Part 124 (1/2)

3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of pet.i.tion. The right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to pet.i.tion Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Const.i.tution; and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such pet.i.tions, as might be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception.

If it was right thus to dispose of pet.i.tions on _one_ subject, it would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on _all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by pet.i.tion between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more clearly a violation of the spirit of the Const.i.tution, as it rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument.

A similar Resolution pa.s.sed the House of Representatives at the first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote against it.

4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that 'every principle of justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;' and I have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as fugitives from 'service or labor,' without interfering with the laws of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject by the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts meets my approbation.

5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people peaceably to a.s.semble to discuss any subject--moral, political, or religious.

6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.

7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us, all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Const.i.tution of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.

These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration.

They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress; and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions which you may think proper to propose.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Your friend and fellow citizen,

WILLIAM SPRAGUE.”

Oliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.

APPENDIX C.

The abolitionists in Connecticut pet.i.tioned the Legislature of that state at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for legislative action. In answer to these pet.i.tions--

1. The law known as the ”Black Act” or the ”Canterbury law”--under which Miss Crandall was indicted and tried--was repealed, except a single provision, which is not considered objectionable.

2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed as slaves.

3. Resolutions were pa.s.sed a.s.serting the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as soon as it can be, ”consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole country_.”(!)

4. Resolutions were pa.s.sed protesting against the annexation of Texas to the Union.

5. Resolutions were pa.s.sed a.s.serting the right of pet.i.tion as inalienable--condemning Mr. Patton's resolution of Dec. 21, 1837 as an invasion of the rights of the people, and calling on the Connecticut delegation in Congress to use their efforts to have the same rescinded.

APPENDIX D.

In the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in the United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have become an article of much commercial importance under the old method of preparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly _manual_, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year, more than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he could cultivate to maturity in the field. In '93 Mr. Whitney invented the Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least _one thousand_ hands under the old system, is performed by _one_, in preparing the crop for market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds were raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were raised--384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney's invention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the _land_ in that part of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to _slaves_, because it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the cultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being no _free_ state in the South, compet.i.tion between free and slave labor never could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the superiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the preparation of it for market.

Thus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of giving to slavery in this country its present importance--of magnifying it into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was rewarded by the South--especially by the planters of Georgia--the reader may see by consulting Silliman's Journal for January, 1832, and the Encyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.

APPENDIX E.

It is impossible, of course, to p.r.o.nounce with precision, how great would have been the effect in favor of emanc.i.p.ation, if the effort to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been successful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the effect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge growth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their National legislature, a _sincere_ opposition to slavery by the rejection of Missouri, it is probable at least--late as it was--that the early expiration of the 'system' would, by this time, have been discerned by all men.

When the Const.i.tution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in the South--with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was favorable to emanc.i.p.ation. Under the influence of this public sentiment was the Const.i.tution formed. No person at all versed in const.i.tutional or legal interpretation--with his judgment unaffected by interest or any of the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given birth--could, it is thought, construe the Const.i.tution, _in its letter_, as intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a full knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery, when that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw that makes all reasoning useless.