The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1838-01-25
CONGRESSIONAL.
MR.. cALHoUNs REsoLUTIoNs.
m SENATE.

The resolutions Of Mr. Calhoun, on the relations.
&C., Of the State and General Governments coming
up, and the question being on Mr. Morrs's amend
ment TO the third resolution declaring The freedom Of
speech and the press all subjects indisputabe and
under the supervision only Of the State in which
such freedom is exerciSed-
Mr. Morris resumed his remarks by saying that
the error which he had committed the day before in
relation 10 The sentiments of the Methodist Confe-
renee, had afforded so much pleasure that he did
moi regret having fallen into il. He made brief
explanation which was believed TO relate toths mis-
porler)
What, he asked, was the object of the resolutions
under consideration II was 10 restrain and check
Inc hDery Of speech and OF the press and their first
and principal domination was now felt in the Senate
but ne repeated that the attempt 10 stihe the
liberty OF speech and the press in this country, on
moral and political subjects, would be vain effort
but II II was sinful TO discuss the question of slavery
or other subjects relating 10 other communities he
asked why they did not attempt to suppress discus
sion by an enactment. Ii il really threatened dis
solution, il deserved the severest measures that the
Senate could adopt against ii. Why then put il
down by law al oncel Let us see the features of
such law and then form our Judgment respecting
IT, Would the people submit 10 III Would any
man dare to make the atempti There was no go
yernmen in the world that would dare 10 do nopen-
ly and generally.
A great deal had been said about the constitutional
right of slayeholdey to his slave The Senator
from Indiana had said and IL had not been denied,
that effect Of these resolutions was 10 extend sla
very. MIR NJ. responded to that sentiment; and this
was one object, if there any object al all But IL
the Constitution Of the United States was held to
guaranty the property in slaves hen that Constitution
was, on this point above the law and Constitution of
any State and the act Of no State, therefore could
annul the property in slaves" State under the laws
thereof"l Mr.. M. had used this argument before,
and II would follow from il that the States all
slavehodng States under the Constitution, and must
continue so, beyond the power of this government
unless the States generally should give that power;
The Constitution, therefore, Mr. N. maintained,
had le slavery precisely where it found it, But the
trainers of the Constitution had intended that the
moral power Of this instrument should abolish slave
ry in all the States and accordingly the States began
immediately TO abolish slavery on its adoption The
ordinance OF 1887, In relation TO the Northwestern
territory was adopted by Congress at the very time
when the trainers Of the Constitution sitting in
Convention, and the Constitution was adopted two
or three months after that ordinance. Now, could
any one believe while Congress, in the very face of
the Convention determined that slavery should not
exist in that vast territory, that they did not intend
that the moral power Of the Constitution should abo-
lish slavery in the whole countryf
Mr. M. went on TO argue that, by the Constitution,
Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the
whole Union. More than twenty thousand citizens
of Ohio were the friends of emancipation; and he
thought when these petitions came up here, they did
not deserve the treatment they received OF being
called incendiaries, and being branded with infamy.
Mr. M concluded by explaining the object of his
amendment which was he said TO enlarge more
fully that which had been offered by his colleague,
(Mr. Allen.g
Mr. Preston said he could see no shade of differ
ence between the two amendments.
Mr.. Hubbard called upon Mr.. Morris 10 point out
the difference.
Mr. Morris, said if the eagle eye Of the member
from New Hampshire could not discern between the
two, il would be hopeless task for him TO enlghten
him But, he would ask if Mr. Hubbard could see
no difference, why was he so much opposed his,
while he was in favor Of the other
Mr.. Calhoun suggested 10 Mr. Allen to withdraw
his amendment for the present, as only tending to
embarrass the general question: and to consent TO In
troduce it at the end ofthe esoluions
Mr.. Allen assen,ed !. but, as the amendment could
not now be withdrawn but by unanimous consent, 1t
was agreed that vote of rejection should be taken
it, pro for,Ra that it might be offered by the mo-
yer hereafter, when all the resolutions should have
been acted on The vote being accordingly taken,
the amendment was negatived.
Mr. Davis then urged the propriey of Mr.. Smiths
amendment being now taken up. Il appeared TO
him the object Of Mr. Aliens amendment had been
10 get rid of the other and now that it was with
drawn he thought the question ought to be taken
on the amendment first offered by Mr. Smith of In
diana
The question, however, being announced from the
Chair 10 be now on the third resolution
Mr.. Prentiss rose and said that, as the resolution
under consideration had been considerably modified,
and rendered somewhat ausible by amendments,
he wished TO say word or two before the question
was taken upon il, in explanation of the vote ne
should give. He had cared very little about any OF
the amendments which had been offered, and should
feel quite Indifferent 10 the fate of any amend
ments which might hereafter be proposed, because 1t
his intention TO vote against all the resolutions,
without any critical examination into the truth or
correctness of any of the propositions contained in
them He should do this not only for the reason
which had been frequently stated, that the vice Of
ratification was apparent upon the lace oil the reso
lutions, but for another reason also II was obvious
that they could neither add 10 nor abrdge any OF the
constitutional rights of the people, by any resol-
tons they could adopt and he deemed It not only
unnecessary and useless but highly inexpedient to
make formal declaration Of rights there, to assert
abstract principles in the form of resolutions hav
ing no view TO any practical results and which
might only be liable TO misconsruction and mis-
application, but might occasion thereafter as much
controversy to their meaning as did the famous
Virginia resolutions Of 49, He did not wish to 60
into the subject ALL but merely osay that he should
vote against all the resolutions because he consider
ed most of them wrong in principle, and all oil them
unnecessary and nexpedient.
Mr. Davis next rose He said that he had seve-
raj times briefly addressed the Senate upon this sub
iect which for TWO years or more had been greatly
agitaled, more so, probably, than was useful. As
long ago that, effort was first made TO suppress
petitions upon the subject Of abolition in this body,
and from thence till now the matter had received
much attention at times, though both here and IN
the other House much regret had been expressed
that il was agitated at all.
AT the first session Of the last Congress, after
long animated, denunciatory debate, carried on
chiefly by the members from the South, the Senate
arrived at certain results in regard to abolition Pc
tions in which he (Mr. d. did not concur but
very great majority did. II was proper 10 recur to
the state of things then and TO call 10 mind the seni
mcnts of that day. The leading argument in that
debate was that the agitation OF the question was
source of great danger, pregnant with runous con
sequences to the country, causingserious obstruction
10 the action of Congress, and great uneasiness OUT
ofdoorS. And II was most urgently insisted INA. ~
was one ofthose delicate topics which was MOI SAFE
to discuss which, in truth we had no right 10 dis