Letter From Hon. J. M. Howard

Washington, Jun. 17, 1842. Qear Sit: - Your letter of iho 29ih ult. enQiosing petitions on the eubjcct oí'Slav■V s received, and I ehall embrace tho first opportuoity of presenting ihem tothe Tlie Speaker has decided that the prayr for uthe repeal of all laws eonctioning the holding or transporting of slaves in vesseU of the United States," comes within the XXlat rule, as it is n eflect asking tho abolition of slavery in the States and íerritoríes. This consiruction is sustainéd by a majority of the House. The rernaining pnrtot the petitioti ia for the passage oflaws protecüng the rihts of all peruona, held a3 elaves, whotnay be coasiituiionally entitled to their freedom by neing to öe"'i, beyond the jurisdieiion of tho títates in which thcy are Icgally claimed to be slavc3 " 1 think if yoú will examine íbi, you wilt seo tbat the passage of auch un act would be eatirely nugatory; for, if the blave becomo constitutionalhj frise, he needs no act of Congres lo protect him.- TJie constitution itseH becomos bis ehieid, anal H 8' P!a'a that' Wiöfout his owu coneent, he canñot be again roduced to slaverv. VVhat good purpose ihen cun be subtérved by petitioning for such au object? It would nardly be thuught worth whila to petition for the passage of a law declaring, ia the words of the constitution, ihal "the rig'ot of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effect against unrcasouable senrches and eeizuic?, bhull not be violated." As to the XXlstrule,my recorded votes en Gvery occueiun when that question has cêmQ up, mast be tho wituesses of my hosUlity to it. I regard it as you do; - as an infringement of the right of petition as guaraateed by tiro constitution; and shall coniinue to oppose it boih here and elsewbere.Iotight perhaps to say furlhar, that 1 cannot, asrequeated by you, advocate onc of the objeets prayed lor by the petitioners. I allude lu the repeal of ttmt clause in the constitutioa of the United Siatés which require8 the General Government Ho protect each State ugainst invasiun, and oa applicaliou of the Legislature, or Executiveagaiust domestic violence." To withdraw thss protection would, in my opinión be to invite invasión and encourage dome8lic insurrection. It would directly and alarmingly weuken, not to say entirely desiroy the Union. Of what use would be the Union of the States ifthey werc not mutually bound to protect each other against any violent movement, at home or trom abroad, aiming to overiurn the local governments? Il is clear it would be a Union only in name. Such protection was perhaps the principal object lor which the constitution was established, and is as valuable to the North as to the South. It mnkes us one nation, and is our strength at home and our glory abroad. - He who would withdraw it is an enemy tothe Union of the Siates: an object tnore than all others, inculcated by the Futher of hig Country in that mostsoleinn of all appeals to nis countrymen - the Farewell Ad dress. You cannot expect mo to "ndvocatoVa doctrine fréught witlt so ruuch dnnger. l am no friend or supporter of slavcry, hut tha sanctity of the Union is n prin oiplo which no 'politica! cornbination' present or future,9hfill influence me to viólate. It is the palladium of our rights, our librrties and our sufoty,and must forever be eo held by every sensible, canüid and patriotic ciüzen. You are at liberty to mke euth use of this letter us you rnay see fit. I cannot bul think that you will agreo with me 3 to the danger of such a rcpeal; and it ia not unlikely that the public have reflected Icss on this momeutous svibject than its importance requires. IVÏy olject is simply to be instrumental in produuog a cool and dispasBionate eonsidcration of the object prayed for;- ot to uccuse any clnss of men of entertaining a design to dissolve the Union ;- a dsign which Ido not and :vli not impútelo the petitioner9. Very respectfully, Your obedient scrvanr, J. M. HOWAIID. Mr. Thko. Fosteij, Scio, Mich.Rcply tO air. Howard's Leitcr. ToHon. J. M. llotoard, Reprcsentative mi Congressfrom the State of Michigan: Sir: - As you havo wriilen a communicaüon to me c.ootainiug your views o certain Anti Slavery petitions wbich I forwarded toyou for presentaliun, and as you expressed a desire to be instrumental in produciñg a cool and di?pasionate oon6ideration of the object prayed for, agreeably totholiberty given me in your commitntcation, I have procured its inseriion in the Signal of Liberty, whzre it will mee the eye of a large number of the AntiSlavery petitioners of the State. I shall take leave respeclfully to subjöin a few recnarks on the positions you have taken. It must be known to you, that the Fed eral Government has heretofore enacted laws sanctioning and regulating the tranaportation of slarea from State io State, in vesaela of the Unilod Siates, sailing coastwi8e, The General Government has thus becomo a patrón of a trado in many re8pects, moro disgraceful and revoliing thtvn that which is practised on the África n ooast, The pwer whicji establrshedbese laws, can repeal them. For their epeal, tlio petitioners asked. Uow you, r ihe majority of Congress