Anti Slavery Bugle

Mob at Washington.

The escape and re-capture of the 77 fugitive slaves who left Washington city, created, as might be expected, a considerable excitement. The office of the National Era was attacked, and some of the anti-slavery members of Congress threatened with personal violence. On the 20th ult. Palfrey of Mass. presented the following resolution to the House.

Whereas common report has represented to members of this House that a lawless mob has assembled within the District of Columbia on each of the two nights last past, and has committed acts of violence, setting at defiance the laws and constituted authorities of the United States, and menacing individuals of this body and other persons residing in this city: Therefore

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed to inquire into the facts above referred to; that said committee have power to send for persons and papers; and to report facts, with their opinion as to whether any legislation is necessary or expedient in the premises; and that they further have leave to sit during the sessions of this House.

The Speaker declared it constituted a privileged question, and was therefore in order. An appeal was taken from his decision, and after some debate pro and con, the House adjourned without coming to any decision.

Several members expressed the opinion that the House should only extend protection for words spoken on that floor in debate, and had no right to interfere in any other difficulty.

Jos. R. Ingersoll, said. besides the earliest provision of the constitution, there were inherent principles and prerogatives of this body, by which it may vindicate its own honor, and protect itself from assault. He referred to the case just cited by the gentleman from South Carolina to illustrate; and added, that if we were advised of an attempt to invade the personal liberty and safety of an individual member—such a case as he might suppose, namely: he supposed a question was pending here, in which the interests of the south were deeply involved, and a member known to be adverse to those interests about which so much distrust is felt, and such a member is waylaid, and an attempt is made to prevent him, from coming here to exercise his privilege as a legislator. it occurred to Mr. I.that the prerogatives of the House included the power to prevent the success of such an attempt as that. He would undertake to say, that the House possessed the same power to send the sergeant-at-arms and raise a force in such a case as he had supposed, as in the case where a man comes into our presence to interrupt the proceedings of the House. It would be unreasonable in the case supposed, to require the House to wait the tedious process of legislation for the redress of such an indignity.

Without knowing any thing of the character of the rumors upon which the resolution seemed to be founded, he believed the decision of the Speaker to be substantially correct. It was clear to his mind, that if a member should be protected in what he has said, he should also be protected in what he intends to say. If menaces of the character indicated in the resolution can be made out, it ought to pass: and he would suggest, that if the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] or any other gentleman, knows himself to be liable to insult out of doors, he should get up in his place and say so.

Mr. Deur, (calling for the reading again of the preamble and resolution.) said he did not wish to argue the question at length. He only wished for himself and others to understand what the question presented really is. 'The case presented in this preamble he considered to be different from the privilege contemplated in the constitution. The preamble says a lawless mob; (Mr. D. did not vouch for the fact;) has threatened the personal safety of certain members of this House. The question, then, if he understood it, was, whether the House has a right to interfere for the purpose of enabling members to come here and take their seats—whether a lawless mob may threaten the life and safety of members with impunity; in short, whether this House may sit here, having the power to protect itself, or whether its sittings may be interrupted and prevented by a lawless mob?

If such was the question he did not mean to discuss it here or elsewhere. He asked gentlemen to consider whether such was the real question: but he hoped that, on account of mere rumor; the House would not suffer itself to run into a discussion of so grave a question.

Mr. Inge said we were now acting in the dark. We had no facts upon which to base our opinions. We know that insidious efforts had been made to deprive citizens of this District of their property. He would like to know whether any member had been concerned in those attempts. The resolution alledged that a lawless mob had assembled; but the laws were competent to provide for the correction of that abuse. But he might take issue upon the fact that there is a mob. He did not believe there was any. It might be that members of this House had committed acts which had drawn upon them the indignation of the community; it might be that they had made themselves accessary to a felony.

Mr. Vinton argued that the Speaker could not be permitted to decide upon the right of any member. The Speaker had left it to the House to decide upon that question. He had decided that it was a privileged question, and that the House was to decide whether to entertain it. Upon this, an appeal had been taken. The Speaker was unquestionably right. There was no question of privilege now, but whether facts should be inquired into.

Mr. Haralson and Mr. Barringer thought the question ought not to be entertained.

