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

| by laying it on the table was again made, and
with similar result-Mr. PIERCE still decli-
ming to vote.
| The question was then taken on the first OF
Mr. Patton's resolutions, and decided in the
negative-yeas 80, nays l05-Mr. PIERCE not
not voting. the recond resolution was also
lost--yeas 81, nays i37-Mr. PIERCE still not
voting.
Several Southern members voted against the
first resolution of Mr. Patton, or refused to vote
for it inasmuch az the petition referred to was
for the expulsion Of Mr.. Adams not for the
abolition of Slavery, and they were also I'M
willing to define in advance the kind OF pun
ishment member deserved who should pre-
sent an Anti-Slavery petition from slaves, Mr..
PIERCE, we presume agreed with these; for
on the 18th, We find him moving to reconsider
the vote by which that resolution had been re-
jected-the purpose being to modify it. 1t
was reconsidered, yeas las, nays as, and then
modified, SO as to read
| Resolved That slaves do not possess the
right of petition secured to the People of the
United States by the Constitution
After great deal more discussion and de-
nunciation, in the course of which Mr.. Adams
was threatened by Waddy Thompson with an
indictment by the Grand Jury of the District
of Columbia, his adversarles. failing in their
attempt to censure him, settled down upon the
following resolutions:
An inquiry having been made by an hon
Orable member from Massachusetts,, whether
II paper which he held in his hand purporting
to be petition from certain slaves, and de-
clarng themselves slaves came within the Or
der of the House of the 18th of January, and
the said paper not having been received by
the Speaker. he stated that in case so extra
ordinary and novel he would take the advice
and consent of the House:
| Resolved, That this House cannot receive
the said petition without disregarding its OWL
| dignity the rights of large class Of citizen,
| of the South and West, and the Constitution
| of the United States.
Resolved, That slaves do not possess the
right of petition secured to the People of the
United States by the Constitution
The first resolution was passed-yeas 100
nays 80; the second also-yeas 1862, nays 49,
FRANKLIN PIERCE in both instances voting yea
John Quincy Adams, nayi*
We have completed the record of Mr.. PIERCE
in the House. 1t demonstrates that during
the time he held a seat in the House of Rep.
resentatives, he was an earnest, thorough con-
sstent opponent of Anti-Slavery agitation and
Anti Slavery discussion; that he was constant
ly arrayed against Mr. Adams, the illustrious
champion of the right of petition that, while
recognising the technical right of petition, he
uniformly voted virtually to aljfogate it; that
when the Shareholders attempted to crush Mr..
Adams and with him the hope of free discus
sion in the House, he would not vote 80 as to
secure that venerable man fair hearing in
word, that he was the unwavering ally and
supporter of the Slaveholding Interest
In the year 1887, Mr.. Pierce became mem
Der Of the United States Senate Following
him thither we shall find that he continued to
pursue the same line of policy in relation to
the Slavery Question. He took his stand by
the side of Mr.. Calhoun, and stood by him in
his efforts to suppress Anti Slavery agitation
and discussion.
December 10, 1887, Mr.. Wall presented a
petition from Anti-Savery ladies in New Jer-
sey praying for the abolition of Slavery in the
District of Columbia, and moved to lay it on
the table Mr. Hubbard moved to lay that
motion on the table. MIR. Clay was in favor
of reference, and a report against the prayer
of the petition, with a view to quoting excite.
ment. Mr., Calhoun wished by summary meas
urcs to meet the question at once. AS the
action of Mr.. PIERCE in this case has been the
subject of misrepresentation with our friends of
the Evening Post, we shall fully explain it
His whole course in the House had proved him
an unrelenting opponent of Anti-Slavery dis
cussons and petitions and he had uniformly
sustained all representations on the subject.
But while violating the right of petition in
effect, no had been polite enough to respect it
in form This course he continued in the Sem
ate. On this occasion he was in favor of re-
ceiving the petition, and then Of getting rid of
it in any way best calculated to defeat it's OBJ
ject and prevent agitation. He did not wish
to give the Abolitionists chance to make up
a false issue on the right Of petition In an
other place he said" All we demand is, that
since we are to be the first to feel the effects of
Abolition ascendency at home should it ever be
acquired (which, by the way by no means
anticipate,) we may meet the question unem-
barrassed, and not be driven by any course
here upon collateral issue, such as the right
of petition or any other.n This is a key to
the policy of MIR. PIERCE Mr. Rives was in
favor of rejecting the petition at once-Mr
Hubbard, of laying the question of reception
on the table, Mr. PIERCE, of laying the petit
ton on the table. The avowed object of each
was to stamp the petitions with disapprobation,
to prevent all debate and consideration to get
rid of them as summarily NJ possible, every
one meanwhile declaring his respect for the
right of petition.
when petitions Of this character should
be received he said, " he would be prepared
to act upon them without delay, to reject the
prayer of the petitions to lay them upon the
table or give them any other direction that
might be thought best calculated to silence the
agtators, and tranquillize the public mind. As
n member of the Select Committee Of the other
honse of which MIR. Pinckney of South Caro-
nina was chairman he had fully concurred
in the sentiments of the report presented by
that gentleman at the first session Of the twen-
ty-fourth Congress; and further examination
and reflection had only served to confirm him
in tho opinion he at that time entertained but
mad and fanatical as he regarded the schemes
of the Aboltionists and deeply rs he deplored