The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 287
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
congressional globe.
387
rious parts of the world? Had w not actually
already made a beginning with regard to our cotton
cloths? We now send our manufactures to China,
in exchange for what we used to pay Spanish dol-
lars for. Instead of sending specie to China, for
such of its productions as we want, we now send
the fabrics made by our own industrial labor. So
it is with regard to South America. And why
not enlarge the sphere of our commerce in this
way with every part of the world ?
The senator from New Hampshire imagines that,
if we make a home market for cotton, we njfcpa-'
rily destroy the market for it abroad. It was 3"great
error to suppose the one a consequence of the other.
Before we encouraged and protected the growth of
sugar in this country, we exchanged our agricul-
tural products with the "West India islands, so that
our exports and imports approximated in value.
Since the protective policy had been adopted, our
imports from the West Indies fell off rapidly; but
did that diminish our exports? Not at all. We
now actually export to the West Indies products
amounting to $3,204,346, and only take in exchange
$826,000 of their products; receiving, for the bal-
ance, money or credits on England.
Mr. P. went into a variety of details and statis-
tics to prove that the quantity of our agricultural
products consumed by England and her dependen-
cies was extremely trifling in comparison with the
whole amount of our agricultural productions. He
contended that it only amounted to a one-hundreth
part; and that Massachusetts alone consumed more
of the products of other States than Great Britain
and her dependencies took all together.
The policy of this country was to seek out new
markets for ller productions; and if nonej^dd be
found abroad, to create a market at home.
Mr. P., in conclusion, expressed his conviction
that no apprehensions need be entertained that a dis-
position to an extent or in the slightest degree alarm-
ing, could ever arise in this country to dissolve the
Union. The tendencies supposed by some to point
that way, were few, and confined to the opinions of
individuals merely, who did not themselves expect
or seek that result. He had equally little apprehen-
sions of the fanaticism which had infected a trivial
part of the North. There was an attachment to the
Union which never could be overcome. Individuals
may talk, threaten, and bluster; but that man did
not exist who could dare to raise his hand, in this
country, for the dismemberment of the Union.
On motion of Mr. HUNTINGTON,
The Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, February 16, 1844.
The journal having been read and approved—
Mr. WINTHROP announced the presence of
J. P. Kenkedy, member elect from a district of the
State of Maryland. The usual oath was adminis-
teied, and Mr. K. took his seat.
Mr. WELLER proposed to correct the journal,
so that it should be stated that the question of the
right of the members from Missouri and Missis-
sippi was taken upon each State, and not upon
each individual; because a division of the question
by individuals was not proposed by any one. The
correction was accordingly made.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the fol-
owing executive communications:
A letter from the treasurer of the United States
transmitting the accounts of the services of the Post
Office Department for the year ending the 1st of
July, 1843.
Another, transmitting a report upon the claim of
the legal representatives of Robert C. Jennings,
James Roddy, and Robert B. Carter, against the
United States.
One from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting
statements of the expenditures of the Bureau of
Medicine and Surgery since its establishment to the
present time; unpaid" claims against said bureau;
copies of contracts for supplying the navy with but-
ter and cheese; and a statement of the expenditure
for the sick in each of the naval hospitals and naval
stations.
Also, another transmitting a statement of the ex-
penditures of the Florida squadron whilst under the
command of Lieutenant John T. McLaughlin, and
the statement of his accounts as purser for the same
squadron; the number of men in the squadron; the
charges of misconduct against the said Lieutenant
John T. McLaughlin; and a copy of the proceeedings
°f the court martial which tried Lieutenant E. Tan-
sill, of the United States marine corps.
A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, trans-
mitting a statement of the appropriations for the
naval sen-ice on the 20th June; 1843.
A letter from the Commissioner of Patents, trans-
mitting his annual report of the operations of the
Patent Office for the year 1843.
INSANE ASYLUM.
The bill from the Senate, providing for the sup-
port of the insane asylum in the District of Colum-
bia, was read twice, and referred to the Committee
of the Whole House.
UNITED STATES COURTS.
The bill from the Senate, changing the times of
holding the courts at Clarksburg ancl Wheeling, in
the western district of Virginia, and the circuit courts
of the United States for the district of Arkansas,
was read; and then, after being carried through the
usual forms, was passed.
SALT SPRINGS.
The bill giving the assent of Congress to the sale
or other disposition of certain salt springs and min-
eral lands, heretofore granted to the State of Michi-
gan, was read the third time and passed.
MASSACHUSETTS RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. GILMER asked leave of the House to make
a report; and, in doing so, begged leave to state that
it was from a portion of the committee raised on the
resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts pro-
posing a change of the constitution. It was a long
time since referred to that committee; and this morn-
ing they came to the conclusion, by a deliberate vote,
that it was inexpedient for Congress to recommend
to the States the change of constitution proposed by
the legislature of Massachusetts. They also adopt-
ed a resolution authorizing any member or mem-
bers of the committee to assign their reasons in an
argumentative report sustaining the grounds on
which the committee came to a decision on the sub-
ject. Under this authority, therefore, he asked
leave of the House to report the views of a portion
of the members of the committee.
The report being received by general consent—
Mr. GILMER moved that it be laid on the table.