Mr. Stephens said this was a question merely of order. As far as the merits of the case were concerned. he concurred with his two colleagues from Georgia. As far as the acts spoken of had been alleged, he was prepared to justify those acts. But the causes of the acts spoken of, and their merits, were not now before us. But a proposition having been made for an inquiry, it ought to be entertained : and, if a member had been menaced, the House could then judge whether they should act. But it was for the House, and not the Chair, to decide both privileged questions and questions of privilege. If rumor was true, some members of this House ought to be expelled from this floor.

Mr. H. Cobb said he had misunderstood the decision of the Chair. He now understood that the Chair did not decide that this was a question of privilege. He hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania would withdraw his appeal, and let the question come fully before the House, whether a question of privilege can arise.

Mr. Brodhead insisted on his appeal.

Mr. Cobb held that this was not such a paper as on its face presented a case that the Speaker was obliged to lay it before the House in preference to any business.

The Speaker said the paper was not relied upon by him: but the mere suggestion of the fact that a member complained of the breach of his privilege.

Mr. Cobb explained, that he did not concur in the distinction taken by the Chair. Should the resolution come before the house, and the previous question be ordered, the question would be on its adoption. Therefore the Chair, in deciding that the resolution is in order, decides the question that the paper presents a privileged question.

Mr. Meade urged, that if this was a question of privilege, it was a privileged question. But he should sustain the decision of the Chair, though not for the reasons given by the Chair. If a member had been attacked for words spoken on this floor, he was for inquiring into the facts. He believed the facts before us authorized an investigation into the question whether members of this House had not been guilty of instigating the felonies which had been perpetrated here during the last few days. and whether they did not deserve to be expelled from this body. He should move an amendment to the resolutions proposing such an inquiry.

Mr. Haskell said there were members on this floor, who had made attempts to dissolve the bonds of law and of the constitution: and failing in that, by efforts on this floor, he conscientiously believed that they had resorted to other more direct modes for accomplishing their purpose. We had seen slaves enticed away from their masters—we had seen a vessel coming to this city for that purpose. These men, if found guilty, ought to be hanged as high as Haman. He read an amendment that he should offer, and which will be found below.

Mr. Bayly desired (he said) to have this subject referred to a committee for inquiry. For that purpose, he would move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Stewart made a point of order. It was impossible to get the floor, when half a dozen members, out of their seats, stood up in front of him.

The appeal was then laid on the table, without a division.

The preamble and resolutions were then read.

Mr. Venable said that it was with extreme reluctance that he entered into this discussion. He had hoped, when he came here, that whigs and democrats would meet here, cherishing the common bonds of the Union. But he soon saw here, notwithstanding all the forbearance of the south, that the spirit of fanaticism had taken such a hold of some members, that no question could be brought up here, without an assault upon the south. We have heard a member declare that the slaves ought to run away, and that if their master arrest them, the slave has a right to kill his master, and that he will hail him as a clever fellow. He had examined the law of Ohio on this subject, and found that the law there, as every where, would punish as murder the killing a man while in the exercise of lawful rights. Mr. V. spoke at length, and with much ardor, upon the fanaticism and hypocrisy which dictated the course of the abolitionists.

Mr. Giddings wished to say that he went to the jail to see the captain, and stated that he had brought with him a gentleman who would serve as counsel for him and the other men associated with him. That was said in the presence of many persons.

Mr. Gayle. Did the member go there to be rewarded by the slaves, or from the promptings of humanity?

Mr. Venable continued. He did not desire to pursue the gentleman from Ohio with any feelings of malevolence; but had the gentleman's sympathy ever flowed for cases of real and meritorious suffering from the oppressor's hand? The case was not known of his pity. But there were men at the North above the influence of this vile fanaticism, and firm supporters of those principles of compromise in the constitution which could not yield to circumstances. He said these provisions of the constitution could not be amended, but by unanimous consent of the States. It did not become any northern man to lecture the South on the disposition to dissolve the Union—referring to the declaration of Josiah Quincy, upon the acquisition of Louisiana, and of Mr. Adams and others, upon the annexation of Texas. The South did not mean to give up any of their rights under the compromises of the constitution. They would defend them all with their lives. They had no favors to ask on this question. He was for investigation, and would submit an amendment to the resolution, that the committee shall consist of nine members, and be elected by ballot.

