The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1860-09-01

| cP'cc'' ana acted Hp0n. cHne MIR. Bell, as will
be seen by the following vxtract of letter
written by him to the late Hon. Geo R.
Gilmer, Of Georgia, in $40 and published
i'll number Of newspa!srs of the day.
Nh. BELL IN lS40-ABsLIrION PETITIONS.
when the abolition movement at the
North had reached point of excitement
which began to be felt j. Congress, was
actively engaged in the CANVASS between Judge
| White and Mr.. Van Bufen The question
WAS Of such nature as to render i: almost
| impossible in an assembly composed ofsse
many ardent and imaulsse spirits as The
Congress o! the Unit2 States, that il Should
not become. in some bape or degree. connsc-
ted with The party conflicts of the day Some
Of my most valued; and cherished friends
thought Mr.. Van Bu,en fairly and Justly
assailabe in the South on the ground ofhis.
vote to instruct the Senators of New York
against the admission ,pf Missouri. The
favor which his friends and supporters at
that time showed to abolition petitions, by
voting for their reception, and also for their
reference under Pinckneys resolution, ap.
pearrd to them to afford a proper ground of
attack before the people | demonstrated
earnestly with my friends against the polio y
Of such course, and against any proceed
ing whatever which might tend to bring
about division of parties. to any extent,
| issue.
AT a period to which refer, QS36,) the
opposition to Mr.. Van Buren, in the South
and Southwest. with few exceptions took
the position that the right of petition did not
exist in this case. This opinion was main.
tanned upon the ground that Congress had
| no right to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia; and it was contended that Pc
titlon TO do an unconstitutional act was not
entitled to notice. and ought not to be re-
ceived. The argument was carried still fur.
thcr. 1t was s,renetusly urged that the ad-
mission of the power TO abolish slavery in
the district would I've fatal 10 the South.
My opinion was. that whether the peti.
| TONERS had strict right on their side or not,
sound policy dictated the reception and ref.
crence to their petitions believed that any
unusual course in regard to them would give
undue importance to the movements of the
abolitionis's, furnish new ground for agita-
tion, and rather increase the existing excite.
uent than allay it,"
Cuder these convictions, Mr.. Bell only. of
all the southern representatives IN Congr css.
isave Mr.. Bouldn Of Virginia. J voted against
TIE ATnERToN RESOLUTIONS,
which provided. that all petitions rela ting
III any way or to any extent whatever to
slavery as aforesaid, OF the abolition thereof,
should, on the presentation, thereof, without
any further action thereon, be- laid on the
table, without being debated, printed or ref
| red"
The origin of these Anterior resolutions
was as follows: = On the night of the 9Th of
December, 1888 Martin Van Buren, being
Presidcnt-there was a meeting in Washing
| !ngton of few administration members of the
House Of Representatives from the South and
few from the North. The meeting was
| called at the instance of the Hon. r. B. Rhett,
Of South Carolina. who since the days of null.
| ilication, has had the strongest proclvi,es
towards disunlon and is now an open dis.
unionist to consider certain resolutions which
| he had prepared on the subject of Slavery
The resolutions were considered and adopted.
and as it was deemed expedient that they
should be offered by a northern man. Mr..
Anterior. of New Hampshire, was selected
FOR that purpose. Accordingly, he presented
them to the House three days afterwards
made speech explanatory of his reasons for
offering them, and concluded by calling the
previous question, so as TO cut off all debate
and amendments. Gov. Wise was at that
time Wing representative from Virginia.
lie denounced the whole proceedings in the
most indignant terms ON the floor of the
llcusc and on subseq Lcnt occasion, in a
public address to portion of his constiia-
cnts, he stated that these resolutions were
prepared IN secret, so far as the Wing repre-.
sentatives from the South and North were
concerned. and agreed upon by some few or
or more Van Buren, men of the South, with
| Others from the North, without permitting
the Wing slave-holding members of the
South to know anything of the matter,
until 1t was sprung upon the House, with a
Ca II for the previous question. lie said these
resolutions, thus prepared and brought for
| ward. were" the first of a strict party pro-
ccedng," known to our national history.
This was the first organized effort at
| slavery agitation for strictly party purposes.
The concoctors and authors of the proceedings
| were southern Democrats, who contrved to
secure the CO operation of a portion of the
northern Democrats of tie House MIR. Rhett,
who prepared the resolutions, is a confessed
dsunionist. Mr.. Anterior. who was induced
to offer them, voted in 1917 for the Wimot
Proviso. And Mr.. Van Buren,, of whose
| administration the parties to the movement
were all supporters, because in 1913. the
Frecsoil candidate for the Presidency, on the
Buffalo platform -receiving the support Of
a majority Of the Democracy Of New York
over Gen Cass.
| The same patriotic considerations which
moved Mr. Bell to vote against the clause in
the Anterior resolutions, inpelled him to
vote against the famous
TWENTY-FlRST RULE
Of the House Of Representatives, which was
| as follows:
THAT no petition, memorial, or rcsolu-
ton. or other paper , praying the abolition Of
slavery in the District of Columbia, or any
State or Territory, or the slave-trade between,
the States CT Territory of the United States,
in which it now exists, shall be received by
this House, or entertained in any way what.
ever"
The rule was adopted. in a House where
parties were nearly balanced, by ia yeas
to l0S nays Messrs. Bell and Gentry, of
Tennessee. and Anderson, Calhoun, aud
Underwood, Of Kentucky, being the only
southern representatives who voted in the
negative. At the next Congress 1.-THE 27th)
the House being Wing, the rule was again
adopted.
AT the next Congress, 1.-THE 2Sih) on the
Sd Of December, 1874, on motion of John
Quincy Adams, the rule was rescined by a
vote of los yeas to 50 nays.
! In the House by which the rule was res.
cined by this very decided majority, the
| -,,1, L.,l NJ