He expected that other reports woidd be made by
other members of the committee, and perhaps it
would not be fair to ask for the printing of this re-
port in advance of others. He therefore moved that
this report be laid on the table, and printed with the
others when they came in.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON presented the proceed-
ings of a military convention in the State of New
York, asking, among other things, the abolition of
the Military Academy at West Point, and to apply
the money expended upon it to the instruction of
the militia: referred to the Committee on Military
Affairs.
REPORT ON THE RULES.
Mr. WELLER called for the orders of the day.
The SPEAKER announced that the first business
before the House was the Report of the Committee
on the Rules, on which the gentleman from Maine
[Mr. Severance] had the floor.
Mr. SEVERANCE observed that he did not pro-
pose to occupy the time of the House in dwelling
on the origin, history, and importance of the right
of petition; nor did he deem it necessary to oc-
cupy much time m arguing that the 21st rule contra-
vened that right. Let us, said lie, read that rule—
and see what it is:
'•No petition, memorial, resolution, or other pa-
per, praying the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave
trade between the States or Territories of the United
States in which ^ now exists, shall be receh ed by
the House, or entertained in any way whatever."
Now, however this rule might affect the right of
petition on other subjects, no gentleman would pre-
tend to say, in regard to the subjects mentioned in
this rule, it existed at all while it remained in force.
Here were four matters prohibited in this rule,
in relation to which petitions were to be refused.
What were they? Why, in the first place, petitions
for the abolition of savery in the District of Colum-
bia, or any State or Territory, were prohibited.
What was the reason for this prohibition? Who
had ever seen a petition for the abolition of slavery
in the States or Territories of this Union? He had Jj
never seen one, and he would venture to assert that,
among the vast number' of petitions presented by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] not
one was to be found. How was it with regard to
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Eistrict
of Columbia? Many gentlemen in the House—prob-
ably a large majority of them—were of opinion that
it was inexpedient to abolish slavery in this Dis-
trict; but this did not constitute a sufficient reason
for the exclusion of petitions on that subject. We
are, said he, bound to receive petitions, and certain-
ly should not exclude them on grounds of expe-
diency only. Nothing but constitutional objections
could authorize their exclusion. He would here
make one remark in regard to the constitutionality
of abolishing slavery in this District. He thought
it was sufficiently demonstrated the other day by the
gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman
from Connecticut, that Congress possessed all the
power over the subject that the States of Virginia
and Maryland had before the cession; and in order
to prove that Virginia and Maryland possessed the
power to abolish slavery, Mr. S. read extracts from
the constitutions of those States.
Here, he said, it was distinctly stated, that the
people of Virginia, in their sovereign capacity had
the power to take away private property; and could
therefore take away slaves, provided they were
property: and this power existed in every State of
the Union. On what right, he asked, did slavery
rest, as property? _ It rested on law, and law could
be repealed; and in repealing such law, it would not
be taking away private property, but would only be
restoring the slave to his natural rights. When a
State exercised its sovereign power in liberating a
man who was held in slavery, it did not take away
private property; it was only restoring the man to
his natural rights, of which he had been deprived
in consequence of law. There was nothing in the
constitutions of any of the States prohibiting the
abolishment of slavery, except four of them; and
they had the power to change their constitutions.
Mr. S. here referred to the decisions of Judge Mc-
Lean, to show how the institution of slavery was
regarded in the courts of the United States, as es-
tablished in some of the States, and recognised in
the constitution.
That was the opinion of Judge Baldwin, after the
matter had been ably argued on both sides. He
then referred to a case which was argued in Missis-
sippi—in which argument Mr. Walker, now a
United States senator from that State, took part
to show that the same principle has been recognised;
that the State might declare that negroes were not
merchandise; and that the State might abolish sla-
very within her limits. This, it was conceded, was
a State power, over which it never was designed
that Congress should have any power in the States;
but it was settled conclusively that every State
might declare whether negroes should or should not
be property within her limits. This power, he ob-
sened, hai been exercised by Pennsylvania, New
York, and some other States. Having established
this position, he inquired how any provision of the
constitution which prohibits the taking of private
property could be made to apply to negro slaves in
any way whatever. And if they were set at liberty,
they were not taken for the public use, but restored
to their natural rights as citizens and members of
the community.
He next proceeded to show the origin of this pro*
vision of the constitution, which prohibits the taking
of private property but for the public use, and then
only ^ on the payment of just compensation. He
said it originated in the Virginia convention; but
Virginia, at that time, never dreamed of prohibiting
the abolition of slavery by the State government.
But the same constitution "declared that no person
should he deprived of life, liberty, er property; and
under this provision of the United States constitu-
tion—which overrode all State laws and regulations,
every slave was entitled to his liberty. The States
of this Union—more especially the southern States
—weie particularly jealous of conferring power
on Congress over slavery in any way; but Patrick
Henry thought that the general government posses-
sed such power, under the nrtiele of the constitution
in relation to the public defence and general welfare;
and therefore he was opposed to agreeing to the
adoption of the constitution. Patrick He'iry said
that clause gave to the general government power, in
case of war, or other emergency, to call to its aid ail
fighting men, whether bond or'free, and to liberate
the slaves. A serious charge had been made against
the gentleman from JMassachi^ptts [Mr, Adams-] for
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/311/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.