Friday, January 3.

Benjamin Huger, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

Petition of Free Blacks.

The House resumed the unfinished business of yesterday, on the resolution for referring certain parts of the petition of Absalom Jones and others, when

Mr. Rutledge rose to explain his reasons for moving the adjournment yesterday, as not having arisen from a desire of protracting the debate, but because he conceived the Chair misunderstood him on the point of order. When he submitted the question of order to the Chair, it appeared from the decision to be the Speaker's opinion that the question was, whether a member had a right to withdraw a motion in that situation or not. He knew that right to exist, but he doubted of the competency of the House to refer parts of a petition, and not the whole. In his opinion it ought not to be referred, or, if so, the whole ought to be referred generally. He mentioned a petition which was last session presented from Northampton County, praying the repeal of the alien and sedition laws, but in their general zeal in the pursuance of those objects severally, other laws were found fault with, particularly those relating to measures of defence. These were thought to be improper for a reference; on which a motion was made to refer a part, but it was then thought the petition could not be divided. He submitted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania a very easy mode of acquiring the object, which was by withdrawing the petition and advising the petitioners to present one conformable to the decision, and within the constitutional power of the House. Gentlemen were mistaken in saying that petitions of this kind came annually. The session before last the subject was referred to a committee, who made a suitable report upon it, and in order to prevent the continual debate, it was resolved to be a proper object of Judicial, and not of Legislative cognizance. This brought the matter to such an understanding that he hoped he would have heard no more of it. It appeared to have had the good effect of preventing any application during the sitting of last session.

The Speaker said the question of order, as now explained by the member from South Carolina, was not understood by the Chair. From all the examination and the fruits of inquiry which the Chair had since acquired, it appeared not to be unusual to refer parts of a subject, for parts of the President's Speech had been referred; also, parts of petitions had frequently been referred; on which account the opinion of the Chair at present, unless an appeal should be made to the House, was, that the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was perfectly in order.

Mr. Waln said it would have been very agreeable to him that the question should have been taken on the motion first made to the House; but, on hearing the warmth with which it was contested, and willing to remove the jealousy of several gentlemen in the House, he thought it best to alter the motion to their wishes.

It had been suggested that to withdraw the petition for its modification, would be an easy way to acquire the object. He thought it entirely unnecessary to withdraw it in this stage of business. Although he could have wished the words objected to had never been inserted, yet he was not prepared to say that the petitioners had no right to use them. It appeared that these people's sentiments accorded with those of the gentlemen who opposed the reference. They wished to obtain a removal of this great evil when proper: those gentlemen called it an evil which they could wish to get rid of, but they think it cannot be done. Mr. W. said he should not have objected to a resolution importing that it would be improper to legislate on the subject of slavery, but so far as relates to the bad traffic, and the practice of kidnapping, they ought to be examined by a committee. On these accounts he was not authorized, nor was he inclined to withdraw the petition.

He was in hopes the gentleman from South Carolina would not have desisted from his motion for calling the yeas and nays; that gentleman wished the House to show the world that this petition was so irritating and alarming as to merit universal contempt and abhorrence. He believed this gentleman was mistaken as to the small number he supposed would vote for its commitment, and therefore wished he would renew the motion on the question as modified.

Mr. Goode then observed that as a public discussion had taken place upon this subject—one from which he thought Congress precluded by the constitution, and one which materially affected the interest and perhaps the safety of a great portion of the United States, and particularly of his constituents, he thought it his duty not only to give his negative in the usual manner, but to call for the pointed disapprobation of the House, and proposed to amend the resolution by adding the following words:

"And that the parts of the said petition which invite Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the General Government is precluded by the constitution, have a tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought therefore to receive the pointed disapprobation of this House."