Mr. Haskell (interposing and Mr. V. giving way.) desired to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Giddings) whether he justified these slaves in their attempt to escape?

Mr. Giddings said it was due to the House and to the world, that he should make a frank statement. He had no hesitation in answering the question. He held with our fathers that men were born free and equal, and were entitled to the protection in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The feeling that mankind, as coming from the Creator's hand, are all equal, he had ever been taught by his fathers. Unlike the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Venable,) he boasted not of his fathers for liberty; but let those who assail me, first take care to set themselves right. (Many cries of order, and some confusion here interrupted the gentleman from Ohio.)

Mr. Houston, of Delaware, desired to inquire when it was alleged that a member has been menaced by persons out of the House for an alleged participation in a criminal offence against the civil law, whether it was in order for the gentleman from Tennessee to put a question to that member as to the justifiableness of the act?

The Speaker replied that the gentleman was not compelled to answer.

Mr. Giddings. The gentleman puts a question to me. If the "dough-faces" will only keep cool, we may have a pretty fight. He would answer the question. He held with the fathers of 1776, to the principles defended at Yorktown, and on which this government itself was based—that all men are free and equal; and whosoever intrudes between God and me, and attempts to rob me of either of these my inalienable rights, so far as God has bestowed upon me the power, I will resist, and say to him he must not do it. I hold that every man comes into the world with this right. He alluded to the retribution inflicted by Decatur upon those oppressors of our people in Algiers, as a most righteous retribution; a cause in which he would have shed his blood freely; for he held that every man, when he is assailed, and power is brought to bear against his inalienable rights, should defend those rights to the utmost. Coming in this way down to the question of the gentleman from Tennessee, he said that when these slaves of the District of Columbia felt the chains of their bondage bearing heavily upon them (he stated it before God and the world.) that they possessed the right to free themselves.

Mr. Haskell. I am satisfied. Inasmuch as the gentleman justifies the slaves. I desire now also to know whether he justifies the thieves

Mr. Giddings did not know there had been any thieves in the case.

Mr. Haskell. The men then?

Mr. Giddings. The gentleman may be assured that I do not come here with any disposition to suppress or disguise a single sentiment. Where laws are enforced, I would say that men should obey them. We are not permitted to interfere with the rights of citizens here, because of our allegiance to the government.

Mr. Venable resumed, sending to the Clerk's table the following amendment, which he had before indited, but embracing now as a modification the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Haskell] which was read as follows:

Strike out the word "five" in the resolution and insert "nine;" and after the word "appointed," the words "by ballot;" also, insert after the words "referred to." the following, viz: "and that said committee be instructed to inquire into and report to this House, whether any member or members of this House were instrumental in procuring the slaves who were recently decoyed from their owners in this District, to leave their owners; and whether the said members of this House have not been guilty of felony in attempting or aiding in an attempt to kidnap slaves."

Mr. Toombs objected to dignifying the resolutions by admitting that the matter involved a question of privilege. He denied the ground assumed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. J. R. Ingersoll.] He held that our rights were better defined under the Constitution than were the rights of British subjects and members of Parliament under their most extravagant and oppressive claims of privilege. He stood here (if reports were true) the defender of the rights of the mob alluded to. Until Congress should pass laws bearing upon the case, the threats of the mob could not be interfered with. He showed that the Speaker in his decision claimed the benefit of a most oppressive precedent which did not apply to the case. The Constitution was our chart, and not the precedents of the British Parliament. He was ready to meet this question at any time. He was ready to stand by the people of this District with physical force, if necessary. He read from Jefferson's Manual what had been referred to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Ingersoll] and which he characterized as the authority under which the federalists of 1800 sought to incarcerate a certain man for writing against the government. Those only who claim unlimited power for the government, could plead these precedents for their justification. Last night he passed the street and heard the attorney for this District pleading with the mob, that the law of the land was sufficient for the redress of all their grievances; but the law of the land did not seem to be sufficient for the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Palfrey.] He desired that this question should be put upon firm ground. He told the people of this District, that if they could not be allowed to repose in their quiet homes and be secure from those incendiary attempts which lately seemed to have been supported by the influence of members of Congress—if they permitted the continuance of the sessions of this body in their midst, they were worthy of the manacles with which the felons of their prisons were bound.