E449 
 .M417 
 

 & ♦: 
 
 
 ^"^.s^' 
 
 
 
 L* N^. 
 
 
 VAO' 
 
 'oK 
 
 y .0 
 
 ^^\>:k:j'.. %. J'^:i^^^>^ .y>:^-i:.X .^^\!i^*."^^ . 
 
 
 
 
 »bv" 
 
 v*-^' , _,^ ,_ . 
 
 ..,^\^;i:.-:.X .A:iiiv%"'^^ ..^\!k-i%V .V>\!ia^% "^.. . 
 
/.^^^>o ./\.j;:^vV /..^^^>o 
 
 
 
 >o-V 
 
 ,5°^ 
 
 
 % 
 
 »• A*?-' 
 
 • . » • .0*- '^ ♦^^Trf^* A <> 
 
 
 ^ \J^^'\<p^ %;^^V* ^V"^^"/^ """V^^"/ ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 • u ^"^ '^-^ 
 
 ^ -^^^ *>?^^ \ ^'^-^-X /<V5^^\ ^'^-^'X ^ 
 
7^ cA>-rc a^ CDa^A^ 
 
 AN 
 
 ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 INTERVIEWS WHICH TOOK PLACE 
 
 ON THE FOURTH AND EIGHTH OF MARCH, 
 
 BETWEEN A 
 
 ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETIY, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ©OlSMS^^IE^ ©IF "^IHri^ ILIl^S^a^^WMiE. 
 
 k:, ^'■- 
 
 -, BOSTON: 
 
 f CBLISHED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS ANTl-SLAVERY SOCIETY. 
 PRINTED BY ISAAC KNAPP. 
 
 1836. 
 
x\ 
 
FIRST INTERVIEW. 
 
 His Excellency, the Governor of this Common- 
 wealth, saw fit to introduce into his inaugural speech, 
 a severe censure of the Abolitionists, and to intimate 
 his belief that they were guilty of an offence, punish- 
 able at common law. This part of the speech was re- 
 ferred to a joint committee of five, of which Hon. 
 George Lunt was chairman. To the same committee 
 were also referred communications, which had been 
 received by our Governor, from several of the Legis- 
 latures of the slaveholding states, requesting our Gen- 
 eral Court to enact laws, making it penal for the citi- 
 zens of this state to form societies for the abolition of 
 slavery, or to speak or publish sentiments, such as have 
 been uttered in anti-slavery meetings, and published 
 in anti-slavery tracts and papers. 
 
 By order of the Managers of the Massachusetts An- 
 ti-Slavery Society, the Corresponding Secretary ad- 
 dressed the following letter to the Committee of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Boston, Feb. 16, 1836. 
 'Honorable George Luxt — 
 
 Sir, — Formerly it would have been deemed by us unne- 
 cessary and impertinent, to have taken any measures to 
 avert any act of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
 tending to destroy the liberties of speech, and of 
 the press; and to perpetuate oppression and slavery in 
 our land. But the events of the past year have reveal- 
 ed to us a fiiglitful diminution, even in New Eni,'lan(I, 
 of ' that reverence for liberty, whicli is the vital (iriiiciple 
 of our republic' The outrages, to which we allude, have 
 been produced, and to a great extent we fear, are excused 
 in the public estimation, by the gross misrepresentations 
 that are prevalent, of tlie seiuiments and purposes of the 
 abolitionists. Not knowing how fur the members of your 
 Committee may have been misinformed on this subject, we 
 beg leave to assure you, that we have not done any thing, 
 which the Legislature can either righteously or constilu- 
 tionully forbid us to do. In support of this declara- 
 tion, we appeal to all our publications, and to all the publi- 
 cations of all the societie.s, with which we arc connected. 
 Any or all of these publications we shall Lo happv, at any 
 time, to submit to the examination of your Corumittee. 
 Besides which, sir, before you make a report to the Legis- 
 lature concerning our course of measures, we ask to be per- 
 mitted to appear before you, to explain and justify that 
 course. We re()Uost you to appoint any time and place for 
 this interview, which may be convenient to vourselves. 
 
 By order of the Board of Managers of the Massachu- 
 setts Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 SAMUEL J. MAY, Cor. Secretary. 
 
 ' N. B. I send herewith a parcel containing a copy of our 
 late Anrmal Report, for each of the Members of your Com- 
 mittte.' 
 
 [We request the reader to notice particularly tlie tenor 
 of this letter — that we sought an interview with the Com- 
 mittee, not so much to exculpate ourselves from the charges 
 alleged against us, as to avert any action of the Legislature, 
 that might infringe the liberty of speech, or of the press.] 
 
