also a tendency to destroy that be misspending time to commit it. If, for inproperty; or that the Legislative decision of the stance, a petition should be presented, comState of Massachusetts that there shall be no plaining that a person had refused to discharge slaves under their Government, would have that an obligation to another, it would be at once effect. But it was said the characters of the acknowledged that the House could not enforce petitioners was such as they ought to brand the obligation; but application must be made to with the mark of disapprobation. a court of justice. So in this case; the petitioners complain of a law of North Carolina. This House, he said, could not change that law If any thing was done there contrary to right, the courts of that State, as well as those of the United States, were open to afford redress. It was their business, and not the business of that House. They did not come there to act upon subjects agreeable to their feelings, but upon such as the constitution had placed in their hands.

In support of this c'arge, it was alleged that they were not satisfied with petitioning, but they attempted to debauch and seduce servants -to rob gentlemen of their property. He did not know to what the gentleman who made this assertion alluded; but he believed, if the matter was fairly stated, whatever may have been done in the State of Pennsylvania, has been no more than an endeavor to carry into full effect the laws of the State, which say, that "all men are free when they set their foot within the State," Mr. MAOON said, there was not a gentleman excepting only the servants of Members of Con- in North Carolina who did not wish there were gress.* As to the moral character of this body no blacks in the country. It was a misfortune of people, though a number of their principles-he considered it as a curse; but there was no were different from those which he professed, he believed it could not be said, with truth, that they were friends to any kind of disorder; and he was surprised to hear gentlemen suppose

* Mr. Gallatin is not accurately reported. The exception

extended to all the officers of the Federal Government, and for as long a time as their duties required them to remain in the States, and to all others for the period of six months.

way of getting rid of them. Instead of peacemakers, he looked upon the Quakers as warmakers, as they were continually endeavoring in the Southern States to stir up insurrections amongst the negroes.* It was unconstitutional, he said, in these men to desire the House to do

* In a subsequent part of this same debate, Mr. Macon retracted this censure upon the Quakers, as being too general.

NOVEMBER, 1797.]

Memorial of Quakers.

[H. OF R.

what they had no power to do; as well might | but from the fullest consideration. In some they ask the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES countries they knew persons accused of crimes to come and take the SPEAKER's chair. There were condemned without a hearing; but there was a law in North Carolina, he said, which could be but one sentiment as to the injustice forbade any person from holding either a black of such a proceeding. There could be no objecor white person as a slave after he had been set tion, therefore, upon general principles, to the at liberty. The one hundred and thirty-four reference of this petition. But it was said it negroes alluded to in the petition, he knew was not to be sent, because of the general nothing of. In the war, he said, the Quakers in habits of this society. He believed there was their State were generally Tories. They began no body of men more respectable; they were to set free their negroes, when the State passed obedient, and contributed cheerfully to the supa law that they should not set them free. If port of Government; and, either politically or these people were dissatisfied with the law, civilly speaking, as few crimes could be imthey had nothing to do but transport their puted to that body as to any other. negroes into Pennsylvania, where, the gentleman from that State had told them, they would be immediately free. This subject had already been before the House, but they declined doing any thing in it. It was extraordinary that these people should come, session after session, with their petitions on this subject. They had put play-houses into their memorial; but they had nothing to do with them. In this State, he believed, the Legislature had passed a law authorizing them. It was altogether a matter of State policy. The whole petition was, indeed, unnecessary. The only object seemed to be to sow dissension. A petition could not come there touching any subject on which they had power to act, which he should not be in favor of committing; but this thing being wrong in itself, it was needless to commit it, as no single purpose could be answered by it.

Mr. ISAAC PARKER was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) with respect to the disposal of petitions. But it appeared to him that the subject matter of all petitions should be within the view and authority of the House; if not, to refer them would certainly be a waste of time. He had attended to the petition, and he did not think there was a single object upon which it was in their power to act. Nothing was prayed for. The petitioners speak of the slave trade, and, in general terms of the immorality of the times, as injurious to the state of society; and wish some means may be taken to prevent the growth of them. To refer a petition of this sort, therefore, to a committee would answer no purpose. He did not think they were more obliged to take up the business than if they had read the address in a newspaper.

