Mr. Douglas denied that the North had suffered degradation from the South. They had always maintained their rights, and if they had shown any submission, it was only to the constitution. He had voted to exclude abolition petitions from the halls of Congress, and to keep down the spirit of fanaticism, which was arraying the North and the South against each other, to build up political factions. He wished to execute the powers of the government in that spirit of conciliation which brought the constitution into existence. If they would settle this question, let us, he said, banish this agitation from these halls. Let us remove the causes which produce it-let us settle it in the territory acquired, so as to satisfy the honor, and respect the feelings of all. Do not insult one section by the prohibition of slavery, nor defy the other by threats of disunion. Bring the new territories into the Union as States, and let them settle the question of slavery as any other question. Neither the North nor the South have any right to enforce their peculiar notions on them. Let it be settled in this district in the same way, by a retrocession to Maryland.

Mr. Underwood denied that the right of petition could be assimilated to the right of prayer. He regarded it as a practical thing, and it was not a matter of right with most of the petitioners, as slavery did not affect them. He admitted, in answer to a question from Mr. Hale, that the people of the United States contributed to the expense of supporting slavery in the district to some extent, but this had an unappreciable bearing on the subject, and afforded no justification to petitioners to ask for the repeal or modification of a law which did not operate on themselves.

Mr. Drayton re-enforced the objections he had made to instructions to the judiciary committee, when the petition was presented. He was for leaving the whole subject to the discretion of the committee. Besides, by forestalling the action of the committee, they would drag into the question the only institution-the Colonization society-which now conciliates the kind feeling both of the North and the South. On his motion, the instructions to the committee were struck out.

Mr. Mason could not give his sanction to any inquiry on the subject of slavery, as it was not permitted by the constitution, and it could be approached in no form in the Senate without injury to that institution. He presumed that no one who was capable of understanding the constitution, believed that Congress had any authority to appropriate money for the proposed object-he was, therefore, opposed to the reference. Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, argued against the right of petition on this subject, and was opposed to the reference. He was even unwilling to allow any influence to operate on the present convention in Kentucky, one way or the other. He denied that slavery in the United States had made any man a slave more than he was before. Slaves were originally purchased from warring bands in Africa, and were thus saved from a more degrading servitude. Slavery had brought with it com

merce, which was the parent of civilization. He invoked others to follow the example of the senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) and said that if our republican institutions are destined to fall, it is this question which will destroy them.

Mr. Butler was opposed to the reference. He had previously determined to be drawn into no discussion by petitions relative to slavery, and if the present petition were referred to the judiciary committee, he should ask to be discharged from it.

Mr. Berrien and Mr. Niles both considered the appropriation asked for to be unconstitutional, but were in favor of referring the petition. On the motion of Mr. Dickinson for indefinite postponement, there were 27 ayes to 23 noes.

A similar discussion was called forth on the 22d of January, when Mr. Dix presented to the senate a preamble and resolutions, passed by the legislature of New York. The senators of that State were instructed, and its representatives requested, on the following points:

1. To procure the passage of laws for the government of the new territories, and that involuntary servitude, except for crime, be there excluded.

2. That the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, are the common property of the United States, and that the senators and representatives of the State use their efforts to protect it from the unfounded claims of Texas, and to prohibit the extension over it of the laws of Texas, or of domestic slavery.

3. That the existence of prisons for the confinement of slaves, and of marts for their sale, at the seat of the national government, is viewed by the legislature of New York with "deep regret and mortification," and that they ought to be forthwith abolished.

4. That the senators and representatives of the State use strenuous efforts to procure a law that shall protect slaves from "unjust imprisonment," and "shall effectually put an end to the slave trade in the District."

Mr. Rusk, of Texas, said he would not question the jurisdiction of the legislature of New York on the slavery question, which seemed likely to agitate the Union from one extremity to the other, but he would question their jurisdiction relative to the boundaries of Texas. The territory claimed by his State has cost her a ten years' war, and the loss of hundreds of lives: and he was prepared at all times to prove that the Rio Grande is her boundary, but would have preferred that the question had been left to the proper jurisdiction. Texas would surrender her rights only with her existence as a sovereign State.

Mr. Yulee of Florida, was opposed to printing the resolutions, as they were insulting to fifteen States, in saying, as the preamble did, that "it would be unjust to Mexico and California, and revolting to

the spirit of the age," to permit domestic slavery, from which they are now free, to be introduced among them.

Mr. Dickinson said there had been no previous instance of refusing to print the resolutions of a sovereign State. Though he differed in sentiment from a majority of the Legislature of his State on this subject, he thought she had a right to be heard through her Legislature.

Mr. Foote was also in favor of printing, according to precedent, and the respect due to a sovereign State.

Mr. Dix examined the preamble and resolutions seriatim, to show that they contained nothing on the subject of slavery which had not been reiterated in speeches and resolutions there and elsewhere. That as to the boundary of Texas, they expressed the opinion entertained by a large majority of the State Legislatures. When the subject came up, he would listen to the senator from Texas with respectful attention. That the last resolution embodies the opinions of the members of the Legislature, on the traffic in slaves in the District, which concerns the people of the whole Union. That this traffic had been prevented by a grand jury of Alexandria 46 years ago; and that John Randolph of Virginia, in 1816, introduced a resolution to inquire if such traffic existed: that the inhabitants of Washington had presented it as a grievance. He had in his hand a memorial to Congress from the inhabitants of the District, in 1828, praying for the gradual abolition of slavery, which he then read. It was signed by 1060 persons, among whom were persons of the first respectability. This memorial goes much farther than the New York resolutions, and uses much stronger language.