can rnake it ppear, that to ask the repeal of laws autiorizing the carrying of slavea on ihe Iigh Seas, whre Congress ba8 suprcme urisdiction, enlirely out of the jurisdiction f any State, "is in effect asking fur Ihe bolition ofelavcry in the States and Teritories,1' is a proposition beyond my com)rehension, and it will need elucidaüon jefore it will be receivcd by the petitionert. The Supreme Coürtdecided last winter n the Mississippi case, that slavery exista mrely by virlue of tho lucal law of ihe States, that it is a local institution, and that lio Constitulion of the United States records slaves as persons and nol as propery. According to thid decisión, a slave, by leing carried on the Seas, the common íighway ofnations, becomea,constitutionlly freejbecause he can only be held n luve by virtue of the law of a State ; and Cungress has no authoiity granled to it in ihe constiturUon to enact laws cstabli&hing siavery where it did not exi5t. Bat you argüe, "f tho slave become con stiiutiona tly free, he needsno act of Conress to pretect him. What good purpose can be?ubscrved bypetitionitigforsuchan objec'?1' In rep!y to thi?, I would say, ihat there is much propriety n ihe passage )flaws carrying out constiítjtional provisioos. The cohstituljon was not inlended' tobe a 6ubsiitute for all law?, but a subEtantial busi?, on whichlaws mightboenacled in accordance therewilh. The constitution of this State secures tois citizeos, in civil and crimina! cases, the right of a jury trial : would you thereforo c irgue, because, in this case, 'wthe constitulion itsejf becotnes the shield"of the citizen, that no laws aro necessary to determine who shull be jurors, how they shall be drawn, who shall summon them together, what compensotion they shall receive, in what cases ihey may be challenged, trnd all the other particulars which must be ascertained in order tocarry out the benefii oflhat clause in the constitution? That instrument simply declarea a fundamental principie, that there shall be a jury trial, leaving it to the Legislature to enact what laws may be necessary to secure the ben fit of it fo all citzos of the State. Let me cite you to nnother case. The constitution of the U. States provides that persons held to servico or labor in one State, escaping into another, sholl be delivered up on chiim of theperson towhom such service or labor may be due. What can be more explicit thun this? Yet the staveholder fmind it was not sufficient to each the case. He wanted a lato to delare who should deliver up the fugitive to íim, and ihe amount of testimony thal hould be required, and accordingly n law was passed by Congress in 1793,extending to all the Staie3 of this Union, giving to Juatices of the Peace, absolute jurisdiction in all cases of the kind. The slaveholder obtains lawa sccuring his constilutional rights, and thoy have been steadily enforc ed for halfa century: and when application i mado for -legal provjsions for the benefit of persous unconstitutionally hek as slaves, by virtue of lasvs sanctioned by Congress, shall we be told by ynu tha no laws nre necessary, that the constitution itself becomes their shicld? Suppos yourself practioally, in the condittonofn slave, poor, black, noranl and despisec chained to a gang of slaves by your neci and hand, and mnrehing down lo a slave trading vesscl, to bc transported in ihiscondition to a cotton planlation fur life, of whal avuil would it bc tn you, thnt by the cünslilution you were of right free? Your assumpiion,tben,thateonslitutional provisions suporsodo llie necessity oflegai enactmenis, is not suatained by evidence, and 9 contniry to tbo practice of llie Government of the Uniied States, and to the continued liigiálation of all the States of this Union. But you say further: "I cannol, as requested by you, "advocate" one of tbe objcctsprayed for by the petitioners. I alude to the repeU of that clause of the cousti'ution of the United States, vl)ich roquires the General Government "lo protect eacli Slate againsl invasión, and on apphcation of tbe Leislature, or Executive, against dotnestic viulence." I certainly have not requested youto advocate the repeal of thta clause, and no petitions of this import have been sent to Congrcss by mo,or withinmy knowledge. Tliia clause was not mentioned in any petition I sent you. The petiiicn to which you must refer, prays, 'Hhat the proper eteps may be inado for the repeal of alllaws, and the alteratiun of uil coustitution al provisions, by which tho pcople of the fVee States, the Federal Government, or the Nation, are in any way impücated or xund to countenance, proteci, or in any roanner aid in suppurting or continuing the insütutioD of Slavery, or in keejiing luman beings in a state of Slavery." By comparing what we did ask for, with what you attribute to us, you wit) see there is a wide dififercnce betwcen the two thingsWe did not aak for a repeal of that clause you have quo'ed, but euch an alteration of il as ehall absolve ua and tho nation from all obligation to support Slavery. - The petitioners, in common with their fel low citizens, are witling utid stand ready to defend every Slato itgfiiiist loreiyn