Mr. Thatcher said it was the first time that he had ever known any petition or part of a petition receive the "pointed disapprobation of the House" by a resolution, even though the object of it was not within the power of the House. Several petitions had been received upon which the House had no power. He referred to the petition of John Churchman, in December 1791, praying the patronage of Government to facilitate his discovery of the longitude, by enabling him to undertake a voyage to Baffin's Bay. It was reported that great inconvenience operated to prevent the grant prayed for, and no money was allowed, yet no member moved a censure upon the petitioner. Was it a desirable object to do away a great evil? It was professed to be the wish of several gentlemen to eradicate it. No gentleman in the House but appeared desirous of embracing it with all his heart. These people only wished the evil destroyed, but did not point out the form. He was willing, for the sake of argument, to admit that slavery did exist and was sanctioned by the laws and constitution of the United States; he did not believe the fact, but as some other gentlemen did, he would admit it for the present. Surely it would be desirable that this great evil should be destroyed, if it could be done without injury, nay, with advantage, to the possessors. Did the petition go any farther than this? It did not. The second person in the Government of the United States had devised a means to procure this object, as also had a certain learned professor. If it was therefore the desire, as avowed, of those gentlemen, and an equitable means had been devised to acquire it, would the reference of a petition which made that request be improper, or would it be impolitic in gentlemen to examine these plans, and if eligible bring about their execution? Certainly not. Even if a certain sum of money was wanting, he did not believe the House would refuse to appropriate it. Who would withhold a few dollars from his purse to facilitate it? Then, while such are the propositions, a petition in behalf of its accomplishment ought to be heard; if it be not, it must fix a national indignity and stigma which ages of good actions could never wipe away.

Mr. Dana was not of the opinion of a number of gentlemen, that the House ought to express its indignation against these petitions. The indignation of that House ought to be limited to certain objects; it might be expressed against an offending nation, but he much doubted whether it became it to express that high sensation against any individuals. He thought no circumstance could occur which called for such condescension, and therefore he could not approve of words so strongly expressed upon an occasion comparatively so trivial. If the gentleman from Virginia would so convey his ideas as to express the impropriety of those subjects for the consideration of this House, he was willing to agree with him.

Mr. Rutledge thought it a little extraordinary that when gentlemen from some parts of the Union were positively assured that very serious, nay, dreadful effects, must be the inevitable consequence of their discussion on this subject, they still would persist. He used strong words, he said, because no others would be appropriate. Gentlemen recommended the subject to be calmly argued. Would gentlemen feel calm if measures were taken to destroy most of their property? Would calmness be consistent if entering wedges were prepared to ruin the property of whole estates? If ever it was justifiable to be warm on any subject in the House, it surely was on an occasion like the present, when imminent danger was in view. Yes, we deem this as an entering wedge to an inevitable loss of our property, if persisted in. It appeared by the gentleman's arguments that he had just been reading the opinions of his brother philosopher, Brissot.

Three emissaries from St. Domingo appeared in the hall of the Convention, demanding the emancipation of their species from slavery. The Convention were told it would operate as an entering wedge that would go to the destruction of property, and the loss of one of the finest islands in the world; that it would be murderous in the extreme; that it would open scenes which had never been practised since the destruction of Carthage; that a whole rich country would be buried in blood; that thousands would instantly be reduced to abject penury; that the first towns in that fine island would be reduced to a heap of ashes. But those gentlemen said no, it cannot be, all our desires originate in philanthropy—we wish to do good! But, sir, we have lived to see these dreadful scenes. These horrid effects have succeeded what was conceived once to be trifling. Most important consequences may be the result, although gentlemen little apprehend it. But we know the situation of things there, although they do not, and knowing we deprecate it. There have been emissaries amongst us in the Southern States; they have begun their war upon us; an actual organization has commenced; we have had them meeting in their club rooms, and debating on that subject, and determinations have been made. It might be wrong in me to mention these things, because many of those people can read and write, and will be informed of what I am now saying, which they think I did not know, but knowing, I am determined to make use of.

Sir, I do believe that persons have been sent from France to feel the pulse of this country, to know whether these are the proper engines to make use of: these people have been talked to; they have been tampered with, and this is going on. They now will see that the argument has been agitated in the Legislature; that the subject of emancipation has been discussed. Is not this extremely wrong, when gentlemen are told how much it puts our property at hazard. Although these people are unable to do any harm, yet the work will be done by gentlemen in this House, they must be answerable for the mischief.

Before I had the honor of a seat in this House, one question which was agitated by the people was, how do the General Legislature regard this species of property? I said, our brethren in the Northern States are willing to leave this business entirely to us who possess it—they will not intermeddle. I did hope that they never would take the lead in any arguments of this dangerous tendency. But, as gentlemen have gone into this business, I find I am compelled to use arguments which otherwise ought not to be mentioned.

I recollect that gentlemen in France used arguments like the gentleman from Massachusetts: "We can indemnify these proprietors." But how did they do it, or how can it be done?—Not at all. Farther, we were told these things would take place, we need not be alarmed; it was inevitable; that it was reasonable and unavoidable. Sir, it never will take place. There is one alternative which will save us from it, but that alternative I deprecate very much; that is, that we are able to take care of ourselves, and if driven to it, we will take care of ourselves.

