The republic., 1851-02-18

r. Y,
w. C. Alexander, Sen'r; Cornelius Il. Doremus,
j. A. Morford, Senator; VIM. H. Conover,
j. Van Brunt, Senator; Samuel w. Jones,
3 J. Summerville, jr., Sen. Garrett 5. Smock,
j. Manners Senator; Bernard Connolly,
j. T. Potts, Senator; Joel HAYWOOD;
j. A. Bleecher, Senator; Harman Richman,
Joseph Greer, Senator; Charles Benner,
A. Whitehead, Senator; Smith Bilderback,
G. Reeves, Senator; Allen Jones,
John Gill, Senator; VIM. s. Emley,
r. Edmunds, Senator; w. r. Braddock,
=. BirdHall, Senator; Sam,l Stockton,
r. Fithion, Senator; Mackey Williams,
John w. Craig, Senator; Wesley Danser,
J. Satterthwait, Senator; Eli Rogers,
e. Y. Rogers, John Huylcr,.
y. Rodgers, Sec'y Sen. John II. Hopper,
J. Fl. Phillips, Speaker John p. Young,
of House Of Assembly; Robert b Risley,
John c. Beardsley, Guy Price,
Isaac ii. Person, Benjamin Ayars,
Cornelius Boice, Joel Moore,
Beach Vanderpool, Samuel Mayhem,
w. NJ. Whitehead, D. Naar, Clerk of the
David Wade, General Assembly.
REruRS OF caLIronSIANs.
\ Mr.. HAMLlN presented TWO petitions of citizens
of Maine, praying that public vessel may be or >
dercd to bring home from California such citizens
of the United States as from poverty unable to
return. Referred to the Committee on Naval At
fairs.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
MIR. HAMLIN presented the petition of residents
of Waldo county, Maine, praying repeal or mod
ifcaton Of the late Of Congress for the delivery
of fugltive6 from service or labor.
MIR. H., in presenting this petition, said that as
the subject Of modification Of that law already
before the Judiciary Committee, he moved this me-
mortal be referred TO the committee:
No objection having been made, the petition was
referred. Subsequently,
MIR. ATCHlSON moved that the vote by which
this petition referred be reconsidercd. lie saw
no reason why petition presented by the Senator
from Maine should be referred, and similar pet-
tons presented by the Senator from New York
should be laid on the table,
MIR. BUTLER said he was indifferent whether the
petition were referred or not.
Mr.. HAMLIN said the Judiciary Committee had
the subject of modification OF the Fugitive Slave
law before them the bill introduced by the Senator
from Indiana, Mr. BRIGHT, and several petitions,
had been referred to the committee. This petition
signed by several members of the Legisla-
ture, and by men who had been State councillors
They mostly all known to him, and he
voucbed for their respectability. He had on sevc
raj occasions presented petitions for the repeal of
the Fugitive Slave law, and had moved that they
be laid the table; this he had done because such
had been the decision Of the Senate, and not be-
cause he thought 1t was right
The CHAIR said the petition composed of
several pieces Of paper, with names written there
on, and at the top of which was pasted the printed
petition.
Mr. CHASE opposed the motion to reconsider,
and urged the propriety of the reference-particu-
larly after the reference of the bill of the Senator
from Indiana.
Mr.. BERRIEN pointed out the wide distinction
between the prayer of these petitioners and the SUBJ
ject-mattcr Of the bill of the Senator from Indi-
Mr.. SEWARD said that the record of the Senate
showed that petitions to make this Fugitive Slave
law more stringent received and referred to
the committee. A bill to make the law more
rigorous was received and referred and petitions.
for a modification of the law, and to reduce the
rigors of the law, refused reference The re-
cord also showed the fact that petitions for modi-
fcation Of the law, presented by the Senator from
Pennsylvania, were referred to the Judiciary Com
mittec, while similar petitions, presented by the
Senator from New York, wcre denied reference.
He would vote Eainst the reconsideration, because
he was in favor of exact justice to all parties He
would vote against the reconsideration, because he
thought 1t unjust to deny consideration to any
petition sent to the seate. whether, ike the pre-
cent it was sgned by the ellie of the community or
by others more humble. He would not deny the
right to any one. He would oppose it also for an
other reason II the object OF the Senate be to sup
: press agitation, the wrong way to attain that end
was pursued. Congress, for years, in one branch
the oher and in one form or another, refused 10
receive consider petitions the subject OF
slavery. The effect of this policy denial of
the right of petition. That denial of the right Of
petition did not lessen agitation; and now whether
the Senate decided TO receive the petitions, or
ceiving them should refuse them consideration,
by laying them on the table, the effect and result
was the samoa denial of the right Of petition.
He was in favor of receiving these petitions for
consideration and for action. Congress, by the &C,
OF lazt session known as the Fugitive Slave law,
had attempted TO force upon the free States the
economy of the slave States, and the experiment
will result in reaction. 1t was like the attempt
by England 70 force the Catholics Of Ireland to
conform TO the established religions; the attempt
only tended to make them adhere more closely TO
their own creed He considered that whether
these petitions received or not they would not
cease. They would continue to accumulate on the
tables OF Congress; and those who fattered them.
selves that agitation has been quieted will discover
their error.
He had been denounced as an agitator and in
this connexion took occasion say that since the
passage Of this law he had not by epcech or wri.
ting done any thing TO cause agitation. lie was
willing TO allow the people TO consider and ac,
for Themselves upon this subject, well all
others; and when they appealed to Congress by
their petitions he thought ii the duty of Congress
20 consider their requests
MIR. BADGER remarked upon the clear and oh
vious distinction between the object sought TO be
accomplished by the bill introduced by the Senator
from Indiana and that of the signcrs of this peti
tion he then replied TO the position taken by tho
Senator from New York. that unlcss the Senate re-
ceived every petition, and referred them TO COM
mittccs, and acted upon them, il would be n denial
OF the right of petition. If this ground were 70
obtain, he argued, then the right Of Judgment ur-
on the propriety of considering any subject would
be given up by the Senate, and would be placed en-
tirely in the hands of those who thought proper 70
address Congress on the subject.
Mr.. BRADBURY considered there no prac-
teal difference whether this petition reported
10 the committee not The subject was AZ
fully before the Judiciary Committee as IL could be
the bill of the Senator from Indiana and the
petitions referred 10 IL some month since, on mo
tion by the Senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. CooP
gR,) placed the whole subject before the Commit
tee. The committee have considered these matters
and have come 10 the conclusion that Legislation
upon the subject 10 unnecessary and inexpedient