Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-02-11

,,. w., -, ,.s -, rncc;vr surely the gentlemen were
too learned moi tn know That the r,ght 70 nou 'e
as properly involved nrcrSsarlls any n's.n,rcn
I, ,S,s , Necessary and insrparhn'e consequences
a. ..,d .,,i ll, sale: ca!l'd tHc Stare trHGe by
thp,e auiy petitioners, were olrnc' Tile result u NJ
ras.,y TIA rf choice, 1hry %rrr sometimes ihaoe
,,;;sfy debts s,n:'tiin,'s 10 divide dead men es'
ttes sometimes ,nn one and s"nrtlines another
~ no case however changing The condition OF The save
ercent so far as tie character of Lrr masters; ana
sometimes mother and children separated IL is o
thai which frequently happens with the master anu IFS
csr;lv Every day events TRANSPORTING and scenes
tskng place which dccpiy affecting 10 our feelings
hn ,6ey are the results q hanan Eahly and huna" III
nerlecon and canrzot be avoided ,.
Mr. G. said anot1.cr strong. anu to ms nina eoci"'
r,,cn, ,hs. the mere fact Of presenting peuoh a'o
moi mpose the cbie.,:oe .; receiving was, Inc very pU
onndnp Of the the Pctstto" DC qcee'pca
It implies in i,seke power not 10 reccs anu te ~
~ .bs rnIe seems CLEARLY bc, that the power not 10
-cave had reference we'll TO he subject matter OF ts
petition as to the language IN which, Il is coucheu bu'
n asked how the House get III possession ot Inc SUD
matter of petition unless it be received and read
M g said the answer to this inquiry quite easy
Dv rule of the Hoasc, every member who presents pc
t;on is required briefly state the subject OF It,
In this way The House becomes possessed of object
and may, upon ample information, determining upo" Tue
question Of reception. If the petition asks Congress TO
do what il is palpaby forbidden by the Constitution TO do,
is there any reason why it should be eceived Certain
ly
Mr. G. said, that the precedent relied Neon BY S!e
reception and rejection Of the pe.oa OF the Society OF
Friends in 1871, did no. apply. MIR. o. said, that NE
material object Of that petition was the regulation ana
ultimate abolition of the African Slave trade his was
q subject, par, at least, which belonged to the con-
sttuoaal aathorty Of Congress. The right to regulate
The African slave trade in effect the right TO regu'
late commerce, which properly belonged TO the excuI
Rive jurisdiction of Congress Hence the proprley OF
the reception Of that memorial, although 1t was subse
quenty and properly rejected But that case does not
apply to this petition. This petition asks Congress TODD
what it has power 10 do. - =
Mr. G. said he begged The Indulgence of the House
for few moments while he briefly required to The CUES
ton of utona power of Congress to abolish slave
ry in the District of Columbia e said there was only
one article Of the Constitution upon tie subject ard
that is ss follows:
soeyeE over such District lnot exceeding ten miles
square mag oesson of particular States, and the
acceptance of Congress- become ske seat OF the Govern
snentof the Inted States, ac.
1t will be perceived said Mr. G., that this clause sa
part of the original draft Of the Constitution and that 1t
adopted before the cesSoa ofthe District OF Ceiam
ba, but expressly in anticipation OF sSch an cVent vi
course as before remarked THE constitutional provision
could kaSe been intended tc apply to the question Of
slavery, grant any power it, for was not GER
sain knoWn that the anticipated cesson would be madeb by
Virginia and Maryland any other slavehoding State
Nor could this clause the cesson from such restrc
tons the State States might think proper to impose
for the protection reuton to their persons property
of the citizens nhablling the territory which should be
coded BY the constitution, said Mr. g., all power over
slavery is taken from the Federal Government; aud
they abolish it without express delegation OF
power to do That has not been ven even as re-
CARDS the District Of Columbia.