 The request was granted, and on the 4th of March, 
 the proposed interview took place, in tho chamber of 
 the Representatives. There were present, on the part 
 of the Legislature, Messrs. Lunt and Chapin of the 
 Senate, and Messrs Moseley and Lucas of the House. 
 On the part of the Anti-Slavery Society, Messrs. 
 Southwick, May, Loring, Sewall, Garrison, Follen, 
 Farnsworth, Jackson and Goodell. 
 
 Mr. Lucas, one of the Legislative Committee, ob- 
 jected to the proceeding— thought the gentlemen, who 
 had sought this interview, were premature. They 
 had no reason to pre-suppose the Legislature would 
 do any thing prejudicial to them. They ought to have 
 waited, he said, until the Committee had reported, be- 
 fore they proceeded on the supposition, that they were 
 to be injured. 
 
 Mr. May replied that he thought he and his asso- 
 ciates could not be mistaken in the present case. They 
 belonged to that class of persons, spoken of in the 
 Governor's Speech, in terms of severe censure — and 
 to whom the communications referred, which had 
 been received from sever.il southern states, and upon 
 which this Commitlec had been instructed by the 
 Legislature to report. Mr. May read one or two o( 
 the resolutions of the southern Legislatures, respect- 
 ing abolitionists and anti-slavery societies, and added, 
 can the gentleman (Jlr. Lucas) or this Committee, 
 have any doubt that we, members of the Mass. .Anti- 
 Slavery Society, are a portion of that class of ppr«ons, 
 upon whom the Legislature of this Commonwcaitl. is 
 called upon to pass censure ? Surely not. Now it is 
 on purpose to avert any action of this (■'cncral Court, 
 that ndjjbt infriiigo the liberty of speech and of the 
 press, that we have asked permission lo show to this 
 Committee why, we conceive there should be no leg- 
 
islative censures in any way passed upon abolitionists, 
 and anti-slavery societies. 
 
 Mr. Lucas replied it was not to be supposed the 
 Legislature of this Commonwealth would enact any 
 law, abridging the liberty of speech and of the press. 
 This could not be done constitutionally. It was very 
 improper In the gentlemen of the anti-slavery society 
 to proceed to this supposition. 
 
 jMr. May rejoined, that formerly it might indeed 
 have seemed a gratuitous, nay, even an impertinent 
 apprehension in any of the citizens of Massachusetts 
 to fear that the Legislature of this state would enact 
 any law, or take any action, inauspicious to the most 
 sacred rights of the citizens. But recent events have 
 admonished us, that we may not safely rely any longer 
 upon the assurance that our liberties are safe. Alarm- 
 ing encroachments have been made upon them alrea- 
 dy. And ' that reverence for liberty which ' as Mr. 
 Pickney of Maryland said, in 1789, ' is at the founda- 
 tion of republican institutions,' has greatly diminished 
 among us, owing to our acquiescence in the system of 
 slavery. We do not fear, he continued, that this Com- 
 mittee will recommend, or that our Legislature will en- 
 act, a penal law against abolitionists. But we do appre- 
 hend that condemnatory resolutions may be prepared 
 and passed — and these we should deprecate more even 
 than a penal law, for reasons which we wish to give 
 to this Committee. 
 
 [Here the Committee confeired together.] 
 Mr. Moseley said— I wish all the information I can 
 get on this subject. I hope nothing will preclude a 
 hearing. I must act in relation to it, and am now in 
 a great degree ignorant. I wish to know how far 
 abolitionism goes ;— what it is tending to do,^and 
 what it is. Though I am opposed to the measures of 
 the abolitionists, yet no opinions from a respectable 
 body of men are unworthy of regard. 
 Mr. Lucas withdrew his objections. 
 Mr. May then proceeded to give some skctcli of the 
 origin and history of the abolition movements. The 
 Iceliug of oppositi on to^iayery had its origin in that 
 principle of our nature, which leads us to sympatliize 
 with the oppressed, lie illustrated by a reference to 
 the Poles &.C. He then stated that this feeling for 
 tiie slaves had led to the formation of the New Lng- 
 land, now the Massachusetts, Anti-Slavery Society, 
 and 8ub.-<equcntly to the American Anti-Slavery So- 
 ciety, located at New York, and to many state and 
 ■mailer, auxiliary societies. These all arc composed of 
 men and wonsen, associated to overthrow the system of 
 American ulavcry, liy all the intellectual and moral 
 power they possess. This object they had no desire to 
 keep secret. They have jjublishcd it to the world, and 
 their jleterminalidn to persevere, unle»s the liberty 
 of speech and of the press is taken from them. 
 
