Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1836-06-17
SPEECH OF MR.. ADAMS.

resolution authorizing The payment OF rations TO
The inhabitants of Alabama and Georgia, who
have heen driven from their homes by the In
dians.
This speech 10 Of TOO great a length 10 ADM OF
our publishing it entire. Mr Adams began by as.
signing his reasons for voting in favor Of this reso.
lu,ion. The reason why Ire should vote for the res
olution he said wa, the same with that why he
voted against the resolution in the morning, that the
House had no authority TO interfere in any way with
the institution of slavery in the states. He pro.
ceeded TO state his reasons which he was then pro.
libited from doing, for voting against that resolu'
ton. He proceeded to show, that in the contingen
'cies Of either of the wars which now threaten US,
Congress would have authority in various ways to
interfere with the institution Of S~IaverY.l
return then, to my first position, that
there are two classes of owe vested by
the Constitution Of the United States in
their Congress and Executly, Government:
the powers to be exercised in time OF peace,
and the powers incidental to toar. That
the powers of peace are limited by provls
ions within the body of the constitu'iOp
Itself but that the powers Of war are limit
cd and regulated only by the laws and usa-
Ces of nations. There are. indeed, pow
ers of peace conferred upon Congress which
also come within The scope and jurisdiction
of the laws of nations, such as the neg0-
cation Of trea' les Of amlly and co'nmerce,
the interchange of public ministers and
%consuls, and all the personal and social
inter course between the individual inhab-
itants of the United States and foreign ma
tons, and tn, Indian tribes, which require
the interposition ofany law. But the pow.
ers Of war are all regulated by the laws
of nations. and are subject TO no other
limitation. 1t is by this power that | am
justified in voting the money of my constit
uents for the immediate relief of their fel
low citizens suffering with extreme neces
sity even for subsistence, by the direct con
sequence Of an Indian war. Upon the
same principe your %consuls in foreign ports
are authorized to provide for the subsist-
ence Of seamen in distress, and even for
their passage to their own country.
And it wasupnn that same principle that
I voted against the resolution reported by
the slavery committee, "that Congress pos
sess no CONSTITUTIONS authority to interfere
in any ,oay, with the institution Of slavery
in any Of the States Of this Confederacy,"
Nv wv h'S ~ '"'oS ~
whom [ usually concur, and even my
C olleagues IN this House gave their assent.
do no, admit that there Is, even among
The peace powers of Congress, such author
ity bu, in p1r there ara many ways by
which Cong-es; not only have The an,hori-
", bu, are bound to interfere with the in
s@iitulion Of slavery in the States. 1t was
80 considered by the founders Of the Con.
s@ttution of the United States, in which it
was stipu,.;ed that Congress should not
interfere. in that 1Day. with the institution,
prior to the year 1903.
During the late war with Great Britain.
the military and naval commanders of that
nation issued ~proclanatlons inviting the
slaves to repair to their standards, with
tromises of f,eednn and of settlement in
some of the British colonial Establishments.
This, surely was an interference with the
institution Of slavery in the States. By
the treaty Of peace, Great Britain stipula.
ted to evacuate all the forts aud places IN
the United States. without carrying away
any slaves. 1.-THE Government of The U.
States mad no authority to Interfere, IN any
vnv, with the institution of slavery in the
States, they would not have had the au
thori,y to require this stipulation. 1t is
well hubWu tUuL tlls engagement was W.
fulfilled BY the British naval and military
commanders that on the contrary, they
did carry away all the slaves whom they
had induced to join them. and that the
British Government ~inaexlbly refused to
restore any of them TO their masters that
q claim Of indemnity was consequently in.
stituted ia behalf Of the owners Of the
slaves aud was successfully maintained
All that series of ira nsactions was an inter
ference by Congress with the institution OF
slavery in The States in one way-in the
way Of protection and support. 1t was by
the institution Of slavery alone that the re-
stltutiOn of slaves enticed by p~roclamations
into the British service could be claimed
as property. But for the institution o
slavery the British commanders could mel
Their have allured them to their standard
nor restored them otherwise than as llbcr
a,ed prisoners of war. But for the insti
tuition Of slavery there could have been M
stipulation that they should not be carried
away as property, nor any claim OF indem
nifty for the violation OF that engagement
But the war power of Congress over tn
institution OF slavery IN the States is ye
far more extensive. Suppose the case OF
servile war. complicated, as to some exten
il is even now with an Indian war; suppos
Congress were called to raise armies, Il
supply money from the whole Union to sup
press a servile insurrection: would the,
have no authority to interfere with the 10
s,i,ution of slavery! The issue of a servll
war may be disastrous. By war, the slav
NAV emancipate himself; it may becom
necessary for the master TO recognize III
emancipation by a treaty of peace can
for an instant be pretended that Congress
in such a contingency, would have no al
thority to interfere with the institution G
slavery, in any ,oay, in the States! why
it would be equivalent to saying that Con
gress have no constitutional authority
make peace.
sIinnosa a mora nariapfious case. Gel