Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-03-01

EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH OF }. u. ADAMS.
Mr.. Adams addressed the House al
length. He centended for the liberty of
speech in the House, which he said was
still dear to many of the members, though
it had been abandoned by portion of
them. He adverted to the origin of the
question, and the surprise which he felt at
the agitation which had been produced by
his course. He insisted that the question
put by him to the speaker had not been
answered. In very energetic manner
he proceeded to advert to the arguments
of the southern members. 1t had been
said by one gentleman, (Mr. French, that
if the right of petition was granted to
slaves it would partially destroy the rep
resentation of the southern states He
would ask the gentleman to show that,
and give the chain Of his argument
What if the abolition of slavery should
deprive them of the representation was
that reason why they should'refuse the
right of slaves TO petition, and to cry for
mercy. The gentleman had substituted
another question, of quite different ma
ture from the one stated. He had brought
up the subject of slavery as it existed in
the south. twas nothing to do with the
question he had put to the speaker, as to
whether a petition should be received
from slaves under any circumstances
Why, the right Of petition was a boon
granted by Heaven to man, and the mai
esty of Heaven designed to hear the PRAYER
of The slave for mercy. The right of petit
ton was coeval with the existence of man
1t existed before the formation of the con-
stitution, and hence the trainers of that
constitution had provided that the liberty
of speec b and the right of petition should
not be abridged. Those men would have
spurned the thought of denying the right
of one human being to ask mercy Of an.
other. 1t was right given by the God
of nature, when he made them men. 1t
belonged to every human being, and could
not possibly be effected by the condition of
the petitioners. Iagain say, that if it is
decided that the petition is affected by the
order of the House, shall present it as
duty devolving upon me, which | owe to
humanity and human nature. What =!
Will you place the right of petitioning
on the condition of the moral character of
the petitioners? The very idea was re-
pugnant to human ideas of Justice, and re-
pulsive to the first law of our nature
1t is recognized in the most despotic gov
ernments, as the most free. And sad
would be that day when it was entered on
the journal of that House that slaves had
on right to petition. Ifthey once began,
who could tell when they would STOP
The gentleman at my side (Mr. Patton, J
has objected to the petition from Freder-
icksburg, because they were people ofcol-
or. | was going TO ask the gentleman
who 1t was that made those women inEa-
mous-was it not their masters? and
whether, as in some other southern states.
there was not striking resemblance in
the features of the colored people, to their
white owners? (Greatlau ghter, and cries
OF order.) The moment when you begin
to reject petitions from slaves YOU will 90
further; you will next refuse petitions
from free colored people, and next from
white people of the wrong party.
With regard to the offence for which it
was proposed to censure him, he was
charged IN one of those resolutions with
giving color to an idea,' This was
monstrous crime. He had not been char
ged with any fact, or with presenting a
petition from slaves for the abolition of
slavery. but merely for giving color to an
idea that he was about to present such
petition. He hoped that in future thew
would be more careful about facts