Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-01-14

ti8 oi:$'''u''phI p ,in the District of Columbia
hsll ms, over The Presbyterian SYNOD, VI iAentuLNt
merely rearking that JnasnT .a,nr nrcsts If The
S S. !" lave led some pons females so unwary In
~ ,hr schemes As 10 the article quoted from Inc i'ch-
mJ Enourer have only TO say That the bcnero!ehCe
W ;,e edlor betrayed him into an error, OF which 40
nbt he kas lbng since repenled As 20 the quotation
from the Richmond Wing, have only the same thing
to say in either case, however, wall remark that t'ey
were urging the State Government which had the con
stituonal riu 10 nterp1se As 10 the article signed "A
South Caolinian, do not believe it was written BY
South Caroinian, bet by individual who assumed
that for the purpose of giving more f"Tcc 70 MS
REMARKS South Carolina being an extensive s''t"0u
ing State.
will now, Mr.. Speaker, approach the constitutional
question: and would soclnnY ask if 1t is to he seriously
argued that the sagcs Of the Ecvoluu"n uhue
5etY rs they understood il, would have manifested So
much caution in tie framing Of the constitution ny s'u
tary restrictions upon TINS subject and YET have oeen 5"
ncautios as 20 leave Congress IN possession Q" t's
powt any where: Where is 1t found: IL Is nGthrF eH
pressed directly nor INDIRECTLY IN any one OF ''e po
sons Of tie constitution. Again sir IS II 10 be b"icVeo
for one moment that the States OF Virginia anu aiiyahu
the foremost in the ranks OF those VINO reslf@Ho TIE
mower OF the Federal Government would have given
up portion Of their czeiiS, IN orutr mat mere ''st
be inflicted upon them an Ennltcd, ulhit'ghtcu anu
unrestricted !es,ui::. reScrvng not even the I9ht oil
representation; for, ii the argument OF the gentleman
from Vermont be true, this Government wIthih thrsc
ten miles SQUARE drSpntc that OF Russia or The
Grand Turk Would the poop of Virginia ana Wary
land have consented pass CT! portion CT Their c2Shs
like herd; Of swc without one solitary at OF res'r!c'
ton and restraint upon The power o The Frdrra no-
ycrnmcnt over them: Would they have been wiling
10 have erected dsspotsm in the midst OF the Union;
Sir cannot believe it, The very idea Is prepostrrcus
Fortunately for Us, however there is proof positive on
this subject The language. OF the act OF the Virginia
cesson is clear. uncquivuca and decisive upon the
point, and it will be found TO answer every argument
! urged lay the gentleman from Vermont.
The provso to the act Of cession by the State OF 'r
gna, is in these words: Provided That nothing herein
contained, shall be construed to VEST IN tie unlIeo
States any RIGHT of property in the SAID, or to af
feet ,le rights Of individuals therein, otherwise than as
the same shall may be transferred by such individuals
10 the United States. BY ts clause right OF soil
passes Congress affect the right of individuals
to the soil only far individuals may convey 10 the
United Sta.cs the evcSon Of the soil is in the State
Of Virginia. Is il not therefore most manifest. that with
these reservations and restrictions Virginia regarded The
rights Of the citizens Of the District recua!y secured
and guaranteed as they were under her own Constu-
lion and laws previous 1" the ccssnn: Congress cannot
declare any thing designated and Erld Us property moi
to be property. without express grant. In relation to
slaves, the Constitution regards them as property, and
guarantees its security Ii the power TO abolish slavery
IN the District Of Columbia exists then tie people Of
the District, although American citizens, stand on
footing of gross inequality for Congress is restrict
ed TO all other citizens | then emplacaily ask, if
Virginia and ha-yard did diSlrancse This portion
Of their former citizens The language of tho act Of
cssion by Maryland is rather equvoca but yet
the spirit and design the sanewhcn is seen, the
objects Of the ccSsnn expressed in The preamble 10 the
ACT the reference the Cons htu,on, and the respected
character Of the ccssIon to property i'll the said Dis
is seem seems 10 there be doubt upon
this question.
