صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

"Resolved, That the persons on board the said ship, in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of the United States, incurred no legal penalty, and are justly liable to no punishment.

"Resolved, That all attempts to regain possession of, or to re-enslave said persons, are unauthorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and are incompatible with our national honor.

6

"Resolved, That all attempts to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave-trade, or to place this nation in the attitude of maintaining a commerce in human beings,' are subversive of the rights and injurious to the feelings and the interests of the free states are unauthorized by the Constitution, and prejudicial to our national character."

The reading of the resolutions produced an immediate ferment in the House. Various motions were made among them, a motion by Mr. Everett, of Vermont, to lay the resolutions on the table-which failed. The previous question was demanded and seconded, and the main question, which would have been on their adoption, was ordered to be taken, when Mr. Giddings, availing himself of the control which, under the construction then given to the parliamentary rule, he possessed, withdrew the resolutions. This he did, because he saw that, under the excitement of the moment, his political friends from the North would be likely to commit themselves against the doetrines of his resolutions, thereby placing themselves in a false position concerning the rights of the states which they represented

Immediately on this annunciation, Mr. Botts, of Virginia, remarking that the withdrawal of the matter did not affect the motive or object with which it had been offered, moved a suspension of the rules that he might introduce the following pre

amble and resolution:

"Whereas the Honorable Joshua R. Giddings, the member from the sixteenth Congressional District of the State of Ohio, has this day presented to this House a series of resolutions touching the most important interests connected with a large portion of the Union, now a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain, of the most delicate nature, the result of which may eventually involve those nations, and perhaps the whole civilized world, in war;

"And whereas it is the duty of every good citizen, and particularly every selected agent and representative of the people, to discountenance all efforts to create excitement, dissatisfaction, and division among the people of the United States at such a time and under such circumstances, which is the only effect to be accomplished by the introduction of sentiments before the legislative body of the country hostile to the grounds assumed by the high functionary having in charge this important and delicate trust:

"And whereas mutiny and murder are therein justified and approved in terms shocking to all sense of law, order, and humanity; therefore,

"Resolved, That this House holds the conduct of the said member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in particular."

To effect a suspension of the rules, a vote of two thirds of the members present was required. This was not obtained, one hundred and twenty-eight members recording their names in the affirmative, and sixty-eight in the negative.

Mr. Giddings had introduced his proposition in the regular order of business, which was the call of the states for resolutions. The call still resting with the State of Ohio, Mr. John B. Weller, adopting Mr. Botts's resolution, now offered it as his own, and demanded the previous question upon its passage. The Congressional Globe says:

"Mr. Isaac E. Holmes desired to be informed whether, if the call for the previous question was sustained, it would preclude the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Giddings) from offering his defense.

"The speaker said, that if the previous question was ordered, it would be the right of the gentleman from Ohio to raise a question of privilege, and to be heard in his own defense, as the resolution involved the character and privileges of that gentle

man.

"Mr. Weller and Mr. Holmes conversed across with each other, but of what passed the reporter has no idea, except the declaration on the part of Mr. Holmes, 'Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum.'

"A motion was made that the House do now adjourn, on

which motion the yeas and nays were asked and ordered, and, being taken, were, yeas 63, nays 111. So the House refused to adjourn.

"Mr. Giddings inquired of the speaker whether, if the previous question was sustained, he would have an opportunity to defend himself.

"The Speaker. If the previous question is sustained, the rule of the House would require that the vote on the resolution be immediately taken.'

6

"Mr. Giddings. Would it not be a privileged question?'

"The Speaker. 'In the opinion of the chair, the gentleman would have the right, if he desires it, to be heard now in his defense.'

"Mr. Giddings said he would ask of the House to fix a time for the consideration of this resolution.

"Mr. Botts hoped the House would allow the gentleman from Ohio to defend himself, if he wished.

"Mr. Giddings wished the House to fix such a time as they thought proper. He would say two weeks from this day. He did not suppose the House would force him into his defense now."