Mr. BAYARD said it might be inferred, from the anxiety and warmth of gentlemen, that the question before them was, whether slavery should or should not be abolished. The present was, however, very remote from such a question, as it was merely whether a memorial should be read a second time. The contents of this memorial, he said, were right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable; if right, it was proper it should go to a committee; and if wrong, if so clearly absurd as it had been represented, where would be the evil of a reference for a report thereon? He did not like things to be decided in the moment of passion,

This memorial, he said, had been treated as coming from an Abolition Society-it was a memorial of the General Meeting of the people called Quakers; nd if only out of respect to that body, it ought to be referred. But it was said it did not contain matter upon which the House could act. Gentlemen seemed not to have attended to the subject-matter of the petition. He did not believe that the House had the power to manumit slaves, but he believed there was not a word in the petition which had a reference to slavery. The petitioners state, indeed, that a number of negroes, not slaves, for negroes may be free, had been taken again into slavery, after they had been freed by their masters. He wished to know whether the House had not jurisdiction over this matter? He was warranted by the constitution in saying they had, because that instrument says that no State shall make ex post facto laws. It belonged to that House, therefore, to see that the constitution was respected, as it could not be expected from the justice of the individual States, that they would repeal such laws. It rested, therefore, with the Government of the United States to do it. Mr. B. read the clause of the constitution touching this matter, and concluded by reminding the House that this was not an ultimate decision, but merely a reference.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said he was always inclined to lend a favorable ear to petitioners of every kind, but when a memorial was presented to the House contrary to the nature of the government, he should consent to its lying on the table or under it. No one, he said, could say they had a right to legislate respecting the proceedings of any individual State; they, therefore, had no power to decide on the conduct of the citizens of North Carolina in the matter complained of. Petitions had frequently come from Quakers and others on the subject; whereas this Government had nothing to do with negro slavery, except that they might lay a tax upon the importation of slaves. He recollected, when the subject was brought before the House in the first Congress held at New York, wishing to put a stop to the slave trade as much as possible, being a friend of liberty, he took every step in his power, and brought forward a proposition for laying a tax of ten dollars upon every slave imported. It was not

H. OF R.]

Memorial of Quakers.

[NOVEMBER, 1797.

agreed to; but there was only one State | be committed. As this was not the first time the (Georgia) in which the importation of slaves society of Quakers had come forward with petiwas admitted. Since the establishment of this tions to the House, seemingly with no other Government, Mr. P. said, the situation of slaves view than to fix an odium on the State of North was much ameliorated, and any interference Carolina, he thought it his duty positively to now might have the effect to make their mas- contradict a fact stated in this memorial. It ters more severe. He knew of no part of the was stated that 134 persons, set free from slavery constitution which gave them power over in North Carolina, had been since enslaved by horse-racing and cock-fighting, nor could they cruel retrospective, or ex post facto laws; they interfere with respect to play-houses; and alleged that certain members of their society had where they had no right to legislate, they had done what no person was permitted to do. Mr. no right to speak at all. As the session had be- B. read part of a law of North Carolina, stating gun harmoniously, he hoped that harmony" that no negro or mulatto slave shall be set would not be broken in upon by such applica- free, except for meritorious services, acknowtions as the present. Mr. P. produced a pre- ledged by a license of the court; and when any cedent from the journals of 1792, where a person shall be set free contrary to this law, he memorial of Warner Mifflin, a Quaker, after may be seized and sold as a slave," &c. He being read, was ordered to lie on the table, and also read a clause from another law, passed two days afterwards returned to the memo- afterwards, stating that several persons having rialist. set at liberty their slaves contrary to law, and persons having taken up and sold them, are doubtful of the validity of the sale, and that this law is passed to do away all doubts of such validity. Mr. B. said these extracts proved the assertion untrue.

hear it with the same calmness with persons wholly unconcerned about it. All that had been advanced in favor of the second reading of the petition was, the respectability of the persons presenting it, the opinion that would be entertained of the petitioners, if their petition was not referred, and the merits of the petition itself.

but

Mr, NICHOLAS felt as much as other gentlemen from the Southern States on the subject of the present petition, but his feelings did not produce the same effect. He was not afraid of an interference from the United States with their property, nor of any investigations or discussions Mr. GORDON lamented that this discussion had respecting it. He believed it would be to the taken place, as it was certain that wherever inhonor of people holding property in slaves, that terest is concerned, some degree of warmth will the business should be looked into. He thought be produced; and when a petition was brought such an inquiry would rather secure than injure forward which might affect the property of their property. He did not think it was the many gentlemen in this House, and their coninterest of slaveholders to cover improper prac-stituents, it could not be expected they would tices. He was satisfied, that in the part of the country where he lived, there was no disposition to protect injuries-no disposition to reject an inquiry, or to refuse to understand a complaint. They had been told that the state of the negroes, whose cases were mentioned in the memorial, might be produced by the fugitive law; they had before heard that this law had With respect to the persons of the petitioners, operated mischievously. It ought, therefore, he felt inclined to do them every justice; to be inquired into. On inquiry, Mr. N. said, it he did not think this any reason for acting upon would not be found the fault of the Southern their memorial, unless some good consequence States that slavery was tolerated, but their mis- could arise from it, any more than if they were fortune; but to liberate their slaves at once, the vilest persons on earth. As to the opinion would be to act like madmen; it would be to that might be entertained out of doors, as the injure all parts of the United States as well as petition was not examined, he was not afraid those who possess slaves. It was their duty, that the citizens of the United States would behowever, to remedy evils; they were unfortu-lieve that the House could be so far lost to its nately placed in a situation which obliged them to hold slaves, but they did not wish to extend the mischief. He should, indeed, be sorry if his possessing property of this kind, obliged him to cover the violation of another man's right; if this were the case, he should think it necessary that his property should be taken from him. He did not think it necessary, and he doubted not, if a fair investigation took place, that this kind of property would be brought into the situation in which every man of sense would place it. He was firmly of an opinion, that to appear to be afraid of an inquiry would do more harin to this property than a fair investigation. He trusted, therefore, the petition would be committed.

