SPEECH.

SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 1838.

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Texas subject, with amendments proposed thereto by Mr. THOMPSON and Mr. ADAMS, again coming up for consideration

Mr. ADAMS rose and said: The proposition moved by my colleague [Mr. CUSHING] is to recommit the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with certain instructions. I shall be entirely satisfied if the decision of the House shall be in favor of that proposition. My introduction of an amendment to the amendment now pending is only in consequence of the gentleman from South Carolina's having moved instructions to the committee to quite a different end from that sought by my colleague. I do not wish, in the present stage of the debate, to introduce the general question of the annexation of Texas to the Union. I particularly desire the House so to understand me. The proposition of my colleague is this:

"That the report and accompanying papers be recommitted to the same committee, with instructions to make report thereon in full as to the merits of the questions presented by the resolutions of the Legislatures of the several States of Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts, and of the various petitions before the House on the subject of Texas."

His desire is, that the subject be recommitted, in order to have a deliberate report on the merits of the several resolutions of State Legislatures, and of the numerous private memorials, petitions, and remonstrances which had, at different periods of the session, been referred to the committee. That, also, is my desire. The resolution he offered does not involve the general question: it seeks only the. recommitment of the subject, and of the various documents relating thereto, which have been sent to that committee, but which the committee have not taken into consideration.

I take it for granted, when the general question comes up, (unless we are again to have the previous question called upon us, and all debate smothered, as happened when it was up before,) the question will be divided, and taken first on the recommitment, and then on the different propositions of instruction, in their order. I now state that my only object, at present, is to recommit the subject to get a report upon it. It was in this view that I found it necessary to take issue with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROMGOOLE] on the question of the rights of this House, of the rights of members of this House, and of the rights and duties of the committees of this House.

When the subject first came up, I rose in my place and inquired of the Speaker, not of the gentleman from Virginia, whether the committee had

given as much as five minutes' consideration to the several resolutions of the Legislatures of sovereign States of this Union, and the very numerous memorials and petitions of individual citizens which had been, by order of this House, referred to their consideration? When I put that question to the Chair, the gentleman from Virginia rose, and denied my right to do so, and declared that he would not be catechised by me. I said, at the time, that the reluctance of the committee to answer that question was, of itself, sufficient for me, and that I trusted it would be sufficient for this House and for the American People. It was a concession that the committee never had taken these papers into consideration at all. That, I trust, will be the deliberate conviction of the People of the United States.

But this inference is not enough. The gentleman from Virginia assumed a general principle as to the rights of this House, the rights of members of this House, and the rights and duties of committees of this House. My question was not personal to the gentleman from Virginia. I did not ask what consideration he had given to these documents; I asked whether the committee had considered the memorials of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and the solemn resolutions of the Legislatures of not a few of the States of this Union, which had been sent to them that they might be considered. The only answer is that of an individual, that "he will not be catechised." This is not the answer to which I was entitled; and I demand an answer yet. Until I get it, my inference will be that those documents never were considered by the committee.

When this question was up during the morning hour, yesterday, I had only time, as the hour was about expiring, to give notice to the House that I took an issue with the gentleman from Virginia on the great and important principle laid down by him touching the rights of this House, the rights of members of this House, and the rights and duties of the committees of this House. I was arrested by the expiration of the hour. I had time only to inquire of the chairman of the committee [Mr. HOWARD] whether he endorsed the principle laid down by his colleague on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And I understood him to say that he went the full length of the ground taken by that gentleman. I ther asked if there was any other of the members of that committee who took the same position. But before any response was given, the orders of the day were named by the Chair, and the subject was for the time cut off. It was, at that time, my intention to ask each member of that committee, in order, whether he endorsed the doctrine of the gentleman from Virginia; but, on further consideration, I have concluded not to do so; and for this reason that some of those gentlemen might probably find themselves in the situation of the honorable chairman-between a great principle of duty on the one hand, and, on the other, of party obligation to a personal and political friend; for to this moment I cannot believe that the chairman of that committee does, in his heart, assent to the soundness of any such principle as that to which he has committed himself. Mr. DROMGOOLE here interposed, and asked whether Mr. A. would allow the other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs now to answer his question. He had himself conversed with none of them since yesterday, so as to ascertain what their reply would be; but, after the

averment now openly made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that some of them would probably find themselves in difficulty how to act between duty on the one hand, and party on the other, he did hope that all the members would be suffered to answer, each for himself.

