Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/560

 either from the other, related exclusively to murderers, forgers, and fraudulent bankrupts; and even that treaty had expired. There was no international law by which they could claim, or we give up, the parties who had taken possession of the Creole; and those persons must stand or fall by British laws only." All agreed that there was no authority to surrender the fugitives, nor hold in custody the mutineers; and it was stated that orders had been sent for their liberation.

On the 21st of March, 1842, Mr. Giddings submitted a series of resolutions on a subject which, he said, had excited some interest in the other end of the capitol, and in the nation, and which he wished to lay before the country. These resolutions declared jurisdiction over slavery to belong exclusively to the states; that by the 8th section of the first article of the constitution, the states had surrendered to the federal government jurisdiction over commerce and navigation upon the high seas; that slavery, being an abridgment of the natural rights of man, can exist only by force of positive municipal law, and is necessarily confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the power creating it; that when the brig Creole left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that state ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons on board the said brig, who became amenable only to the laws of the United States, and who, in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of the United States; and that all attempts to reënslave the said persons, or to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave-trade, or to place the nation in an attitude of maintaining a "commerce in human beings," were subversive of the rights and injurious to the feelings and the interests of the free states, unauthorized by the constitution, and incompatible with our national honor.

Mr. Ward, of New York, moved the previous question on these resolutions. Mr. Everett, of Vermont, with a view, probably, to their discussion, moved to lay them on the table. This motion was rejected: yeas 52, nays 125. The previous question having been seconded, and the main question ordered, Mr. Giddings, in the midst of the confusion and excitement which ensued, withdrew his resolutions.

Mr. Botts then offered a resolution, upon the adoption of which he intended to move the previous question. The preamble to the resolution deprecated the resolutions of Mr. Giddings, "touching a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain of a most delicate nature," and as possibly "involving those nations and the whole civilized world in war; "declared it to be the duty of every good citizen, and especially of every representative of the people, to discountenance all efforts to create excitement and division among the people under such circumstances; and denounced them as justifying mutiny and murder, in terms shocking to all sense of law, order and humanity: therefore,

"Resolved, That this house hold the conduct of said member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in particular."

An excited debate ensued, which continued during the remainder of that