THURSDAY AFTERNOON, January 18, 1838.

THIRD ARTICLE.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee to whom was referred the third article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The question being on the motion of Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, further to amend the first section, by inserting the word "white," before the word "freemen," where it occurs in the first line,-and also, by inserting the word "white," before the word " freemen," where it occurs in the seventh line,

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, rose and addressed the President to the following effect:

Mr. President:-In attempting to discuss the merits of the present motion, I shall be obliged to introduce some topics here, which will not be very grateful to the ears of the faithful; but not numbering myself among those who are disposed to minister to the morbid sensibility of southern politicians-exclusively southern in their feelings, their attachments, and their supposed interests, I must be permitted to introduce some preliminary matter, illustrative of the subject now under consideration, which, in no small degree, influences the vote I am about to give.

What, sir, is the present condition of this Union, so far as respects our neighbors on the north and on the south?-and what is our condition as respects our present position with the southern portion of the Union?

On our southern border, our Mexican neighbors have been, and are still, engaged in a civil war. It is true there has been one general conflict, which has, for the present, resulted in the separation of the province of Texas from the Mexican government, and in the creation of a separate government for that province.

On our northern border, the Canadians are engaged in all the horrors of internal strife.

This insurrection had its rise in the heart of Canada, and among Canadians, and not in this Union among Americans. As soon, sir, as the contest assumed a tenable aspect, and while British arms were still reaking with North American blood, we have the spectacle of a southern senator, in the senate of the United States, offering to the consideration of that body, a series of resolutions to strengthen the strong arm of the executive government, which is immediately succeeded by a proclamation of neutrality by the President of the United States, denouncing offenders-threatening the most signal vegeance on all who violate our neutral

ity.

Here Mr. M'CAHEN called Mr. R. to order.

The PRESIDENT decided that Mr. R. was in order, and desired him to proceed.

Mr. REIGART resumed:

He was sorry that the delegate from the county of Philadelphia wanted that very little acuteness of intellect, which was necessary to enable him to discover how he intended to apply this argument to the subject now under consideration.

But, said Mr. R., of this proclamation of neutrality, I do not complain. Permit me, however, to contrast the course of this senator, or another southern senator, who, in his overweening anxiety for the incorporation of Texas with this Union, assumes the bold, impudent and reckless ground, that the Rio del Norte, and not the Sabine, is the true southern boundary of the United States, and that, therefore, as a necessary con. sequence, Texas is a part of the territory of the United States, and this contrary to existing treaties with Mexico, and against the particular knowledge of every intelligent inhabitant of this country. But, sir, this is not all. When our citizens were marching by thousands into Texas -when our seaports resounded with the din and bustle of naval preparation, for the avowed purpose of assisting the Texians in their struggle with Mexico when volunteers were openly sailing from almost every port in the Union, for this purpose, where then were the resolutions offered by senators to strengthen the executive government? Where then were the proclamations of neutrality? Nothing of the kind was done until the mischief had been perpetrated-not until the treaty with Mexico had been notoriously outraged-not until the people began to complain of the want of faith in the government; then, to be sure, a feeble effort was made by the government, which was alike disgraceful as it was dishonorable.

But, sir, did the course of southern policy, and southern craft, stop here? No; for immediately after the battle of San Jacinto, we find them endeavoring, in the moment of victory, and when the minds of men were flushed with victory, endeavoring to effect the recognition of the independence of Texas. Does not this show, I ask, the deep settled policy of the south; their continued perseverance-their onward march, having for their object the incorporation of Texas with this Union, and thus give to the south the preponderance in the government, and to make her the arbiter of her destinies ? Would that I could stop here; but, sir,

my tale is not yet told.