 Air. .M'li/ was proceeding to give a sketch of the 
 
 evils of slavery, social, political and moral, which had 
 roused the Abolitionists to the efTorts the}' are making. 
 
 Mr. Lunt, the chairman, here interposed, and said 
 that there was but one opinion on that point, and that 
 such remarks were unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. May resumed and gave a description of sever- 
 al important documents, which he presented to the 
 committee. He explained what is meant by imraedi- 
 ate emancipation ; — defended the publications from 
 the charge of incendiarism, — and spoke of the distribu- 
 tion of their publications by mail. If the Bible is in- 
 cendiary, if the Declaration of Independence is incen- 
 diary, then are our anti-slavery documents. If they 
 are incendiary, why is not the incendiary matter 
 pointed out to us ? Why, in calling on the northern 
 legislators to put down the abolitionists, are not speci- 
 fic charges brought against us, and the criminal doc- 
 uments furnished .' As to the distribution, no publica- 
 tion has been sent by the society to any colored man 
 south of Washington. They are sent to the masters. 
 
 Mr. Lucas. You say, Mr. M., that the only weap- 
 ons you use, or intend to use, arc moral weapons. Are 
 these things of that description — showing him several 
 of the pictures in the Anti-Slavery Record, which 
 Mr. M. had laid before the committee among other 
 documents — are such things, which are evidently cal- 
 culated to irritate the slaveholders, arc these things a 
 part of your moral weapons ? 
 
 Mr. May. They are sir. Surely one of the means 
 by which we may hope to cfTect a moral reformation 
 is the exposure of the sin, from which we aim to reform 
 the community. Pictorial representation is a very 
 fair means of exposing the evil — and we make use of 
 it — and consider it a moial weapon. 
 
 Mr. Lucas then quoted from memory some ex- 
 pression, used by a man of ardent feelings, which, out 
 of its connection, seemed to refer (o something more 
 than moral suasion. 
 
 Air. Alay. I do not remember to have seen that 
 cx])rcssion. I do not like it, but it is not insurrection- 
 ary. I do not say, sir, that there have not been in our 
 publications some sentences in bad taste and some in 
 bad temper; but I do deny that there have been any, 
 exciting the slaves or their friends to insurrection. 
 
 Air. Lunt. You said, Mr. May, that though ycu 
 had not sent your publications to people of cidor, yi't 
 that you (lid not di'^claim the light to do it.if you thought 
 best. 
 
 Air. .1/(1//. I did say so — beca\i'e we regard the 
 slaves as men, who may be always treated as men — 
 and because there is nothing in our publications de- 
 !»lgned or adapted to rouse them to insurrection. On 
 the contrary, they uniformly condemn a resort to vio- 
 lence. But lor reasons which we deem sullieient, wc 
 have not sent and shall ii()t send our publi.' ilions to the 
 slaves, nor to the free colored i>cople. These reasons, 
 
sir, are given in our last Annual Report. [Mr. IVI. 
 here read from the report, p 18.] 
 
 ' We liave lefialnod from sendiiif;' our pulilicalioris to 
 4he slaves, fur four reasons. First. — They arc not ad- 
 dressed nor adn|)led to tlie slaves, l)ut to their masters. 
 Secondly. — If sent, tin-y |)robal(ly would never reach the 
 slaves, so vigilant is the espionage of their oppressors. 
 Thirdly. — If tiiey should get safely to their hands, they 
 could not read them. Fourilily. — \\'e fear, if any of our 
 publications should be found in their hands, thev would be 
 as fuel added to the fire of their ailliclions For similar 
 reas»)ns, we have never sent from the office in Boston, and 
 the Secretary of the Society at New York assures us, lie 
 has never knowingly sent anything, to llie J'ri'e colored 
 people south o( Washington ('ily. In that city, there were 
 two or three colored men who were subscribers to onr pub- 
 lications. If, further south, there iuive been other sub- 
 scribers of that description — they have not been known to 
 us as such. That very few, if any, have gone into their 
 hands, is evident from the accounts given by the southern 
 Post-masters, of the contents of the mail bags, which ihev 
 have had the audacity to examine. Only one, we believe, 
 reports that he found anything for free colorod persons, 
 and he does not quote a word to prove, that what he found 
 was insurrectionary.' 
 
 Ellis Gray Loring, Esq. rose and said, that the 
 abolitionists appeared before the Committee, in conse- 
 quence of the paragraph in his Excellency's Message 
 said to allude to them and their measures, and to in- 
 terpose a remonstrance against the legislative action 
 recommended in the Resolutions, which had been 
 transmitted from several of the soutliern states, on the 
 subject of slavery. We have respectfully claimed to 
 be heard in answer to the ciiarges against us, and your 
 Committee have assigned us this time and place for 
 that purpose. Our principles and measures are brought 
 before you, and we would ask a patient hearing in 
 their defence — or at least in arrest of judgment. 
 