Sir there is another why the States Of Virginia
and Maryland would not have been guilty Of tie caccss
o. Jolly c making the crssion unrestricted; and which
proves the character Of the Lrovsn referred and ii is
this: Maryland large slavc-loldmg State, and
Virginia the largest in the Union; and l!,sy both prs.
vidcd that their citizens should return TO their respective
Governments whenever tie coded Territory should
TO be used as the seat OF the Federal Government
Now, sir. cytngus slavery here, and what do oG do
You make raying pan fr free negroes in t!Ia very
centre Of slavery itself Here might be gathered nil the
disa.ieccd and insubordnate spirits among the slave
population OF the surrounding States. who might resort
here in such ordes that Inc citizens OF the District would
be unable control check them. say, sir the Lc-
gsatu!cs Of tosc two States would not and could not
have been guilty OF the folly Of making such
sliicted ccssion.
With these very few remarks therefore, leave this
branch OF the subject not dccmng it necessary 10 rcprat
the able and perspcuous views Of my colleague (iir.
Wise) so torcibly expressed.
But Mr. Speaker, the question to bc, how
is this matter TO bc decided; 1t has np before u.s.
and, in the language Of gentlemen, IL must be met
We al! admit this property is guaranteed 10 by tile
constitutions and that Congress has power lcgisate
in relation it in any Of the States The constitution
al power do denied b. every member upon ibis
floor Why then was the constitutional power Of the
Congress O.! the United States restricted in relation 10
this subject; Because it is property which in.
divduay have control interviewer into system,
and the constitution has determined that Jurisdiction
it shall not be transferred from the domestic control Of
the State Governments 10 that at the Federal How,
then, is this question t. he decided; do not
wish to AVOID vote upon 1t in the most direct man
urr. | prepared. SIR, to meet it, when it
VIII! whence 1t wi!i, aud III whatever shape it may
But while am lI&s prepared TO give my own vote. |
willing to make every concession that gentlemen
ask, reasonably, in the farm in which the decision Of the
House shall Er expressed that 1t he decisive and CT
tectus But cannot 90 Tar to record my vote 10
affirm tIia slavery is in evil This is subject with
whrh have nnl:nT 10 do, ard my individual opinion
need not be expressed. say, sir, willing 10 :ake
tic Must liberal concession that the nature OF the
will admit. Nav let Investigate the character of
the question under consideration. Our brethren CT the
North are direct Interest III this question, but our in
lcrcst Is directly al stake; !!v"a liberty property, all
is in danger 1t has not originated in the South, nothing
was heard Of il until tbs Abolition society awakened cur
fears and alarmed Tor safely The Question iirn
will y"u quiet the people oi the South: Will Jon decide
this question in such form tranquZs their fears We
all brethren OF the great American family: and have
ir associated together Tor upwards u fifty years let us
then continue in c bonds OF iratcnal love The
Southern people tell you wish to continue in ra,cr
n;Za:un and union, witt! you; bat their march Ilpcd
ed and their prospects Ei!gcd by these larraSsmg in
references with their rights. We ask, then helh
OF the North 10 quiet III the most decisive form
they can, consistent with their duties. IL they cannot
sustain all the propositions that have been presented
liry either sG!Gi!t for thu: shall be
considered decisive. have disposed Of the question of
laying thcsc petitions the tahlc; that is not de-
cIs!rr, and not ad"nae TO the emergencies of the
sion. Many "Cnt.!rcii unwilling TO reject any petit
unS tic ground that it is the constitutional right 0!
ic citizen (" petition. myself. Mr. Speaker have no
objection 10 that c'urs"; but am prepared 10 vote not
on!y that such petitions &c not rcerivcd hut j! could
do 50. would vote that they should BE- all thrown logc-
Their into The midst OF The Potomac
Mr. Speaker let US examine the proposition 10 reject,
which will likely follow reconsideration Of the reference
In the course ol this debate, reference had 10 Tie
example the Senate during the first session OF c last
Congress, 10 show that the rejection Of this
moral would be diSrespccliu Sir the cases are not
analogous lfmy recollection be right, the vote Of tic