The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-06-17

tleman from New York would so modify his
motion that they could have direct vote on
rejecting the petition. " If the House is pre-
pared to decide upon the principle OF the petit
ton, why not reject it at oncet To refer the
petition is an act of supererogaton, which can
do no good, and will do much mischief" He
hoped the House would reconsider, and then at
once refuse to consider the petition, or reject it.
FRANKLIN PIERCE hoped the motion to re-
consider would be withdrawn, and that MIR.
Beardsey would 80 far modify his motion AZ
to meet the appreciation of all who are most
sensitive upon this agitating question:" "and
he rose to add his request to the suggestion
made by his friend from Virginia. Mr.. Ma
son. He was anxious for a direct vote upon
the question he could not bear that any mpu-
tation should rest upon the North in conse-
quencc of the misguided and fanatical zeal of
a tew-comparatively few" sc.
The motion to reconsider was laid upon the
tabe-yeas ll9, nays -
Mr.. Beardsley persisting in his motion to
| lay bIt DttidOn VII Jut IdDc' oO no w SSS i'N VI
debate and excitement, the question was taken,
and decided in the negative-yeas 95, nays 81.
Those who voted yea were the conservative men
of the South, and their Northern allies those
who voted nay were the extreme men of the
South who wished to force an undsguised de-
nia of the right of petition, and the true friends
of the right of petition, who were intent upon
putting an end to the policy by which that
right had been practically nullifed while tech
ME Ally recognised. As might have been ex-
pected John Quincy Adams voted nay, and
FRANKLIN PIERcE yea.
The motion to lay upon the table having
failed, Mr. Hammond moved that said petition
be- and the same is hereby, rejected. The de-
bate then proceeded with great animation
and during its progress the fact was brought
to the notice of the House that similar petit
ton, presented that very day by Mr.. Briggs of
Massachusetts, had through inadvertence been
referred to the Committee on the District OF
Columbia. Mr.. Patton moved to reconsider
this vote and then the whole subject went over
till the following Monday, the House adjourn
ing till that day.
Monday December 2lst, it was again taken
up, and after debate, the majority being unable
to agree upon any more summary mode of pro-
ceeding, a motion to lay upon the table the pc
tition, and all motions in relation to it, pre-
yailed--yeas l4O, nays 76--the South generally
and its Northern allies, including FRANKLIN
PIERCE, voting yea, John Quincy Adams and
his friends with few Southerners hostile to
any kind of indirection, voting nay.
Mr. Owens had previously sent to the Chair
the following resolutions;
"That in the opinion of this House, the ques-
ton Of the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia ought not to be entertained by Con-
gress:
"That in case any petition praying the abo-
lition of slavery in the District of Columbia be
hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion
of this House that the same ought to be laid
upon the table without reading"
He now moved that the rules be suspended,
to enable him to offer these resolutions. The
motion was lost-yeas 100, nays Il5-FRANK-
LIN PIERCE voting with the Shareholders yea
John Quincy Adams and his friends, ndy
Mr. Patton of Virginia, called up his motion
to reconsider the motion by which a petition
for the abolition of slavery in the District had
been referred; and thereupon fierce debate
arose on tho general question CT slavery (occu-
pying three days. in the course of which the
Northern view of the subject was presented at
length and with great ability by VIM. Slade
The question of reconsideration WAS decided
on the 23d in the affirmative, yeas lab, nays
6l-the South and its Northern allies, with
FRANKLIN PIERCE, voting yea and JOHN QUIN-
cY ADAMS and his friends nay.
The petition and motion to commit were
then summarily laid upon the table, yeas l44
nays 67-FRANKLIN PIERCE voting, as before
man. JoHN QUINCY ADAMS yea.*
February 10, 1886, MIR. Pierce obtained
leave to make personal explanation. He read
from an Abolition paper an article making Sc
we're structures upon his speech of former day
i'm which he had said that not one in five hun
dred OF his constituents was in favor of tho
abolition of slavery in the District He de-
nounccd the paper as insignificant and
odiousp denounced the anti-savery movement
and undertook to discredt oil the petitions on
the subject of slavery, whether from his own
State or othcrsf
February 8, 1886, the resolution of Mr.
Pncknoy was adopted for raising select
committee, to which were referred all papers
relating to the subject of slavery and which
was instructed to report that Congress has no
constitutional power to interfere in any way
with the institution of slavery in the States
and ought not to interfere in any way with
slavery in the District of Columbia. The res
olnton was divided, and FRANKLIN PIERCE
voted in the affirmative on every part Of the
instructons.f
February %, 1896, MIR Adams presented a
petition for the abolition Of slavery in the Dis
trict, and moved its reference to the select
committee ON the subject MIR Shepherd OBJ
jected to its reception; Mr.. Davis moved to
lay that preliminary question on the table
and his motion prevailed yeas 100 nays So
FRANKLIN PIERCE voting yea, with the South
JoHN Quincy ADAMS and his friends nag The
effect of the motion was to lay the question of
reception on table, thereby virtually refusing
to entertain the petition.S
May is, 1896, Mr.. Pinckney, from the select
committee on the subject, made q report con-
corning the disposition of papers relating to
the question of slavery, concluding with the
following resolutions:
"Resoired, That Congress possesses no con-
stitutional authority to Interfere in any way
with tho institution Of slavery in any of the
States of this Conlederacy.
RcSOlued That Congress ought not to in