 [One of the Committee. Do you intimate, Mr. 
 Loring, that our verdict is made up against you ?] 
 
 Mr. L. continued. I hope not — for we feel astiong 
 interest in the decision of this Committee. A report 
 by them in favor of laws against the free discussion of 
 slavery — or in favor of resolutions censuring the abo- 
 litionists, would be felt by us as a deep injury. We 
 think we have a right to ask of the Committee and of 
 the Legislature to stand neutral between us and our 
 opposers. Give us a fair field and no favor, and if we 
 do not prevail, it is because the right is not with us. 
 
 We have felt it our duty to plead for the enslaved 
 in our land. The general duty of sympathizing with 
 and succoring the oppressed, will probably be conced- 
 ed. I feel bound to begin thus far back, for wo have 
 fallen on times, when first principles are daily ques- 
 tioned, and we are required to demonstrate the very 
 axioms of morals. What then is to limit our exercise, 
 as abolitionists, of this duty and this right .' I have 
 heard of but one reply. The relations we bear to the 
 oppressor, control, it is said, our duty to the oppressed. 
 Let us, then, examine these relations, and see where- 
 in w« have in our publications or discussions violated 
 'the divine riiht' nf the slaveholder. If we are 
 
 bound to abstain from the exercise of our moral right, 
 in the discussion of slavery with a view to it* over- 
 throw, it must be either because we are restrained 
 by the principles of international law, or by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, or by the laws of our 
 own State. On the principles of international law, I 
 need not enlarge on this occasion. The application of 
 those principles between the stales of this Union, 
 however familiar the process may be among our nul- 
 lifying brethren of the South, will not find much fa- 
 vor in this Commonwealth. But grant the States to 
 be foreign nations as to each other ; still, nothing is 
 gained to our opposers. We have, to be sure, an act 
 of the United States against fitting out armaments to 
 attack nations, with whom we are at peace; but the 
 exertion of a meral power in favor of the enslaved 
 ought not, and is not, to be so repressed. Those of 
 us here who heard the thrilling eloquence of Faneuil 
 Hall, when the Polish Standards were dedicated to 
 the cause of freedom, or who listened ten years since 
 to the spirit-stirring a|ipeals of our scholar* and states- 
 men, in behalf of the down-trodden Greeks, recked 
 little of their ' international obligations ' to ' our an- 
 cient allies,' the sultan, or the czar. It is impossible 
 gravely to argue such a position. 
 
 Is it then in the Constitution of the United States 
 that this restriction on our liberty of speech is to be 
 looked for ? And if so, are we to find our condemna- 
 tion in its letter or in its spirit.' I find there an abun- 
 dant guaranty for the liberty of speech ; but I look in 
 vain, in the letter of the constitution, for any prohibi- 
 tion of the use of moral means, for the extirpation of 
 slavery. The word slave does not stain its pages, and 
 there are but three allusions to the subject, in the 
 whole instrument. The first is in the clause author- 
 izing slave representation in Congress. 1 war not 
 with this arrangement. It forbids me not to speak my 
 mind of slavery. The second is the article which 
 prohibits Congress from forbidding the migration or 
 importation of such persons as the states shall admit, 
 (meaning by this the foreign and domestic slave-trade) 
 until the year 1808 ;— and the third is the clause, 
 which requires us to send back into .slavery the poor 
 being who has escaped from the hand of his master. 
 What i-i there in all this which prevents my testifying 
 against slavery? How much is there not in it which 
 calls on me to speak. If the southern slaves should 
 forcibly assert those rights which our fathers proclaim- 
 ed to be the birljiright of all men equally,— liberty, 
 and the means of happine.ss,— you and !, Mr. Chair- 
 man, are legally liable, (under the clause in the Con- 
 stitution relating to the suppression of domestic insur- 
 rection) to be drafted in the militia, in order to force 
 down their throat.; with the b.iyonet, the doctrines of 
 the Declaration of Independence! And if slavery 
 bring upon me this horrible obligation, am 1 to be de- 
 
nicd the poor right of talking about it ? If I am bound 
 by the Acts of the United States under the licaviest 
 penalties, to diivc from nij'door the jioor (iigi'.ive, who 
 implores my ])rotcction, — if 1 am oblif;e<!, as a magis- 
 trate, against the express law of God, to sign the war- 
 rant for his delivery to his southern task-master, such 
 obligations give me at least the right to remonstrate. 
 