Mr. HOWARD said that he concurred in this request of his colleague; he hoped the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts would assent to the request.

Mr. DROMGOOLE added that he hoped, if the gentleman from Massachusetts would not assent, that every member would insist upon his right

to answer.

Mr. THOMPSON hoped no such thing would be done; this sort of proceeding was wholly unparliamentary and improper. He protested against such a waste of the time of the House.

Mr. LEGARE said that, for one, he was prepared to answer the gentleman's question, though he protested against his right to catechise the committee; and as soon as he could obtain the floor he should give the reasons why the committee declined being more explicit in their report, or entering on the merits of the general question. They were under no obligation to do so; and that for the reason stated in their report. He was fully aware of the importance and novelty of the general principle to which the gentleman was now speaking, and would give his views of it as soon as an opportunity should be allowed him to get the floor.

Mr. ADAMS. I did not distinctly hear the gentleman. I now understand him to decline answering my question.

Mr. LEGARE. What I said related to the committee. For myself, I have no hesitation in admitting that I have not read the papers, or looked into them, nor was I bound to do so.

Mr. ADAMS. I understand the gentleman from South Carolina now formally to admit that he has never looked into the documents referred to the committee on the subject of Texas at all.

Mr. LEGARE. Not one of them.

Mr. ADAMS. Into not one of them?

Mr. ADAMS. I beg leave, now, to read the 76th standing rule of this House:

"It shall be the duty of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to take into consideration all matters which concern the relations of the United States with foreign nations, and which shall be referred to them by the House, and to report their opinion on the same." There is the letter of the law. (Mr. A. here read the rule, very slowly, a second time.) The gentleman from South Carolina says that he is aware the question is one of immense importance.

Mr. LEGARE said he had done nothing incompatible with that rule. He had fully considered the subject on which the committee reported, and as far as the report went. It was by no means necessary to look into the arguments for or against admitting Texas, when the committee concluded that no question as to the admission of Texas had yet arisen in the House, and did not choose themselves to become the authors of any proposition, without the express order of the House.

Mr. ADAMS. The gentleman has taken into consideration the reso→ lutions of sovereign States, and of a vast body of memorials and petitions, and has never looked into one of them. [A laugh.] Sir, the time has

ر

been when I despaired to speak to this House on a great principle, when I despaired to speak to the People of this country on a great principle. I will not say that the time has passed when I despair to appeal to this House on a great national principle. I remember the report of the Committee of Elections in the Mississippi case. I remember the report of the Duelling Committee. I do not know but that it is desperate to make an appeal to this House when party crosses its path, but I do not despair to appeal to the People. To them I call to mark the principles assumed in this House by members of one of the most important committees of the House-a committee to whom the destiny of this nation is committed in a greater degree than to any other. I call them to note what is now passing here. The resolutions of the Legislatures of six or seven States of this Union, standing on the principles they respectively maintain, together with memorials, and petitions, and remonstrances, from thousands and hundreds of thousands of American citizens, have been referred to that committee to consider and report thereon. When a question is put, a member of that committee rises in his place and denies the right of the House, or of any member, to ask whether the committee ever did consider those resolutions and memorials. And another member of that same committee answers that he is willing to report on these papers without looking into any one of them. Now, I beg leave to say, in the face of the country, that I denounce both as utterly incorrect, and I hope the People of the United States will do themselves justice in this case, as the People of Mississippi have nobly done themselves justice in regard to another report to this House. Sir, we are in a process in which I hope we shall persevere until such principles shall be forever swept away. Would to God they could be swept from the records of this House, as they will be from the practice of all future Congresses. I assert, as a great general principle, that when resolutions from the Legislatures of States, and the petitions of a vast multitude of our fellow-citizens on a subject of deep and vital importance to the country, are referred to a committee of this House, if that committee make up an opinion without looking into such resolutions and memorials, the committee betray their duty to their constituents and to this House. I give this out to the nation. I ask this nation to reflect on the proceedings of the committee and of the House on such principles. When the meanest petition of the lowest and poorest individual in the country (I will not say slave) is presented in this House and referred, I hold it the duty of the committee, to the House, to the country, and to the petitioners, to look into the petition before they make up their opinion. Here is a broad principle; if I am wrong, let the country put me down. It is affirmed that the report of a committee is to be made without even looking into the resolutions of Legislatures and the petitions of citizens referred to that committee for consideration. There I am willing the question shall rest.