Mr. BLOUNT hoped this memorial would not

duty as not to look into a question of this kind, but that it would be conceived, if rejected, that they had nothing to do with it. The other reason, the only material one, was to the merits of the petition. The gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. BAYARD,) who had examined the business with much coolness and ability, had stated that a certain ex post facto law of North Carolina had occasioned grievances. Admitting there was such a law, what could the House do? Could they declare a law of North Carolina null and void? There would be no utility in this; but if there was a law in North Carolina that violated the constitution, there was a clear remedy in the law which organizes the Judical department of the United States, in which it is said, if any law of an individual State inter

[blocks in formation]

feres with a law of the United States, a person has a right to take advantage of the law of the United States. There was no necessity, therefore, to call upon Congress for a remedy against this law. Indeed, he saw nothing in this memorial which called for their interference, and he was therefore against a reference, as a further discussion of it would only produce uneasiness in certain parts of the United States, without producing any good.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that notwithstanding all that had been said, considering the present extraordinary state of the West India Islands and of Europe, he should insist that "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," and that they ought to shut their doors against any thing which had a tendency to produce the like confusion in this country. If this were not done, the confidence of a great part of the Union in the General Government would be weakened. In the Southern States, where most of their property consisted of slaves, and where the rest was of no value without them, there was already a prejudice existing that the Northern and Eastern States were inimical to this kind of property, though they were bound by the constitution from an interference with it; but when they heard of the House giving countenance to a petition like the present, it would increase their uneasiness. He referred to what had fallen from the gentleman from Delaware respecting ex post facto law, and thought a court of justice the proper tribunal to settle that business. Mr. R. said he was indisposed, notwithstanding the high panegyrics which had been passed upon the body of Quakers, to withdraw the censures he had cast upon them. The gentleman from New York had doubted the charges which he had produced, and said such things could never be attempted by the body. It was true, they did not come in a body into his lodging to seduce his servant, but individuals did it. But why, he asked, do these men come here in a body? Because they believe that their presence will give more weight to their petition; so that they appeared in bodies, or as individuals, to answer their purposes. Gentlemen had charged the opposers of the petition with heat; he thought there was as much heat on one side as the other.

Mr. EDMOND did not believe there was any real ground of irritation in the question; as no gentleman could suppose they were about to do any thing which was either unconstitutional, or which would affect their property. Whether the persons who presented the memorial are virtuous or vicious, was of no consequence, since justice was due to both classes of men. They had brought a petition before them, and they ought to consider it. It was addressed to their honesty or justice; if the facts were claims upon their honesty or justice they should be attended to; and not only attended to, but, if possible, relief granted. It was stated that there were a number of persons held in bondage who were justly entitled to liberty.

[H. OF R.

This fact called for examination; and a question arose, if it were established, whether that House could afford redress. A gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had stated that the fact was not true; it was certainly, therefore, worth while to be inquired into. Another gen tleman had said, if the fact were as stated, they had no power to act; and a third was of opinion that, by the constitution, redress might be afforded. This diversity of opinion showed the necessity of an investigation of the subject, in order to determine the jurisdiction of the House. He wished it for another reason. It had been stated, that if this petition were attended to, it would open a door to faction and mischief. Can it have this effect? These people bring forward a petition stating a number of facts; they certainly do not come forward for the mere design of exciting disorder in any quarter. If the House say they will throw their petition under the table, would not such treatment give the factions some ground of clamor by which to sow dissension? But if, on the contrary, they coolly looked into the petition, and reported thereon, would it not stop the mouths of these people? It certainly would; since they could not then say common justice was refused to the petitioners. Again; having once investigated the subject fully, if petitions of a similar kind should hereafter come forward, it would be reasonably said, this matter has already been taken up and fully decided upon; and, therefore, we will not again go into it. Until this was done, the factious would doubtless have cause of complaint.

