any way worthy of attention. To the two associate chieftains in this personal assault, the veteran Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from South Carolina with the silver-white locks, I have replied completely. It is true that others have joined in the cry, which these associates first started; but I shall not be tempted further. Some there are who are best answered by silence; best answered by withholding the words which leap impulsively to the lips.

66

And now, turning my back upon these things, let me, as I close, dwell on a single aspect of this discussion which will render it memorable. On former occasions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently assailed, or practically denied. Only two years ago, memorials for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, presented by me, were laid on your table, Mr. President, without reference to any Committee. All is changed now. Senators have condemned the memorial, and sounded the cry of " treason," treason," in our ears; but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person has so completely outraged the spirit of our institutions, or forgotten himself, as to persevere in objecting to the reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. It is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here have been treated with indignity; but the great right of petition the sword and buckler of the citizen though thus discredited, has not been denied. Here, sir, is a triumph for Freedom.

STRUGGLE FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 31ST JULY, 1854.

The efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress have encountered opposition at every stage. The presentation of petitions by John Quincy Adams was thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could prompt. All propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining Slavery have been stifled. To accomplish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law have both been set at defiance. On a former occasion, (see ante, p. 74,) when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, he was refused a hearing; and he obtained it only by taking advantage of the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of order. On the presentation of petitions against the Fugitive Slave Bill, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. Meanwhile, anything for Slavery was always in order. An experience of a single day will show something of this.

On the 31st July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under instructions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a Bill, which had already passed the House of Representatives, for the relief of Betsey Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds received in the the war of 1812, and asked for its immediate consideration. This simple measure, demanded by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another Bill, for the relief of Mrs. Batchelder, the widow of a person who had been killed in Boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Bill. In the face of various objections this amend

ment was adopted. Mr. Sumner at once followed by a proposition in the following words:

"Provided, that the Act of Congress, approved 18th Sept. 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same hereby is repealed."

But this was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the Bill under consideration ;" and the two Bills, hitched togetherone for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a Slave-Hunter- were put on their passage. Mr. Sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the Congressional Globe. The careful reader will observe that, in order to cut off an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Bill, at least two unquestionable rules of parliamentary law were overturned.

Mr. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I now ask leave to introduce a Bill.

Mr. STUART. I object to it, and move to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other Bill is not disposed of. The third reading of a Bill for the relief of Betsey Nash.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to introduce a Bill, which I now send to the table. Mr. STUART. Is that in order?

Mr. SUMNER. Why not?

Mr. BENJAMIN. There is a pending motion of the Senator from Michigan to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion was not entertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts had and has the floor.

Mr. STUART.

I make the motion now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is in order to give the notice.

Mr. SUMNER. Notice has been given, and I now, in pursuance of notice, introduce the Bill. The question is on its first reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first reading of a Bill.

Mr. NORRIS. I rise to a question of order.

Mr. SUMNER. I believe I have the floor. Mr. NORRIS. But I rise to a question of order. I submit that that is not the question. The Senator from Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a Bill. He now asks that leave. If there be objection, the question must be decided by the Senate whether he shall have leave or not. Objection is made, and the Bill cannot be read.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave, and the title of the Bill will be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (to the Secretary). Read the title.

The Secretary read it as follows: "A Bill to repeal the Act of Congress approved 18th September, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on granting leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. SUMNER. And I have the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.

Mr. SUMNER. I shall not occupy much time; nor shall I debate the Bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without dis

tinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at some day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a Bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to proceed in that matter prematurely, I awaited the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. At length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this Bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session, sir, in introducing a similar proposition, I considered it at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert

Mr. GWIN. I rise to a point of order. Has the Senator a right to debate the question, or say anything on it until leave be granted?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. My impression is that the question is not debatable.*

Mr. SUMNER. I propose simply to explain my Bill, to make a statement, not an argument.

Mr. GWIN. I make the point of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but I have the impression that the Senator cannot debate

Mr. SUMNER. The distinction is this

Mr. GWIN. I insist upon the application of the decision of the Chair.

Mr. MASON. Mr. President, there is one rule of order that is undoubted: that when the Chair is stat

*Nothing is clearer, under the rules of the Senate, than that Mr. Sumner was in order when, on introducing his Bill, he proceeded to state the causes for doing it.