The House then became involved in a point of order, and a decision was made by the speaker that the demand for the previous question could not be entertained, because the gentleman arraigned asked a postponement of his trial; and, if the previous question should be entertained by the chair, and demanded by the House, it would deny the member that privilege. An appeal was taken from this decision, and while it was yet pending the House adjourned.

On the following day, Tuesday, the 22d of March, 1842, the subject came up as a question of privilege. The decision of the speaker was reversed, and the House decided that the previous question should be entertained.

Mr. Weller now offered to withdraw the demand for the previous question, so that Mr. Giddings might be heard, with the understanding that, after the defense was closed, the vote should immediately be taken, without further debate. The speaker declared that the demand must be withdrawn unconditionally, or not at all. Mr. Weller declining so to withdraw it, Mr. Giddings rose and addressed the speaker, who called

him to order, on the ground that the House had reversed the decision of the chair, and had thus decided that the rules applicable to the previous question should be rigidly enforced. Mr. Triplett moved that Mr. Giddings be heard in his defense, but the speaker declared that that object could only be effected by a suspension of the rules. The demand for the previous question was then seconded, and the House decided that the main question, which was on the adoption of the resolution, should be taken. The record then says:

"Mr. Weller moved that the rules of the House be suspended, for the purpose of enabling his colleague [Mr. Giddings] to be heard now, if he desired it.

"Mr. Barnard. I hope not.'

"Mr. Everett. 'It is a matter of right, if it is any thing.' "Mr. Stanley. 'I hope no objection will be made.'

"The speaker said that the House having decided that the forty-fifth rule was imperative, and should be rigorously executed, no motion, in the opinion of the chair, would now be in order, except a motion to adjourn, or to lay the whole subject on the table.

"Mr. Weller. 'My motion is a motion to suspend the rules.' "The speaker decided that that motion could not be enter tained; that the previous question having been seconded, and the main question ordered, no motion could intervene between that and the taking of the main question, except a motion to adjourn and a motion to lay on the table.

"Mr. Triplett said he would make this specific motion to the House: that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Giddings] be now heard in his defense; and inquired, 'Will the speaker put the motion?"

6

"The Speaker. The speaker will not put it. It is not in order.'

"Mr. Triplett. 'Then I move to suspend all the rules, right or wrong, that this specific motion may be put.'

"The Speaker. The chair has already decided that that motion is not in order.""

An appeal was taken from this decision, which, however, was affirmed by the House. Motions were made that Mr. Giddings should, if he desired to speak, be heard by general consent; but he declined to rise. Mr. Adams moved to lay the

ulation therein. At a subsequent period he introduced the following declaratory resolutions, which the House ordered to be laid upon the table:

"Resolved, That, prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, each of the several states composing this Union possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the institution of slavery within its own territory, with power to continue or abolish it at pleasure.

"That, by adopting the Federal Constitution, no portion of the powers aforesaid were delegated to the Federal government. "That the existence, maintenance, and continuance of slavery must depend exclusively upon the power and authority of the states in which it is situated...

[ocr errors]

"That the Federal government, possessing no powers except those delegated by the several states, is clearly destitute of all authority to establish, support, extend, or perpetuate slavery.

"That all attempts of the executive and of Congress to associate a foreign slave-holding people in making and administering the laws of this nation are in palpable violation of the Constitution, destructive to the interests and the honor of the free states, and will constitute an outrage upon the rights and the honor of those states, unequaled in the history of civilized government.

"That no act of the Federal government can impose any obligation whatever upon the free states to unite with Texas upon terms so unequal and unjust, and so palpably opposed to their constitutional rights, and subversive of their reserved powers.

"That a voluntary surrender by the free states of their interests, their political rights, and their sacred honor, to the keeping of slaveholders, would prove them unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their Revolutionary ancestors."

He was one of the fourteen who voted against the act of the 13th of May, declaring the existence of a state of war with Mexico [see title, ROBERT C. WINTHROP], and he has since then uniformly voted against all supplies and appropriations for its prosecution.

[ocr errors]

He introduced, in 1842, the first petition ever presented to Congress, calling its attention to the wheat-growing interests of the Northwest, and asking the adoption of such measures as

« السابقةمتابعة »