 No, Mr. Chairman, I hear much of a ' Compact,' 
 which binds mc to hold my tongue on slavery — but 
 where am I to find it? So grave an infringement of 
 our general right of discussion, if it exist, should cer- 
 tainly be very plainly set down. Any law or regu- 
 lation on this suliject is penal in its character, and I 
 demand that its terms be express, and that it be most 
 ."Strictly construed. But the truth is, no such prohibi- 
 tion is to be found at all. There is not one word said 
 on the subject, in the Constitutions or laws under 
 wliich we live. The continuance of slavery in the 
 Southern States is, politically speaking, among the 
 reserved rights of those States. The only conclusion 
 from this is, tliat neither Congress nor the Legisla- 
 tures of other States can legislate on slavery for any 
 State in w hich it exists. All this I readily grant, nor 
 did I ever hear it disputed by any man. But what 
 has this to do with our efforts to overthrow slavery by 
 moral means ? Slaverj', in this respect, stands on prc- 
 ci^elj- the same ground with Lotteries, Intemperance, 
 and other matters ol domestic regulation. They are 
 .suljccts of the re^^erved lights of the Sl;itcs, and can 
 be acted on, for legal purposes, only by the local leg- 
 islatures. But who in his senses would pretend that 
 this f.ict limits the exertion of our moral influence ? 
 That it would be, (or cxami)lo, a violation of the Con- 
 stitution of the U. S., to discuss in IVIass.ichusetts tho 
 subject of Lotteries or Intciriperancc — the Pennsyl- 
 vania Lottery for instance, or the cfTcct of Albany 
 Ale — or lo send tracts on these subjects into other 
 Stales .' What would have been thought, when South 
 Carolina was arming herself again--t the General Gov- 
 ernment, of a proposition to i)uni^li the Managers of 
 our Peace Society, lor sending into that State discus- 
 bions as to the UMlawlultioss of war, or desciiptions of 
 its horrors .' 
 
 We do no! claim to legislate. We wish no man to 
 fight, even if oppressed. It is known that the alioli- 
 lioni^its, as a cla'-s, hold the peacedil opiidons of the 
 Quakers, — hut we are willing to tru>'t our cause to 'the 
 foolishness of preaching.' Give u^ our choice, ajid 
 wc woulii, tcn-lold, rather liave the peacelul power 
 of affecting public Bcntimcnl, on any moral, (jucstion, 
 liy argument, entroaiy, description, repioof— than (o 
 be girded with the sword, or attended by the posse 
 comilatus. Such it our opinion, and fanatical though 
 it be called, it has been the fanaticism of every viclo- 
 rious nforin. 
 
 But it i<( tinid, our proceeding* arc contrary lo the 
 Spirit of the Courlilulioh. Anil is It iliun true that 
 
 the Spirit of our Constitution is the Spirit of Slavery ? 
 Wo then unto us, for ' Where the Spirit of the Lord 
 is, there is Libcrtj\' AVhat becomes of our boast of 
 living under ' a free government ' — of enjoying ' free 
 institutions' ? Was then our solemn appeal and justili- 
 calion before the nations, in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, only a piece of hypocrisy or rhodomontade? 
 No, Sir, our heroic fathers would not have listened to 
 such a supposition. Washington's recently published 
 letters shew him to have been a warm friend to eman- 
 cipation : dy. Sir, and an admiring eulogist of jnjnie- 
 (itafe emancipation, as exemplified by Lafayette on his 
 plantation in Cayenne. Jefferson's writings contain 
 more appalling descriptions, and more bitter denun- 
 ciations of Slavery, than the abolition publications of 
 our day, — and Franklin, Kush and John Jay w'cre 
 membei's of the first Anti-Slavery Society in this 
 country, a Society whose avowed purpose was the 
 al)olilion of slavery in all the States of this Union and 
 which actually petitioned Congress, for that object. 
 These great men formed our Constitution, and must 
 be supposed to have known something of its spirit. 
 And yet they never found there any prohibition of 
 writing and speaking against slaver j\ I believe there 
 was not one of oar eminent statesmen of that period, 
 who would not have repudiated with scorn the idea 
 that the Constitution of the U. S. was to deprive any 
 man in the country of the right to exercise his pen 
 and his tongue against Slavery. Is there a man who 
 hears nie that doubts this .' Sir, it has been reserved 
 for the acumen of our own day to discover, that in a 
 free country, the blessings and the principles of free- 
 dom are the only subjects, in Heaven or earth, that 
 cannot propcrlj' be discussed. 
 