invasión and domestic violence,save only in cases where tint invasión or violcnee Bh 11 a riso from keeping human beings in Slavery. From ihut ihey wíbIi lo beconstiiutionülly excuHcd. They abhor the meanness aod wickednees ofelarehoUlÍDg, and are desirous that the free Slatee should be absolved from the necessily -f sending forth their rtuies and expending their ireusurep, for the sole purpose öf continuing n s i stem of oppressit'n, that lrnnples on the rights of tbeir fcllow countrymen, weakens the Union, and is highly injurious to the interests of ihe Free Statest. But that you have made a false issue In the case, andthereby have drawn conclusions which ihe tenas of the petition will not warrant, niay be sen by merely applying your reasoning to the specific thing the petitioners asked for - the repeal byhe General Government of all legal or lonstitution.il provisions suttaining Slavey. So far as your rcasoning can beap!ied at all lo the object of tho petitionfs. t apphes thus:"To withdruw th8 protecon [iho legal and constilutional support fSlavery,] would be, ín my opinión, to nvilc invasión, and encourage domestic nsurreclion. Ii would directly and alarmngly weaken, not to say eniirely destroy ie Union. Of what use wouid the Unon of ihe Suites be, if théty we're not muually bound to protecl each oiher [in holdng human beings in Slavery] against any violent movement, at home or irom abroad, timing tooverturn the local goverumenls? t is clear [if ihe legal and constitutiooal anction of Slavery were removed] il vould be a Union only in name. Such rotection [that of Slavery] as perhaps he principal object for wbich Ihe constiution was eslablished, and is as valuable tothe North as to the South. It f the Naional protection of Slavery] makes us one Valion, and is our strength at lióme, and ourglory abroad. He who would wilhdraw it [ihe constituúonal and legal protection oí Slavery] is an enemy to tho Union of tho Sutes." Do you say ihat this appliratbn of your reasouing s íbreign to your intention - that you never nicant to advance posiiions like these? 1 anawer,ihat the wilhdruwal of the Nulional protoction of Slavery, is the only ísbuo that has been inade iti this pelilion; and ali tho arguments above cited againet íbe repeai of a ciause iu ihe coustilution wbich ihe peti tioners Hever asked to have repeaied, are entirely irrelevant to the case - ihe mere demolilion of a man of slraw of your own ereetion. When yoii say ihe pcñtioners prayed for somelhing they did not proy for - and are enemies to the Union of the States for doing what they have nol done, you do them great injustice, and grossly misrepreeent theirviews. Any represen lalioQS ihat the petitioners are taking d course wliich is inimical to ihe "eanctity ol tbe Union," ore unsupported by any fair construction of the words of tho petition. unleesilcan he made to appear tbat theperpetuity oi tne Union uepp.nds tor ne support upon the continuance and future prosperiiy ol"Slaver . You further say you are no friend or supporter of slavery. You will allow ihat t is a fair rule, thut every tree shuuld be jud;ed by its fruits. What, then is your position? On thia sulject, neutraliiy is impossible. Il comes up in a great varieiy of shnpcs, and the very puin taken in Congrcss to shut it out froni discussion, lias ehown to every one how intimaiely it is intermixed with every queslion ofi:nporlunce ihat Brises in ihat body. You are a constituent pari of ihat kody. You, in conjunción wilb the other members, huve lle undoubted right to abulish slnvory and the slave trude in the District or Culunibia, and in Florida, and to repeal ali laws regulatini? and eanctioning the slave tnide. You will not deny (hat you have full jurisdiclionin all theso matlris. lf, ihcn, these national ahomiuationsexist by your concurrence, in èo'mmon wiüi oihers, are you nut rcjsponsible for their continuance, and while you muke no move inent for their remova!, muy it not be jnstly said, tliat you aro a "sunporte" of slavëryf Each tnemher ofCungress has a pight to act on the subject so far as to propuse their removalj and it is not known ihat you have ever proceeded po fnr ae to publicly expresa your disapprobation ofthera. Oi) the contrnry, when reqtieeted j to advócalo a petïtiuri involving oli these pnints, your only rej! y is mi argument to hew ihat serne poini wlnch the pclilioners never asked for, is destructive to the sanciuy of the Union, and they cannot expect you to advocate "a doctrine fraught with so muoh dangcr." I cannot but think that you will ogree wiih me, that the re?ponsibility of the conlinuance of these evils rests with Congres?, and that wti'e immortal beingij sre held as slavep, and bought and sold, underlhe eanct.on of lbo lawsof tbatbody, no individual meuibcrot Congress canconsistently claim an exemp tion from the chorge of beiog n "suppoi ter of elavery, until he publicly avuws bis opposition tothe systeiu, und doeaallbe ennstituiionally can for ils removal- a course which you, so far as 1 have learned, have never yei puraued, and which thero is no .salisfuctory evidence for bclitviag, you ever intend 10 adopt. Verv respectfully vours,