But, said MIR. g., it has been contended, and With
much pausblty too, that the article OF she consttu-
ton, comforting Congress, the power O. - eIcusre
lsgislaon, embraces this subject 5ecease, by confer
ring exclusive gstecsE Eeaemen contend that unt-
sted and unrestricted Legislation was meant.
NJ. G. denied the Legitimacy of this conclusion en-
eely. lie said the article itself contemplated cession
from State States and tho word ercluSirc here used
meant the power Of legislation exclusive of the Legislative
power of the State States making the cesson, Of
any other State Exclusive jurisdiction, said Mr. CT,
simply means, jurisdiction exclusive of every other u
risdiction that it shall not be concurrent with any
other jurisdiction ? But the article in question
never intended to convey the idea of q restricted
and unlimited power of Legislation. This view, MIR.
Garland said, he regarded conclusive, independent
of the restrictive clauses Of the eesson nets Of Mary
aaRd AID Virginia: The power then, said Mr. Gar
land, Of Congress this subject having been, ,cth
ont eIcpon restricted as to the whole sub Jet of slave
Iy, the people of the District of Columbia clearly
within the reason OF the rest rcton US they entitled
to its benefit in common with all the people Of the slave
holding States. Mr e. said, take from the people of the
District the protection Of the Constitutions and laws of
the States which coded t-lake rom them the resrc-
tions imposed by the Constitution Of the United Suites
on federal legislation and you a; once determine ,hs'
HSs q s e se ab5oue
The people have representation, and @i 6arc
curity agsEst tyranny and epyrcscioH, in the dis
cretion OF Congress- s&te ot things opposed to the
genius Of institutions and inequality which ought
cot to be tolerated.
If, then, said MIR. g. this power cannot be derived
from the Constitution lis derivabc from the cesson
of Virginia and Maryland? Certainly not IN terms. Nor
could he perceive single word or sentence in these acts
from which such power is nerable on the contrary,
the acts restrictive and the circumstances in which
Virginia and Mary land placed, being large slave
holding States coHclusivcly prove that they did not in
tend BY these acts to confer this power they could not
have much disregs.ded their security have
done From whence, then, is this power 10 be derv
ed? No where, sir, where. But this is not all
These cessions made by the ordinary Legislatures
of Virginia aud MaryaRd and theycould not grant any
further powers over the people of The District than they
possessed themselves they could not disfIanohise this
portion Of their citizens, and transfer them hound hand
and foot with unmitigacd chains of despotism, any
power whatever. II will be admitted that they could
not then ask, had the ordinary Legislature OF Virgil
MIA which made this cesslon the power TO abolish slave
ny in Virginia. say no, it had not. may be asked,
where is The restrictions answer in the Bill Of Rights
the people Of Virginia. which restricts and controls
the powers Of the Legislature and in her Constitution.
Can il BE- for moment seriously conended said Mir
G., that though the Government Of Virginia cannotuhe
from LIS citizens any portion OF their property, exception
public use, aud not then without adequate compensation
that yet they have the right 10 coafscatc ABOLISH
property? The idea, to mc, said Mr. e. prepos;esois
Slaves held property Virginia when the bill of
rights and the Constitution both adopted; and
the Subjects in part, to which the protective principles
of these had reference. But now said MIR
G., gravely contended that instead of protection and
security to property, these inst. ainens ADM, the
qualified power Of its destruction This, cunao BE-
SO; it is too absurd for serious reuation. do not de-
ny, said Mr.. G., that the people, by primary 40, Of
sovereignty may confer their ordinary Legislature the
power Of abolislng slavery in the Sate only deny
that the Legislature is clothed with that power
With these remarks, referring TO what snd on former
occasion, and TO the able and unanswerabc arguments
of the Senators Of my State in the other House.
torbear any further scnark upon this branch ofahe sub
ject
The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts Isaid
MIR. G has intinated, not utimatcd, 81: but directly
declared, that Ike and these petitioners will regard the
SGSal of this Hor,se fo this md