As to the urgency of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DROMGOOLE,] that other members of the committee shall be called upon to say whether they endorse his position, the gentleman can ask of them if he pleases; I shall not, for the reason I assign, and for another reason, which I will give, since he is disposed to insist.

Mr. HOWARD here interposed. It was I who wished that question

should be put to the members of the committee. The gentleman from Massachusetts intimated plainly, too plainly, that I was influenced by some sinister consideration, in common with the gentleman from Virginia, in resisting his right to catechise the committee. I now wish the House to see whether other members of the committee do not agree with us in sentiment. I trust my colleague from Virginia will persevere, and I see an additional reason for this in what the gentleman from Massachusetts has now said.

Mr. ADAMS. The chairman did ask, and so did the gentleman from Virginia, that the members of the committee might be called upon. They both asked this. I stated the reason why I should not call upon them, viz: because it would place each member of that committee in an attitude where he would be obliged to trample on a great principle of duty, or to sacrifice, as far as he can be supposed to sacrifice, the judgment of a colleague on the committee. I had witnessed the effect of that appeal on the chairman, for I do not believe now that that gentleman would be willing to take such a position as was assumed by the gentleman from Virginia, because the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. LEGARE] did not. The gentleman from South Carolina changes the issue. The gentleman from Maryland changes the issue. He yesterday supposed that I was putting a personal question to the gentleman from Virginia, and this he thought I had no right to do. But that was not the question. There was nothing personal in the matter. I have disclaimed, to the utmost, all pretence of right to question the gentleman from Virginia, whether he makes up his opinion on a memorial without looking into it or not. On that matter he may do as he pleases. So may the gentleman from South Carolina. My question was, whether the committee had done their duty, as they are required by the rule of this House, and by every principle of reason, to do. Why do you refer any paper to a committee, if their mind is previously so made up that they will not look into one of those papers? What is it but a waste of time to refer documents to a committee who have thus prejudged the subject? I say it is contrary to the very vital existence of this House, and of the committees of this House; and I say that if the avowal of such a principle was made in respect to the memorial of a single individual, it would not be tolerated. Supposing it were a petition of a soldier of the Revolution, or the case of Mrs. Heileman, which we had but yesterday before us, a case not provided for by law, and the committee should take such ground, what would this House say? I ask the gentleman from South Carolina himself to tell me what would this House say? A committee comes in and reports against the petition of Mrs. Heileman. They are asked whether they looked at her petition, and one of the committee rises and says, no; I had made up my mind before; I did not care what was in the petition; I had considered the subject, and I thought the provisions of existing laws to be sufficient. What would this House say to such an answer as that? And if it would not be tolerated in the case of one poor widow, what shall be said when the question referred to the committee is the fate and fortune of this Union-the existence of this Union-the existence of freedom among the race of man?

I have said, and I repeat, that I wish every member of the committee to understand that it is not in reference to his own individual opinion or