The south are now-yea, at this moment, forging chains for the enslavement of their northern friends-their fellow citizens, their brethren-by overthrowing the first, the last, the greatest, the dearest, the best, principle of constitutional liberty-I mean the right of petition. This sacred right, so dear to the friends of rational liberty, has recently been prostrated by the south, assisted by some recreant, degenerate sons of the north, in the legislative councils of the nation. Yes, sir, those recreant, degenerate sons of patriotic sires, in a moment of party phrenzy, urged, goaded on by corrupt partisan leaders of the south, unmindful of constitutional liberty, forgetful of the duty they owed to their country, lent themselves, passive instruments, to the arrogant, impudent, reckless pretensions of the hot bloods of the south, for the purpose of overthrowing this great principle of liberty.

Let me ask you, sir, what is the right of petition worth, if that right does not directly and irresistibly imply that the representative shall give to the petition, a calm, respectful consideration, or can it mean that the representative shall refuse to hear, or read, or to consider the prayer and petition of the constituent? Most obviously, this right means the former, or it is entirely useless,-nay, worse than useless-it would be mischievous and pernicious.

But, sir, permit me to pursue southern policy and southern arrogance, still further. We find many of the southern states have, from time to time, memorialized northern legislatures, to prevent their citizens from writing, printing, nay, almost from thinking, on the subject of domestic slavery.

In this, however, they were foiled. No northern governor, however party bound, has yet dared to recommend this to the legislature. The biave, hardy, temperate and free sons of the north, will never agree to muzzle the press, or to prevent or abridge the free interchange and communication of thoughts and opinions, on any and every subject, for the purpose of gratifying the morbid feelings of the south,--while our citizens, who, in their wanderings, reach their soil erect, and conscious of their glorious privileges of American citizenship, perhaps unmindful that they have left the soil of freedom, and are on the bloody, care worn soil of slavery, are murdered by cruel, relentless mobs of fanatics. These aggressions we are called upon not only to permit, but to applaud. We are told that southern gentlemen are high born, high minded, honorable and just. Be it so in his private intercourse--in his social relations, he may be, and perhaps is so-but it is equally certain that the north have suffered much and great injustice from the south, and the time has come when northern men should speak plainly, without reservation, equivocation, or mental reservation."

66

Permit me now, sir, to inquire whether the north, or any other portion of the Union, have not an undoubted right to petition congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the territories of the United States? Can there be any doubt on this subject? Have not congress the undoubted right to legislate for the District in every possible case? If they have not the power, who have it? Have the state of Virginia and Maryland that right? No man will deny that these states have not ceded their sovereign rights over the territory of the District, which undoubtedly included that of legislation. It follows, then, as a necessary consequence, that congress possesses the sole and exclusive right; and that body being the national legislature, the north have an equal right of representation with the south, and being as much interested in the enactment of wholesome laws for the government of that District, as the south, it follows that we may petition that body for the enactment of such laws as we may conceive to be wholesome and good. The right of petition being general, we may, therefore, if we please, petition for the abolition of slavery in that District; and I, for one, trust that this right will never be abandoned, but that our course may be honest-straight forward honesty in this matter, until the south concede that right.

Whether it be now expedient to abolish slavery in that district, or in the territories, is another and a different question. The consideration of

that question does not now necessarily arise; nor is it now necessary for me to consider it.

The south are much mistaken, and proceed on mistaken grounds, when they accuse the north of attempting to interfere with slavery, as it exists in the southern states. The north have no idea of any such interference, however much they may deplore the existence of slavery in a democratic land, who justly boasts of her republican institutions. Our citizens do repudiate all such accusations-they deny the charge.

On this subject it is my wish to be fairly understood. I am not an abolitionist in the modern sense of the word, or in the sense in which that word seems to be used, and have nothing to do with them, and knowing nothing of their principles, I can neither applaud noi condemn them; but I avow myself to be the friend of human rights, and if this make me an abolitionist, then I am one.

Permit me now, sir, to inquire into the reasons said to be given by those recreant, degenerate sons of the north, who voted, in effect, against the right of petition. They are said to justify their course, on the ground that a contrary course would have caused a dissolution of the Union. Is it possible? Can such an idea obtrude itself into the most obtuse

mind?