 We do not conceal our solicitude, Mr. Chairman, to 
 have your Committee report against any legislative 
 action. We think you must come lo the conclusion 
 that the Legislature has nothing to do with our effoi ts, 
 any more than with those of any other philanthropic 
 association. Still, standing liere upon our defence, 
 we ought to suppose and bo prepared for the worst. 
 Your conimiltee may recommend the pissage of penal 
 laws against the aboli'iionists, or the adoption of reso- 
 lutions of censure on their |)roceedings. 1 am happy to 
 have heard it remarkeil by one gentleman on the Com- 
 mittee (Ml-. Lucas) that it was impossible the Legis- 
 lature should pass laws against our publications, .i« 
 such laws would he a palpable infiaclion ol the cou?ti- 
 tulion of this Commonwealth. This conclusion seems 
 !iO obvious, that I shall refiain from arguing on it. I 
 need only add, that wlicther such laws would be con- 
 stitutional or not, tliey seem, at the present stage of 
 the question, at best, unnecessary. The southern 
 slates make certain general charges_^agaiiist the aboli- 
 tionists. As far as we can tiiulerstand them, we deny 
 their truth and their application. Wc deny that we 
 have ever sent our publications among the slaves, or 
 
lo any free blacks in the southern states.* — We deny 
 that we have ever preached or encouraged the doc- 
 trine of physical resistance on the part of the slaves. 
 No evidence is brought of the truth of the loose alle- 
 gations against us. What need is there then, for ac- 
 tion ? Surely the Legislature will require that some 
 wrong be shown, before they begin to devise a reme- 
 
 But if legislation is unnecessary, resolutions of cen- 
 sure from the Legislature, or your Committee, would 
 be far worse, for they would be unjust. Give us the 
 gag laws, and we will submit or take the consequen- 
 ces. But do not sit in judgment upon our jjast acts. I 
 fully recognize your right, as private individuals, to 
 hold meetings, and to pass resolutions on us, or our 
 measures, as you may think they deserve — but I do 
 deny your right as a legislature, or a committee, to do 
 any such thing. You were sent here to exercise a 
 different trust — to make laws for the future — not to 
 pronounce judgment on the past. What right can the 
 Legislature have to censure the past doings of the 
 Abolition Societies, any more than of the Temperance 
 Societies or the Peace Society ? The tact of the south- 
 ern states having taken umbrage at our proceedings 
 icannot, of itself, give you any jurisdiction over them. 
 You may assume this power, but 1 respectfully sub- 
 mit that it would be a usurpation of power, not right- 
 fully belonging to you. Any censure from your Com- 
 mittee or from the Legislature would, I repeat, be un- 
 just, for, in whatever shape that censure may be dis- 
 guised, an official censure is, and it will be understood 
 to be, in effect a punishment. It is in substance, if 
 not in form, a punishment. I appeal to the common 
 sense and candor of every honest man here, whether 
 this be not so. Now sir, I call for the authority un- 
 der which this Legislature will undertake to inflict 
 punishment — even the slightest — on the citizens of 
 this Commonwealth for an offence unknown to our 
 laws, and in the absolute destitution of all proof, but 
 mere vague rumor. 
 
 [Mr. Lunt here said, do you undertake, Mr. L., to 
 call these resolutions from the south, mere vague ru- 
 mor ?] 
 
 Yes, sir, continued Mr. Loring, the southern reso- 
 lutions deserve no better designation. They are cer- 
 tainly not evidence, and they lack every requisite of a 
 distinct and intelligible charge. No man can plead 
 here, or would be bound in a court of l«w, to plead to 
 such loose and general statements of an offence, as are 
 contained in these documents fiom the south. If we 
 "were indicted for the pettiest offence, it would be ne- 
 cessary to set forth our crime with great particularity 
 of time, and place, and circumstance. What are the 
 
 * With the exception of ihree colored subscribers lo liic 
 Emancipator, in ihe cilj of WasJiingloH; as raenlioncd tn 
 -Mr. Ma3''s remarks. 
 
 circumstances of our oflencc ? When and where was 
 it commiltcd? Wherein docs it consist.' Where is 
 the allegation, that it is ' against the form ol the stat- 
 ute in such case made and provided ? ' I call for tho 
 chapter and section of that same statute. 
 
 [One of the Committee remarked that an indictinent 
 sometime concludes ' contra pacem.''] 
 
 True, the indictment may run ' against the peace,' 
 Sec, but remember, it must be ' against the peace of 
 this Commonwealth.'' Such is not the charge against 
 us. AVe have not broken the peace of this Common- 
 wealth. If we have, the Courts of law are open. We 
 have only broken the peace of the enslaver of his 
 brethren. As well might we be indicted in Massa- 
 chusetts, for uttering our sympathies and our prayers 
 lor Poland, on the ground that it would be ' against 
 the peace ' of the Emperor Nicholas. 'There 15 no 
 peace, saith my God, to the wicked.' 
 
