Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/537

 time; and if the papers were not, within one month withdrawn by the person depositing them, they were to be burnt or otherwise destroyed. Mr. Linn, though dissenting from parts of the report, approved the bill.

Mr. Calhoun, in his report, reiterated his favorite doctrine of state sovereignty; from which he deduced the inherent right of a state to defend itself against internal dangers; and he denied the right of the general government to assist a state, even in case of domestic violence, except on application of t lie authorities of the state itself. He said it belonged to the slaveholding states, whose institutions were in danger, and not to congress, as the message supposed, to determine what papers were incendiary; and he asserted the proposition, that each state was under obligation to prevent its citizens from disturbing the peace or endangering the security of other states; and that, in case of being disturbed or endangered, the latter had a right to demand of the former the adoption of measures for their protection. And if it should neglect its duty, the states whose peace was assailed might resort to means to protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent communities.

As motives to suppress by law the efforts of the abolitionists, the report mentioned the danger of their accomplishing their object, the abolition of slavery in the southern states, and the consequent evils which would attend it. It would destroy property to the amount of $950,000,000, and impoverish an entire section of the Union. By destroying the relation between the two races, the improvement of the condition of the colored people, now so rapidly going on, and by which they had been, both physically and intellectually, and in respect to the comforts of life, elevated to a condition enjoyed by the laboring class in few countries, and greatly superior to that of the free people of the same race in the non-slaveholding states, would be arrested; and the two races would be placed in a state of conflict which must end in the expulsion or extirpation of one or the other.

The bill, reported by Mr. Calhoun, sustained by the combined influence of his own report and the executive recommendation, made its way nearly through the senate. Mr. Webster opposed the bill, because it was vague and obscure, in not sufficiently defining the publications to be prohibited. Whether for or against slavery, if they "touched the subject," they would come under the prohibition. Even the constitution might be prohibited. And the deputy postmaster must decide, and decide correctly, under pain of being removed from office! He must make himself acquainted with the laws of all the states on the subject, and decide on them, however variant they might be with each other. The bill also conflicted with that provision of the constitution which guarantied the freedom of speech and of the press. If a newspaper came to him, he had a property in it; and how could any man take that property and burn it without due form of law? And how could that newspaper be pronounced an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, without a legal trial? He argued against the right to examine into the nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said that the right of an individual in his papers was secured to him in every free country in the world.