The idea of a southern confederacy is truly most farcical and ridiculous. Why, sir, do they suppose they can make us believe they are serious? Be assured, sir, they never will separate from us; they will cling to us as the nursling does to the fond mother-not, to be sure, from the same affectionate motives, but they will cling to us for support and protection. The idea of a servile war is ever present to their minds. Without an army, without a navy, without trade, dependant entirely on slave labor, relying on the north for the luxuries, comforts and necessaries of life. In truth, their preservation depends on the connexion. They cannot exist without it—while we can do without them, and be just as free, as powerful and great, as with them. Of all this they are well aware, and they are also well aware of the holy horror of the north at the bare mention of a dissolution of the Union. The moment, therefore, that the north do any thing to displease them, they immediately commence threatening and blustering about a dissolution of the Union. But good natured gentlemen, as they are, they always come into the fold again, after some little pouting.

I am aware that we are told somewhere, that the benefits of the Union are incalculable, and that we should never make any calculations about it, but always, at all hazards, to preserve it. I am not for dissolving the Union, far from it, but would make great effort to preserve it. But as southern politicians are continually calculating on this subject, and never fail to tell us the result of their calculations, and to hold up to our astonished senses the vast benefits of the Union to the north, I have thought it not amiss to make these observations, just to show these gentlemen that we perfectly understand all their little manœuvres on this subjeet. Let the north, on this subject, be erect-let them take high ground. Let the south, if they should be serious, make the experiment-let them call their delegations from their seats in congress-let them hug the many col

oured population of Texas to their bosoms, at their own expense, not

ours.

Before, sir, they would attempt this act, at their own expense, they would beg and implore the north to forgive their indiscretion. But why speak of it-they have no intention of severing their connexion with us; but should they have such intentions-should they have the temerity to make such an attempt-should they value the benefits of the Union so highly, I would, for myself-and I speak only for myself, when I say that rather than give up the glorious right of petition, and be thus insulted, degraded and spit upon by the south, as the north have been, I would sooner be an inhabitant of a border country, in a border state, exposed to all the horrors of a border war. This, sir, may be strong language, but the occasion demands it-the time has come when plain truths should be spoken.

Of what value is the Union to us, if the right of petition be denied? If that be taken away, this glorious Union will be scarcely worth preserving. It will, sir, have lost its value in the affections of the people. It will be a rope of sand, without this inestimable right be restored to us, and the supremacy of an outraged, violated constitution, be vindioated.

I will now, sir, endeavor to confine my observations more immediately to the subject under consideration.

What is that question? It is to insert the word "white" in the first section of the third article of the constitution, and thus to exclude our coloured population from the enjoyment of every possible vestige of politieal right.

It is admitted that our ancestors, by force or by fraud, brought this population among us; they made them their slaves. But as soon as our Pennsylvania ancestors had freed themselves from the yoke of British tyranny, actuated by a stern sense of justice, they enacted the act of 1780, which gradually, but forever, abolished slavery within our borders.

Look, if you will, at the eloquent and glorious preamble of that act, and there perceive the free spirit of the people of this commonwealth— their fervent love of liberty, their abhorrence, their detestation of slavery.

Do gentlemen here not believe that the framers of the constitution of 1790, knew the import of the words composing this section. Do they charge them with ignorance? Do they suppose that they did not understand what they were doing? Yet, sir, we are now asked, at this late day, and in this enlightened age of the world, and after a lapse of half a century, to retrograde, (not in legislation only) but to retrograde in the fundamental laws of this ancient, this great, and this glorious commonwealth; to take from the poor, the unfortunate, unprotected, unrepresented and defenceless black man and his descendants, in all generations yet to come, the last vestige of political right. It is not enough that the colour of his skin, and the deep rooted prejudices against his race, effectually and forever debar him from all participation in the government of the country, but we must still go farther, and take from him what by implication and construction, our forefathers have given him.