Mr. Mason was in favor of printing, because every State has a right to be heard, and he moreover wished these resolutions to be reported to the southern States in the very language in which they were uttered: he wanted nothing suppressed. He expected Virginia also to speak, and should ask that her resolutions should also be received and printed. He drew a distinction between the people of this District speaking of their own institutions, and the people of New York, where slavery no longer exists; for such a State to speak of an institution which exists in fifteen States, as "revolting to the spirit of the age," was to hold "the language of contumely and indignity."

Mr. Dix remarked that New York did not speak of slavery as it exists in the States, but only of its introduction into new territories, where it does not exist, and whose inhabitants have petitioned against it.

Mr. Mason insisted on the offensive character of the language used, but said it was important to the southern States, to know the sentiments of the northern States, and in the very terms used. He said that if the introduction of slavery in the Territories, the common property of all the States, was persisted in, there would be "no other alternative but submission or resistance," and he appealed to history to show whether his constituents were likely to choose submission.

Mr. Rusk was in favor of printing the resolutions. He asked if New York had alone sent her armies to conquer Mexico. He averred that the little State of Texas had contributed more men to that object than the State of New York; that these resolutions were based on the petition from New Mexico, but that petition emanated from a few individuals of doubtful character, and he traced it to local intrigue. He vehemently remonstrated against the interference with the boundaries of a sovereign State.

Mr. Yulee affirmed that the South had furnished more than its quota of troops to the Mexican war.

Mr. Dickinson replied that New York had raised her full quota, but that her troops were prevented from marching, out of favor to the South.

Mr. Yulee was opposed to receiving the resolutions on account of their disrespectful language, now introduced for the first time.

Mr. King, of Alabama, stated that resolutions of this character from other States had contained language highly improper, but while he regretted that such should have been used on the present occasion, he thought the State of New York had a right to be heard, and that the publication and diffusion of her sentiments would have a better effect than their suppression.

Mr. Butler and Mr. Berrien were also in favor of printing the resolutions.

Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, was opposed to the printing, and pronounced the assertion, as to the prisons in which slaves "are unjustly and illegally immured," in the District, a falsehood.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was opposed to printing the resolutions, as he would not aid in "disseminating the slanders and assaults" made upon his section of the country and its institutions.

Mr. Niles wished to know of the member from Florida, (Mr. Yulee,) who had said the Union was "tottering to its base," whether he knew of any combination there or elsewhere against the Union.

Mr. Yulee answered that the Union was tottering under the blows of northern fanatics and northern injustice. He places liberty before

union.

Mr. Douglas was in favor of printing, according to general usage. He does not believe that the question endangers the Union. The resolutions had fallen into the common error of supposing it was wished to extend slavery to countries now free. He knew of none who wished that, but only that the Territories should decide this question as they pleased.

Mr. Downs was opposed to the printing, as the facts stated in the resolutions were false. He called in question the fact that the people of New Mexico did send such a memorial to Congress; it had upon its face only fourteen names, but two of which were American. He doubted the correctness of the statement as to the slave trade and slave prisons

in the District. He adverted to the course of the Northern States, as to the recovery of fugitive slaves; which he said was practically abrogated. He admitted that the Union was in danger from these agitations. The people of the South were attached to the Union, and if it should be destroyed, its destruction would not be caused by them, but by the "gradual, constant, and determined purpose of the North to deprive them of some of their great constitutional privileges."

Mr. Foote justified himself for differing from his friends on the question of printing the resolutions.

Mr. Niles alleged that the Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Downs,) was mistaken as to the difficulties in recovering fugitive slaves. He denied that the North was disposed to interfere with slavery in the States. He thought that the Union might be endangered by extending slavery with the extension of our limits, and the endeavours to prevent its extension in Territories was very different from interfering with it in the States. The course of Congress towards those Territories should be just; but whether just or not, it does not invade the rights of the States. If this question of slavery in the Territories be decided one way, one portion of the country regards it as an aggression; if in another way, then the other portion so regards it. He was deciding it as the interests of the whole Union required.

Mr. Butler stated the facts of a particular case, relied on by Mr. Niles, in which a master had recovered damages for personal injury to himself, as well as for the value of his fugitive slaves. He alleged that it is a penal offence in many of the States for any municipal officer to aid a master in the recovery of his runaway slaves.

Mr. Dickinson declared that there was no such law in New York, and Mr. Cameron said there was none in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Butler said that a bill had been introduced into the Senate which made it the duty of State officers to aid in the recovery of fugitive slaves. When that should come up, he feared that many of those who profess respect for the constitution, would not aid him in the support of that bill. He said that the discussions in Congress had made the slaves discontented. He believed it had been better for the country if Congress had not met for the last ten years. He insisted on the South's sharing in what had been purchased by its blood; it was vain to say that the institution of slavery in the States had not been invaded -it had been invaded, and the lives of himself and his children had been thereby put in jeopardy.

Mr. Dickinson again stated there was no such law in New York as Mr. Butler had supposed; there had been some such proposition in the legislature, but was rejected.

A case in Michigan concerning fugitive slaves having been mentioned by Mr. Downs, Mr. Felch of that State, said, that was a suit brought to recover damages for the loss of slaves, when full justice was done to the injured party.