view of the House and of the nation, is to dispose of all petitions on the subject in the same way. This is not a new opinion; I assumed this position in my very first act as a member of this House, from the very time when I first took my seat as a member of 22d Congress. At that time fifteen petitions were transmitted to me, not from my own constituents, but from citizens of the Society of Friends in the State of Pennsylvania, with a request that I should present them to the House. Sir, I did so in homage to the sacred right of petition-a right which, in whatever manner it may be treated by other members of this House, shall never be treated by me other than with respect.

But, sir, not being in favor of the object of the petitions, I then gave notice to the House and to the country, that upon the supposition that these petitions had been transmitted to me under the expectation that I should present them, I felt it my duty to say I should not support them. And, sir, the reason which I gave at that time for declining to support them was precisely the same reason which the gentleman from Virginia now gives for reconsidering this motion-namely, to keep the discussion of the subject out of the House. I said, sir, that I believed this discussion would be altogether unprofitable to the House and to the country; but, in deference to the sacred right of petition, I moved that these fifteen petitions, all of which were numerously signed, should be referred to the committee on the District of Columbia, at the head of which was, at that time, a distinguished citizen of Virginia, now, I regret to say—and the whole country has occasion to regret no more. These petitions were thus referred, and after a short period of time, the chairman of the committee on the District of Columbia made a report to this House, which report was read, and unanimously accepted; and nothing more has been heard of these petitions from that day to this. In taking the course I then took, I was not

sustained by the unanimous voice of my own constituents; there were many among them, persons as respectable and as entitled to consideration as any others, who disapproved of the course I pursued on that occasion.

Attempts were made within the district I then represented to get up meetings of the people to instruct me to pursue a different course, or to multiply petitions of the same character. These efforts were continued during the whole of that long session of Congress; but, I am gratified to add, without any other result than that, from one single town of the district which I had the honor to represent, a solitary petition was forwarded before the close of the session, with a request that I would present it to the House. Sir, I did present it, and it was referred to the same committee on the District of Columbia, and I believe nothing more has been heard of it since. From the experience of this session, I was perfectly satisfied that the true and only method of keeping this subject out of discussion was, to take that course; to refer all petitions of this kind to the committee on the District of Columbia, or some other committee of the House, to receive their report, and to accept it unanimously. This does equal justice to all parties in the country; it avoids the discussion of this agitating question on the one hand, and on the other, it pays due respect to the right of the constituent to petition.

Two years afterwards, similar petitions were presented, and at that time an effort made, without success, to do that which has now been done successfully in one instance. An effort was made to lay these petitions on the table; the House did not accede to the proposition: they referred the petitions as they had been before referred, and with the same result. For, from the moment that these petitions are referred to the committee on the District of Columbia, they all go to the family vault" of all the Capulets," and you will never hear of them afterwards.

Extract from the speech of Hon. Silas Wright, of New York, in the Senate, Jan. 19, 1836, on the subject of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Wright said he was not to discuss the subject of slavery in the abstract. He knew it, and the people of the North, as a body, knew it only as it existed under the Constitution of the United States, and was sanctioned by it. They thought of it in that light, and in that light only, so far as its existence in these States is concerned, and so far as the quiet of the country and the preservation of the Union are involved in any agitation of the subject. In that sense, it was not a question for discussion in that body.

Neither was he to debate the question of slavery in the sovereign States of this Union. The sacred and invaluable compact which constitutes us one people, had not given to Congress the jurisdiction over that question. It was left solely and exclusively to those States, and, in his humble judgment, it ought never to be debated here in any manner whatever.

Mr. W. said he would go farther, and say that he did not purpose to trouble the Senate with a discussion upon the propriety of any action on the part of Congress in reference to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or in regard to the constitutional power of Congress over that subject. He had listened with pleasure and profit to the able argument of the honorable senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh), upon the powers of Congress, and had marked his concessions of power equal to that possessed by the legislatures of the respective States of Maryland and Virginia over the same subject within those States. He had not studied the question himself, because he was able to mark out his own course, with perfect satisfaction to his own mind, without examining either the constitutional powers of Congress, or the powers of those State legislatures. He was ready to declare his opinion to be, that Congress ought

not to act in this matter, but upon the impulse of the two States surrounding the District, and then in a manner precisely graduated by the action of those States upon the same subject. Had the Constitution, in terms, given to Congress all power in the matter, this would, with his present views and feelings, be his opinion of the expedient rule of action, and entertaining this opinion, an examination into the power to act had been unnecessary to determine his vote upon the prayer of these petitions. He was ready promptly to reject their prayer, and he deeply regretted that he was not permitted so to vote without debate.

Extract of a speech delivered in the United States Senate, by Mr. Buchanan, in 1835.

"The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any State into which a slave may have fled from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such State to his master. Nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political powers, by giving to those States within which it exists representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of slaves.

"Sir, this question of domestic slavery is a weak point in our institutions. Tariffs may be raised almost to prohibition, and then they may be reduced so as to yield no adequate protection to the manufacturer; our Union is sufficiently strong to endure the shock. Fierce political storms may arise; the moral elements of the country may be convulsed by the struggles of ambitious men for the highest honors of government. The sunshine does not more certainly succeed the storm than that all will again be peace. Touch this question of slavery seriously-let it once be made manifest to the people of the South that they cannot

live with us, except in a state of continual apprehension and alarm for their wives and their children, for all that is near and dear to them upon the earth, and the Union is from that moment dissolved. It does not then become a question of expediency, but of self-preservation. It is a question brought home to the fireside, to the domestic circle, of every white man in the Southern States."

OPINIONS OF MR. BENTON.

At the session of 1835, Mr. Buchanan presented to the Senate the memorial of the Society of Friends, adopted at their Caln quarterly meeting, requesting Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Benton rose to express his concurrence in the suggestion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Buchanan,] that the consideration of this subject be postponed until Monday. It had come up suddenly and unexpectedly today, and the postponement would give an opportunity for senators to reflect, and to confer together, and to conclude what was best to be done, where all were united in wishing the same end, namely, to allay, and not to produce excitement. He had risen for this purpose; but, being on his feet, he would say a few words on the general subject, which the presentation of these petitions had so suddenly and unexpectedly brought up.

With respect to the petitioners, and those with whom they acted, he had no doubt but that many of them were good people, aiming at benevolent objects, and endeavoring to ameliorate the condition of one part of the human race, without inflicting calamities on another part; but they were mistaken in their mode of proceeding; and so far from accomplishing any part of their object, the whole effect of their interposition was to aggravate the condition of those in whose behalf they were interfering.

But there was another part, and he meant to speak of the