Mr. BLOUNT said, several gentlemen who had spoken on this subject seemed to express themselves as if they believed there was no punishment for individuals reducing to slavery persons who had been manumitted. He read an extract from a law, passed in 1779, in North Carolina, by which the punishment of death is awarded against such an offence.

Mr. MACON read the proceedings of the House on the petition respecting the kidnapping of negroes, in order to show that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) had misstated the issue of the business. The last report on the subject was that it would be best to leave the regulation of the subject to the Legislatures of the several States. Mr. M. allowed that his reflections upon the whole body of Quakers were too general, and he had no hesitation in retracting them; but he believed a number of them were guilty of the charges brought against them by the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. THATCHER said, if, when the motion was first made, he had been against it, from what had fallen from gentlemen on the subject, he should now be in favor of it; for, notwithstanding they opposed the second reading of the petition, they were filing off in squads to read it, and ready to fight for a sight of it. He believed, therefore, they had some reasons for opposing the second reading, which did not appear. He referred to what had been said by the gentle

[blocks in formation]

man from North Carolina, as to the fact stated in the petition, and said that, notwithstanding the laws which he had read, the fact might be true; but that this very doubt about the fact was an additional reason for going into the inquiry.

Gentlemen had said, however good and virtuous the petitioners might be, it ought to have no effect upon the petition; if this were true, he hoped when they were represented as the worst of men, that representation was not meant to influence their decision on the question. Mr. T. could not conceive for what purpose they were carried to Europe, to witness the scenes which had taken place there for the last ten years. Was this, he asked, the state of society? If he thought so, if it had the faintest resemblance of what was taking place there, he would fly from it to the uttermost parts of the earth, and there make his habitation. Mr. T. wished an inquiry to take place; there was a part of the United States in which slavery was tolerated-some of the members from those parts thought it not right; there were other parts of the Union which disclaimed it. These two opposing principles were like two opposite powers in mechanism, which produced rest; but, the more frequently the subject was looked into, the more mitigated would be its effects.

The question was taken for the second reading of the petition, and carried-53 votes being in the affirmative.

Mr. GALLATIN moved that it be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Corr wished it to be referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred the petition on the subject of kidnapping negroes,

&c.

[blocks in formation]

A new member, to wit: JOSEPH HEISTER, returned to serve in this House as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of George Ege, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG: from Kentucky, THOMAS T. DAVIS; and from North Carolina, NATHAN BRYAN, and DEMPSEY BURGES, appeared and took their seats in the House.

The Clerk then informed the House that he had heard from a member of the Senate that

[DECEMBER, 1797. the SPEAKER was indisposed; so much so that he was not able to communicate his indisposition to the House in writing.

Mr. DENT said, this being the case, he should move that the orders for this day be further postponed till Monday; which motion being agreed to, the Clerk, on motion, adjourned the House till Monday morning, at 11 o'clock.

MONDAY, December 4.

THOMAS SUMTER, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.

Publication of Debates.

Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER presented the petition of Thomas Carpenter, stating that he was the editor of the American Senator, published during the session of Congress ending in March last; that, at the commencement of that session, he presented a memorial to the House, praying its support of his work; that the House had declined supporting it as a body, but receiving individual assurances of support from many of the members, he had been induced to engage in the work; but the event had proved unfavorable to him. He hoped now, therefore, that he should be recompensed, by the House engaging to take three copies for each member of the work he proposed to publish this session, (provided he met with the support he prayed for,) which, computing the session at eighteen weeks, he supposed would not amount to more than $2,250.

Mr. D. FOSTER moved that this petition be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Corr objected to a reference. The House, he said, had so often determined to have nothing to do with the publication of the debates, that he thought it time to have done with the subject. He hoped, therefore, the petition might lie upon the table.

Mr. FOSTER and Mr. THATCHER spoke in favor of the committal; and the motion was put and carried, and a committee of three members appointed to report thereon.

THURSDAY, December 7. Amy Dardin.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE said, that during the last Winter, a report had been made by the Committee of Claims, on the petition of Amy Dardin, unfavorable to the petitioner, which, after full discussion, had been disagreed to by the House; and on the 24th of February a motion for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for her relief was made and committed to a Committee of the Whole, but for want of time had not been acted upon. He now wished to bring the matter before the House, and for that purpose moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for the relief of Amy Dardin.

This motion met with opposition. It will perhaps, be recollected that this, though a strong claim, in point of justice, is directly in the face

« PreviousContinue »