 I protest in the name of justice and freedom against 
 your awarding a punishment, not preceded by the 
 forms of trial. I protest still more strongly against 
 your interfering with the regular administration of 
 justice in tho Courts. Are the laws insufficient .' make 
 new ones. Have we offended against the existing 
 laws ? Give us then a fair chance before a jury of our 
 country. The legal profession and the community 
 have recently been astounded with certain novel doc- 
 tiines which hold it to be an offence lo express any 
 sentiments ' having a tendency ' to create ' dissatisfac- 
 tion ' with their condition, in the minds of men depriv- 
 ed of freedom ; and I have even heard of its being as- 
 serted, that the proceedings of the abolitionists arc 
 ' indictable at common law.' Here then is reason to 
 pause. If the abolitionists are to hold up their hands, 
 as culprits, before a jury of their country, for what 
 they have heretofore done, I ask that they may do it, 
 unprejudiced by any ex post facto action of the Leg- 
 islature. Give them, at least, a fair trial, when it 
 comes. 
 
 There is, as I conceive, in no view, any present call 
 for action, on the part of the Legislature. Let us 
 alone, to fight out our good fight of faith with our law- 
 ful weapons. Leave n» our right to use argniiicnt, en- 
 treaty, rebuke, remonstran''e— ay, sir, and invective 
 too, if we think it right and useful— in our warfare 
 against slavery. We have the noith to convert as well 
 as the south. Truth .speaks in many tones— silence 
 none of them. 
 
 A great principle is involved in the derision of the 
 Legislature. I esteem as nothing, in comparison, our 
 feelings or wishes as individuals. Personal interests 
 sink into insignificance, here. Sacrifice us it you will, 
 but do not wound liberty through us. Care nothing 
 for men, but let the oppressor and his apologist, wheth- 
 er at the north or the south, beware of the certain de- 
 feat which attends him who is found fighting against 
 God. 
 
Mr. Goodell. — When we hear the high, despotic 
 demands of the southern States, and find so many men 
 of property and standing, at the north, co-operating willi 
 them to put down the discussion of a subject, which 
 is manifestly one of leaiful importance to our country; 
 when we see publications, issued from the press in 
 this city, by men of high respectability, in which is 
 propounded the monstrous doctrine, tliat the utterance 
 of anti-slavery sentiments and the formation of Anti- 
 Slavery Societies, are offences punishable at common 
 law ;---and when wc find the Governor of the Com- 
 monwealth himself, giving his countenance to these 
 alarming encroachments upon the liberty of speech 
 and of the press, we have every thing to fear, T\'e 
 earnestly hope the Legislature of this state will not 
 give its sanction to the measures, which have been 
 pursued thus far, to prevent the discussion of a subject 
 of vital consequence, which has in fact already been 
 let alone too long. 
 
 We would deprecate the passage of any condemna- 
 tory resolutions by the Legislature, even more than 
 the enactment of a penal law, for in the latter case we 
 should have some redress. We could plead the un- 
 constitutionality of such a law ; at any rate, it could 
 not take effect until we had had a fair trial. Not so in 
 the ca.se of resolutions. We should have no redress 
 for the injurious operation of such an extra-judicial 
 sentence. Besides, we believe, it is pretty well un- 
 derstood, that the people are not yet prepared to re- 
 ceive a law, that shall operate to infringe the lioerty 
 of speech. Our opposers must operate indirectly. 
 
 Let the Legislature of Massachusetts set the exam- 
 ple of passing a formal censure upon the abolitionists, 
 and anti-slavery Societies, and it would be a signal for 
 a general legislative condemnation of them, all over the 
 land. What next .' The passage of such resolutions 
 by this and other Legislatures, would help to fix in 
 the public mind the belief, that abolitionists are a dan- 
 gerous bo<ly of men — and prepare the public to re- 
 ceive such a law as the slaveholding states might 
 dictate. 
 
 We would solemnly protest against a legislative 
 censure, because it would be a usurpation of an au- 
 thority, never entrusted to the Legislature. They 
 are not a judicial body — and have no right to pronounce 
 the condemnation of any one. 
 
 Mr. Lunt. — Vow must not indulge in such remarks, 
 Sir. Wc cannot sit here, and permit you to instruct 
 us as to the duties of the Legislature. 
 
 Mr. CJooddl resumed. V. c have three pleas to 
 ofTcr against the pas.-agc of any condemnatory rcso- 
 lulion.H. First — we have abunJance of facts to prove 
 that the charges alleged ag>iiust us are not true. Wc 
 have not done any thing contrary to the law. The 
 CoiMiiiuiiDn of the UniK ;1 Slates secures to us Hit- 
 right to do all we have duix- or intend to do. 
 