Mr. Jones had hoped that the decision of Congress when sitting at New York would have put a final stop to any future applications, and the councils of the United States would have been troubled no farther with them. It was justly and wisely proved that it was a difficulty unfit for Congress to attempt, on account of the extremely different local circumstances and species of property possessed by the Northern and Southern members, who were all met in one convention. However, he must do justice to the candor of some gentlemen from the North, who had vindicated their right to this property. Mr. J. did not think there was any more probability of discovering an eligible and just mode of acquiring the object of emancipation, than there was in the case referred by the gentleman to Mr. Churchman's discovery of longitude. All researches into these attempts were illusory, and both alike impracticable at this time, if ever they would be. However, he was certain that the honorable gentleman's manner of treating the subject would give rise to a just jealousy in those parts of the United States whose property consisted only in slaves. As to the State he represented, as he before said, a very heavy penalty was the fine on each slave imported, and killing, maiming, or ill-treating them was punished severely by the whites. He could not think but the arguments of some gentlemen must originate from improper motives.

Mr. Edmond could not conceive any danger from committing this petition, whatever alarms some gentlemen had apprehended. But as gentlemen apprehended so much danger from committing certain parts of the petition, he would be willing to quiet these alarms, and do every thing reasonable by expressing an idea that Congress would not legislate upon what belonged not to them. The amendment at first proposed, he professed himself much opposed to, upon the ground that the House were about to express a pointed disapprobation towards the petitioners, which he conceived wrong, because no censure could be due where a petition was respectfully addressed. But as now modified he had no objection to adopt the amendment; not that he conceived it important, but because it tended to quiet the minds of some gentlemen in the House.

Mr. Waln again said, that it was not his intention to advocate the emancipation of slaves, but only to ameliorate their state. He therefore would cheerfully consent to the amendment as amended.

Consent being given by the mover to incorporate the amendment with the original resolution, it was now all before the House in the form of one resolution.

Mr. Thatcher said, as an abstract proposition, he should have no objection; he thought the House ought to give no countenance to any thing that it could not legislate on by the constitution; but as he did not believe the petition contained any such proposition, he must adhere to his former sentiments, and could not consent to the incorporation of the words. As amended, he disliked it much less than before, but he did not like it as connected with the first motion.

Mr. J. Brown asked whether it was in order for a gentleman to speak five or six times.

Mr. Thatcher said he had spoken but once on this question. The gentleman from Rhode Island need not be afraid, for he was not now going to say much about slavery, which was the nearest to his heart. Mr. T. was fully of the opinion that the House had a right to take up the subject, and give it a full, free, and deliberate discussion, but this did not appear to be the general opinion. As he was opposed to the motion, as amended, he was willing his name should appear against it, even though no other gentleman should think fit to vote with him.

Mr. Gallatin conceived that there certainly were parts of the petition over which that House had no power, for though the petitioners did not pray for emancipation to be completed immediately, yet they anticipated that it would some time be done, and their prayer included a wish that the House would take a preparatory step. As to the amendment, although he did not like the wording of it altogether, he had no objection to the principle, and therefore should vote for it; for he thought it right to say that it was improper for the House to legislate on the subject. What was not specifically acknowledged by the constitution, in his opinion, carried with it a doubt upon which the Legislature ought not to enter.

Mr. Thatcher called for a division of the question.

Mr. Nicholas, on this, expressed some embarrassment as to giving his vote, on which he moved to strike out the latter part. The same appeared to pervade the minds of several gentlemen.

Mr. Waln, therefore, to relieve the House from the situation, withdrew his acquiescence to the amendment, so as to leave the questions distinct. The yeas and nays had been several times moved during the embarrassed state of the House, but were only taken once, to wit, on the amendment to the proposition:

The question was taken, that the House do agree to the same, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 85, nay 1, as follows:

Yeas.—Willis Alston, George Baer, Theodorus Bailey, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John Bird, Phanuel Bishop, Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Robert Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Albert Gallatin, Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Heister, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Henry Lee, Nathaniel Macon, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, Abraham Nott, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Randolph, John Read, John Rutledge, junior, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Robert Williams, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

Nay.—George Thatcher.

And then the main question, to agree to the said motion, as amended, being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative.