Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The resolutions embodied the same ideas and declared that "the farther extension of Slavery would be alike a national misfortune and a moral wrong, to which no threats of disunion and no fear of consequences can ever induce us to give our consent!"

The House passed another series of resolutions, of which the sense was involved in a multiplicity of words, but what could be extracted amounted to a recognition of the same ideas. After reciting the uniform opposition of Massachusetts to the extension of Slavery, they concluded thus:

Resolved, That the people of Massachusetts claim for the Territories of the United States, and the people now inhabiting, and hereafter to inhabit them, the protection of the principles of the ordinance of 1787, and that said ordinance be applied to the said Territories, with all possible sanctions and solemnities of promulgation and law; and borrowing the language of a former Legislature, (Resolves of 1845,) That no Territory, hereafter applying to be admitted to the Union, as a State, should be admitted without a condition, that domestic Slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders; AND MASSACHUSETTS DENIES THE VALIDITY OF ANY COMPROMISE WHATSOEVER, that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future application of such a condition by the people acting through their representatives in the Congress of the United States.'

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the people of Massachusetts cherish the Union with unabated attachment; that they will support the Constitution; that, appreciating all the inestimable benefits flowing from it, they believe it preferable for all parties and sections, with reference to any existing evils, to wait and work patiently under and through the Constitution than to destroy it; and they have no doubt that they hold these sentiments in common with overwhelming majorities of the people of these United States; BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THEY WILL FOLLOW THEIR PRINCIPLES, DETERRED BY NO THREATS OF DISUNION, OR ANY FEAR THAT A COURSE OF TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS CAN HAVE ANY OTHER ULTIMATE TENDENCY THAN TO STRENGTHEN AND CONSOLIDATE A NATION AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF ALL WHO SEEK TO OVERTHROW IT.

[ocr errors]

These resolutions passed almost unanimously, two hundred and five voting for, and only six insignificant members against them! Among the majority was the traitor ELIOT, who so soon gave the lie to this absurd gasconade! And, among them, and in the majority of the Senate, committing themselves to the same principles and action, were to be found many of the signers of the Call of the Slave-catching Faneuil Hall meeting, assembled, among other things to rejoice over

[ocr errors]

over the

the doing of the very acts to which they had declared "no fear of consequences could ever induce them to give their consent, very compromise of which they had declared with reiteration, "Massachusetts denied the validity!" A proposition to have copies of these resolutions sent to our Senators and Representatives, and to the Governors of the several States, was negatived by a large majority! The same fate naturally awaited an amendment of the Hon. Amasa WALKER, to the resolutions of the Senate, "that the Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, in his recent speech, has not faithfully represented the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts." It was rejected by a vote of nineteen, to ten. The Hon. J. T. BUCKINGHAM, on a motion to reconsider, made a speech of great ability and courage, worthy of the consistency and purity of his long political life.

The history of the petitions issuing from this Board, asking the Legislature to call a Convention of the People to consider the expediency of a peaceable secession from the Union, is not an uninstructive one. Similar petitions in former years had been received and referred, and hearings had. But the Whigs, tired, perhaps, of being reminded of the often repeated declarations of the Legislature, that Massachusetts would do this thing, if certain contingencies, which had already happened over and over again, should occur, were disposed to make a summary disposal of the annoyance. When the first petition, from Abington, was presented by Mr. CоRTHELL, of that town, with a motion that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee, the House refused, by a large majority, so to dispose of it, and, immediately after, it was laid upon the table by a large majority. Mr. BOUTWELL, the present Democratic Governor of the State, moved that it be taken from the table, and while disclaiming any sympathy with the prayer of the petitioners, reminded the Whigs of their boasted zeal for the right of petition, and of this singular commentary on their past words. The Whigs seeing at once that they had committed a blunder as well as a crime, and had given the leader of the adversary the advantage of them, would not wait for the conclusion of his speech. Mr. LINCOLN, of Boston, interrupting him, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which it was laid on the table. The Speaker ruling that, by the Rules, this motion must lie over till the next day, Mr. SCHOULER, also of Boston, moved the Suspension of the Rules, which was carried by quite as large a majority as had laid violent hands upon it at first. It was then referred to the Judiciary Committee. A motion to refer a similar petition, from Fitchburg, to a Special Committee was refused, and it was placed

in the hands of that of the Judiciary. This Committee proved itself to be a fit agent for the work expected of it. Within forty-eight hours, it reported leave to withdraw, of course giving the petitioners no opportunity of a hearing. That even a day of such misprision of treason might not cloud the loyal glory of the House, the leave was granted on the instant, under a suspension of the rules, only one member, Mr. TOLMAN, of Worcester, voting against this summary execution. Thinking it due to ourselves and you not to suffer this matter to rest here, we prepared a Remonstrance against this hasty action, and asking for a hearing, at least, before we were turned away empty from the house of our legislative fathers. This Remonstrance, together with other petitions to the same effect as those thus slighted, we wished to place in the hands of Mr. BOUTWELL, as a mark of the respect we felt for his prompt vindication of the Right of Petition. But it seemed that his nice sense of the right of having a Petition considered, when presented, did not create any answering acknowledgment of the duty of presenting one on the part of a representative. He absolutely refused to have anything to do with it! It was presented by Mr. TOLMAN, who moved its reference to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. CODMAN, of Boston, moved that the Remonstrants have leave to withdraw. This gave rise to a long and animated debate. Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, moved the reference of the Remonstrance to a Special Committee. This was supported by the mover, Messrs. TOLMAN, GRISWOLD, BRANNING, and WILSON, and opposed by Messrs. CODMAN, SCHOULER, KIMBALL, HOAR, of Concord, (who thus showed himself a friend to the Union, which had proved itself no friend to him!) and SMITH. The previous question, moved by Mr. WILLIAMS, of Taunton, cutting off the motion to commit, the leave to withdraw was granted by a vote of one hundred and ninety-two yeas, to sixty-three nays, - Mr. BOUTWELL voting yea! Thus terminated the last attempt to induce Massachusetts to come up to her declarations of purpose, repeated and reiterated within the last ten years, and to act worthily of the traditions of which she boasts. We trust that, in the present anomalous posture of politics in the State House, we may find more courteous treatment, and, if not an acquiescence in our demand, at least an attempt at a reason for a refusal.

This anomalous state of things in the State, deserves a passing glance. In our last Report, we alluded to the coalitions between the Free Soil party and one or the other of the great parties, in different States, and to the partial junction which was effected between that party and the

Democrats, in this. This year the coalition was more perfectly carried out, and a majority in both branches of the General Court secured to it. The understanding upon which this union was made, on the part of the Free Soilers, appears to have been that the Democrats were to have their choice of the State offices, and in return were to unite with them in the election of a candidate for the United States Senate. The first part of this contract the Democrats seem to have readily complied with, and to have received the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, six out of nine Counsellors, the Speaker of the House, and other valuable considerations, without the shadow of reluctance. But when it came to the other portion of the agreement, they have manifested patriotic and Constitutional scruples as to complying with it. Mr. CHARLES SUMNER, the selected candidate, was justly obnoxious to the censure of the Democratic leaders, for the determination he had publicly and fearlessly avowed, of refusing to assist in the enforcing of the Fugitive Slave Bill, on the ground that it was unconstitutional and immoral. Up to the time of the adoption of this Report there has been no choice effected, and the probabilities of Mr. SUMNER'S election have rather diminished than increased, at each day's trial. The unblemished private and unselfish public character of Mr. SUMNER, even more than his eminent talents and great stores of political knowledge, would make him a Senator, of whom Massachusetts might have been proud in her best days, when the station was honored instead of disgraced by the men that occupied it; but we apprehend that these are not the qualifications that elevate or degrade men to that office now. We have no opinion to express as to the political propriety of such a contract as we have described; but we think there can be no two opinions, among honorable men, as to the character of those who refuse to pay the consideration for the offices they have been so greedy to absorb. We trust that this experience may teach the Free Soil party how impossible real progress is with the fetters of Constitutional obligations clanking about their steps, and that they may come to perceive the only effective place, from which to attack Slavery, is without its main bulwark of the Constitution, and not as part of the garrison upon its walls.

Before leaving the State, it is peculiarly appropriate to mention with commendation, in this place, the valuable services rendered by Mr. SUMNER, to the cause of equality of rights, in the matter of the public schools. The case of SARAH ROBERTS versus THE CITY OF BOSTON, being an action for damages under the Act of 1845, for unlawful exclusion from school privileges, having come up before the full Bench

of the Supreme Judicial Court for argument, Mr. SUMNER presented the case with a clearness, precision, learning, and eloquence worthy of an action, the adjudication of which would become a part of permanent history. It was published in a separate form, and was justly admired for its legal acumen, its rhetorical skill, and its nice sense of humanity and justice. It failed, however, to convince the Court. The Chief Justice, in an elaborate opinion, decided that the action could not be maintained. The general ground of the Opinion was, that the School Committee had the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, and had a legal right to classify by color as well as by sex, age, progress, etc. We shall not undertake to say, in the face of the unanimous Bench, that this decision is not law; but if it be, it is law that it behooves the Legislature to remedy as soon as possible. For it gives the School Committees the power of making distinctions which are nowhere recognized in the Law of Massachusetts. Such distinctions as rest upon difference of age and of sex have analogical types in the Laws of the State; but such as are marked by color have no such precedent or analogy. By the same ruling, the Committees might erect separate schools for Rich and Poor, for Orthodox and Heterodox, for Red-haired and Blackhaired. Massachusetts is far enough from being what she should be; but we do not believe that she will permit this anomaly in her jurisprudence to exist for the single benefit of Boston; for Boston is the only place in the State where such a distinction is permitted. We trust that the friends of equal rights, and the enemies of the prejudice of color, will be earnest and active in this behalf during the present session. The opportunity is singularly favorable, and such as may not soon recur, for wiping out this unworthy stain from the character of the State.

VERMONT.

The State of Vermont has nobly distinguished herself, since the passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill, by the example she has set of securing the protection due from every State to its humblest citizens, in the following Law, which we copy as a model for other States: :

"It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, as follows:

"Sect. 1. The same power is hereby given to, and the same duties imposed upon, the Circuit Judges of the several Judicial Circuits of this State, which are given to, and imposed upon, the Judges of the

« AnteriorContinuar »