Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-02-12

public expression Of its opinion either approving
/ eensuring il. why, then, these expressions used
by the gentleman and his friends here, about "pains
i and penalties7" To hear the lsngusp employed
i by some OF those who have addressed the House
| one would suppose that the Nevgate Calendar was
! haunting their dreams.
These expressions have no warrant in any thing
have said, nor in the resolution have offered to
this House. The gentleman from Massachusetts
insists most strenuousy on his right to defend him
SELF Why has he not done III How often has he
not addressed the Housei Again and again has he
most ably, most eoquently, and most dexterously
defended himself here with all the ingenuity and
power for which he is 20 justly distinguished Ire.
greet very much that any necessity should be lard
upon me to refer To the gmtlemans previous course.
4 would givoIne far more pleasure TO refer to that
hs pursued Yesterday: but am really compelled,
by the circumstances Of the case, to look little at
the eenteman's previous declarations.
The gentleman has dehed this House and its
censure: IN 30 many words. He has again and
fatal TO the Union. shall not refer to them all.
Speaking of what these petitions ask for at the
hands oil this House, the gentleman told us that
',hc time for action had not yet Gomez" plainly in
umating that such time would come, and that
when it did come he should be prepared to act.
During the late extra session, and again row, the
gentleman has referred TO the nterposition Of the
reaty-making power: and he has said that, in GER
tain emergency, this Government can, through the
agency of that power, emsncpate the slaves OF the
SOutu VI lue w est. repeats tuat pO>tliOu.
but will not dwell for moment upon the idea.
As soon as was uttered made effort to dismiss
il from my mind as quickly possible: the recur-
renee OF 1t gives me the deepest pain. Has he not
avowed the sentiment that there exist un er this
Government grievances which "must and shall be
Enthusiastically it they can, foicibly if they
mus,f" refer TO these things not with view TO
connect them with any charge which may have been
preferred against the gentleman. or OF noticing their
evil example and pernicious tendency; that is a
/ hats
what want is, to show that in coming to a decision
IN regard to this resolution. is proper TO consider
the entire debate, with all that which has very i'm
properly been connected with the simple question
originally presented.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, tells us that
1t is only the right of petition he is now contending
for; but do not regard this question involving
the mere right OF petition: had that been all, l
might on this occasion, as on most Others, have
| tanned my scat. But this Union is not endeared TO
the South only it is equally endeared to the w est,
to the North, and TO the East; and the question now
before US touches that Union, and not the mere
right Of petition. During the course of the debate
reference was had by several gentlemen TO the
course OF South Carolina on q certain memorable
occasion, and 10 the opinion avowed by ore OF the
Representatives from that State (Mr Rhet) on this
floor. rs well as by others not this hoor. Why
were these references NADER Do they not imply
that the OF the Union Of the States is one far
too sacred TO be tempered With Do they not imply
consciousness Of more or less Of guilt in every
proposition to destroy the Union7 And must the
gentleman from Massachusetts be excused for having
here made himself the organ Of men avowedly
hostile TO the Union, because others may, at other
times, have avowed similar hostility Il cannot he
necessary that l should defend those gentlemen
here; they are abundsnty capable Of defending
themselves.
Suppose, for illustration. that the gentleman from
Massachusetts,. instead Of presenting this petition,
should have offered q resolution in the same terms
and had moved reference n n select tee
with instructions similar 10 those he indicated at the
time OF presenting this memorial. What difference
would there be between offering a resolution and
onerns the sel-same propositions in petitionl IL
IS not the outward form, It is the substance, the
design. the tendency Of the proposition, which |
hope this House will regard. | presume there is
not member Of this body who would in such
case have hestated TO vote censure on the gentle
man.. But so far as he is concerned maintain the
case Is substantially the same, and that the course
OF this House should therefore be the same also.
am unwilling to regard the votes given here 10
lay the whole subject upon the table as Indicative
oil any concurrence or sympathy OF any gentleman
on this floor on the object Of these petitioners far
from II. trust that, notwithstanding local, sec
ional, or political prejudices and excitements
which may prevail among u.s. the spirit OF Seventy
SIX and oil Eighty seven is not yet extinct in these
Halls Ii may slumber, but it still lives, and il may
oe aroused when shall! rsel fit occasion for its ac-
| ton. And is not this fit occasion7
proposition was made by my colleague mir
summers yesterday TO commit the whole subject
TO select committee, and this measure is urged on
the ground that it will tend to restore peace But
ask my colleague whether the most efeciual
method 10 restore peace here and confidence every
where, TO re-assure the hopes and to allay the
aroused fears OF all who love this Union, is not 10
pass the resolution OF censure now proposed? Such
step will, as believe, give new energy and zeal
| TO our free Government, and will inspire new homes
| IN The bosom OF every true patriot.
w hat shall we gain by referring the subiert IN
committee To me II seems a little surprising
that such proposition should proceed from my
colleague, who, il mistake not, has voted on va
rious occasions TO lay the whole subject upon IN.
table What would be the effect Of such mea.
surel Ii would transfer the subject beyond the
reach OF the House, without meeting and disposine
oil the questions raised by my own resolution and
the amendment moved by the gentleman from en-.
lucky, (Mr MarshalL) After voting for this, am
somewhat at loss TO understand why il should
now be desired by him 10 refer the matter TO a Sc
ect committee. What again ask, would be cain.
ed by such reference7 OF how many must the
committee consist and Of whom must it be com
posed7 IL must be constituted Of Numbers of This
f1ouse-ot men who have been considering the
whole subject for these last ten days. and many of
whom have expressed their opinions on various
points connected with il. Would any time be
gained by now committing the subject But i,
might be said that this was proposed with view
10 OBTAIN cooler and more dspassionate expres.
SION OF opinion. But how would il work. The
committee would retire TO their room; there thew
would discuss what TO be discussed and con-
slder what was TO be considered, and finally furnish
an elaborate report recommending that the gentle.
man from Massachusetts, should or should not be
censured. And would the question be eucidated
by such processl Would decision upon i, be
any nearer than it was at PRESENT. No; whit,
The whole would operate merely as a measure of
delay and OF defeat. When the report came in the
debate would Of once be renewed, (which row hap.
PLY seemed 10 be near close,) and perhaps with
increased excitement. Mr. G. could see nothing TO
he gained by such proceeding; but, on the con.
Tary, thought he could see that by il the very end
desired might be jeoparded, il in the end defeat
ed entirely.
AS 10 the questions Of privilege and the precedent,
TO which his colleagues resolution referred. MIR O.
when the House adjourned calling its attention
and especially that Of the gentlemen from Massa.
chuses himself, 10 the report OF select COMMITTEES
Of the Senate OF the United States in the celebrated
case Of John Smith. He would now detain The
iouse by referring TO one two other passages Of
mat report. The document was ably drawn
elaoorately drawn-ihe whole question OF privilege
was iuhy and Enormously argued. Mr. G.. here
quoted the language Of the report which in one
place Reproduced the idea Of "offerine the cru,chss
Of the judicial tribunals apology for cripplino
me Congressional power OF expulsion" and argued
tnat the power OF Congress TO punish must necess,-
rlly he discretionary, because il could not be
brought within the provisions Of any general rules
and that the power would "be rendered nug,,orv
by deaY"-a passage which Mr.. G.. epphssized
as being pregnant with meaning and full of ins,rue
ton bearing on tho present case. After sxnmininp
American presidents and British precedents. tho
report came TO the conclusion that the power Of Con
gress 10 punish us own members was sustained by
H.