Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1836-03-25

subject-matter. If Congress can dlscrlm'
nate between the subjects, and say that up
on some subjects petitions may be received,
but upon others they shall not be received,
what, ask, becomes of the right to peti.
TOM What is the right worth 1t will
be in vain, sir, that we acknowledge the
right, if we thus limit its extent, if we thus
control its exercise.
These preliminary notions, for | can call
them nothing else, 90 directly it appears to
me, to impair, TO BARROW, and abrldgc the !
right. If we really mean that the right |
shall be enjoyed in its just, it's Legitimate
extent, we shall iorbear to embartass 1t, to
render it nugatory, by questions Of this SORT.
! We shall rather treat the petitions, as |
think we are bound to treat them, and as
they have always heretofore been treated, |
according to the ordinary rules and usages |
of parliamentary bodies IN such cases.
regret exceedingly the harsh express
sons which gentlemen have thought lit to
apply to the petitioners. They have been
denounced as incendarics they have been
charged with criminal, with reasonable
intentions with intentions to excite ser
vile war. and subject the whole Southern
country to plllage, havoc, and devastation.
Sir, we are apt to fall into the very com
mon error of supposlng that all who differ
from US, especially on subjects OF an inter-
esting and exciting nature, do SO from un-
worthy motives, and not from honest con-
vctlon. With some Of the persons who
have signed petitions on this subjec. am
well acquainted. ! know them to be intel.
gent, patriotic, highly respectable. Their
propositions may be strongly stated their
argument may be bold their illustrations
may not be suited to the taste or the jutg,
ment Of those whose opinions they oppose
but that all, the whole combined, proceeds
from consciousness, on their part, OF do
ing and saying what is right, neither have
nor can entertain any doubt.
, With me, sir, it does not admit Of
{ question, that the petitioners believe, sin
cerely believe, what they profess to think
that the honor OF the country, the prospect
ity OF the country, the best and highest in
teresls of liberty and humanity, are lnvolv-
ed in this question. If they are wrong
in their opinions, Or express them with too
much bodness and independence, the fault
lift be one, is to be fund in the institutions
of the country; in the civil and political
principles ofthe country; in the education
of the country. Ii is from these sources
that The petitioners have imbbed their
: opinions, as well as the spirit which prompts
them to express them with manly freedom
, and, sir, you cannot by any law you can
make, or by any vote which may be here
, given, represS or restrain the free cXprcS-
sion of their opinions, any more than you
can stop or check, by legal enactment, or
legal coercion, the course and current OF
{ their thoughts. 1t would be unwse to
, attempt TO do So Weshould rather treat
them as they have heretofore been treated.
We should resort to do extraordinary
| measures. We should observe the ordn-
8 airy rules and usages Of this body, aud per
NIT the petitions. as usual, TO 90 TO a COM
, mlttce. This is not only the just constI-
tutional course, but the course, in my opn-
ion, enjoined upon US by every consldera'
ton Of policy, as well as of duty.
Sir, upon the constitutional question,
, whether Congress has power to abolish
slavery in this District, we had, some days
ago, very compact. and intelligble argu-
ment from the Senator from Virginia; and
, from the known ability and habits OF close
and thorough research Of the Senator. we
have right 20 presume, and, indeed, must
presume, that every consideration was
presented, in support of his doctrine, of
which the subject Is susceptible. Although
the lucid simplicity, the exact and eloquent
. brevity Of his style and reasoning, interest
ed and charmed me much. the Senator
, must pardon me if say that his argument
, failed to convince me.
Two propositions were relied upon as
the principal basis of the argument. 1t
was insisted, first, that the act of cession
t of Virginia expressly nterdcied the eXer
, else OF the power by Congress.
The act, after ceding the territory, and
relinquished to the United States "absolute
7 right and exclusive jurisdiction over it,
r provides "that nothing herein contained
shall be construed TO vest in the Unltel
: States any right ofpropety in the soil or
to effect the rights of individuals therein
otherwise than the same shall or may be
: transferred by such individuals 10 the U.
States"
This clause, which was evidently insert.
> ed IN the act from abundant caution, was
intended to define and ascertain, more eX-
act precision, the subject matter of the
grant, and TO preclude, by express negative
words, the possibility Of It's being construed
TO transfer any right or interest IN the soil
itself This is not only the grammatical
reading, but the natural and plain sense of
the clause and, giving to 1t lis utmost I'M
port aud extent, 1t is manifest that 1t mpo-
ses no limitation or restriction whatever
, upon the legislation of Congress-.
: It was further insisted that. independent
OF the provso in the act of cession. Con.
gress did not possess, and could not exer-
else, the power in question. IL was said
that neither the Legislature Of Virginia
nor that of Maryland had any power to
abolish the right of property, and tina, they
could not grant or transfer to Congress
; power they did not themselves possess.
II SIR. the cnmnnlnncV of the |. en lslni nres