 IWc forbear (o give more of Mr. (;oodeirs able ar- 
 
 gument, as the whole of it is embodied in a very vaT' 
 uablc pamphlet just issued, which was written by 
 him, entitled, ^A Full Statement of the reasons 
 which were in part offered to the Committee of the 
 Legislature on the -Uh andSth of March, why there 
 should be no penal law enacted, andnu censure pass^ 
 ed by the Legislature upon Abolitionists and Anti' 
 Slavery Societies.'' To that excellent document we 
 refer our readers lor a most lucid expose of the argu- 
 ment against any concurrence, on the part of our Gen- 
 eral Court, with the demands of the southern States.} 
 
 Mr. Garrison next addressed the Committee in a 
 brief,^ but very forcible speech. We regret that we 
 were not able to preserve the whole of it. * It is said, 
 Mr. Chairman, that the Abolitionists wish to destroy 
 the Union. It is not true. We would save the Un- 
 ion, if rt be not too late. But to us it would seem that 
 the Union is already destroyed. TVe have no L'nion.- 
 We, sir, cannot go through these States enjoying the 
 pi-ivileges, which the Constitution of the Union pro- 
 fessed to secure to all the citizens of this Republic, 
 And why ? Because, Sir, and only because, we are 
 laboring to accomplish the vcrj- purposes, for which i? 
 is declared in the preamble to the Constitution, that 
 the Union was formed ! Because wc are laboring 
 " to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity,, 
 and piomote the general welfare ! " ' 
 
 Br. Fallen next addressed the Committee. He 
 commenced with a series of remarks upon the rights' 
 of man, which the people of this country profess to* 
 hold iu the most sacred regard. Thence he proceed- 
 ed to make some highly intelligent observations upon 
 the spirit and purpose of our republican institutions ;. 
 and to show that the liberty of speech and of the press 
 was essential to the preservation of our government. 
 Whatever will not bear to be examined, criticised, 
 spoken about, written about, must be essentially bad, 
 and ought not to be i)erpetuated. The attempt to 
 stifle the voice — or to muzzle the press is a sure in- 
 dication of an attempt to perpetuate what ought to be 
 abolished. Such an attempt is now under considera- 
 tion. By the exorcise of their natural and constitu- 
 tional right to speak and jirint what they think of the 
 evils and d.ingcrs ol Slavery, the Abolitionists are en- 
 deavoring to effect its overthrow. This the slavehold- 
 ers and their abettors are determined to prevent, not 
 by showing them that they are mistaken, and trying 
 to convince them that slavery is a good and not an 
 evil; but by denying their right to express any opin- 
 ion about it. They hare done all in their jwwer to 
 excite the public odium against the abolitionists, and 
 make it to be believed that those who denounce sla- 
 Tcry arc the enemies of this republic — of these free 
 iu'ilitutions ! Southern legislatures have offered re- 
 wards for their abduction or for their assassination — 
 and ore now calling upon the northern legislatures to 
 
abolish the abolitionists by law. We do not appre- 
 hend, gentlemen of this committee, that you will ad- 
 vise, or that the Legislature of this Commonwealth 
 will enact, a law making it penal in the citizens of 
 Massachusetts to denounce slavery. But we do ap- 
 prehend that you niaj' recommend, and th-it the Legis- 
 lature may pass resolutions censuring the abolition- 
 ists. Now against this measure we most earnestly 
 protest. The consequences of a legislative censure 
 We think might be worse than of a penal law. We 
 need only look back a few months, to see what con- 
 sequences we may apprehend. The outrages com- 
 mitted in this city upon the liberty of s])eech— -the 
 mobs in Boston were doubtless countenanced and en- 
 couraged by the Fanueil Hall meeting. A large 
 number of the citizens of Boston met there. The 
 resolutions they passed were such as the Abolitionists 
 themselves would readily assent to — but the pream- 
 ble contained a severe censure, and this we believe 
 was regarded by the mobocrats, (though not so in- ■ 
 tended by the meeting at Fanueil Hall) as a warrant 
 for their outrageous proceedings. Now, gentlemen, 
 may we not reasonably anticipate, that similar conse- 
 quences would foliovv the expression by the legisla- 
 ture of a similar condemnation ? Would not the mob- 
 ocrats again undertake to execute the informal sen- 
 tence of the General Court ? Would they not let 
 loose again their bloodhounds upon us ? 
 
 J\rr. Liiiit. Stop Sir. You may not pursue this 
 course of remark. It is insulting to this committee, 
 and to the Legislature, which they represent. 
 
 Dr. Fallen. I have not intimated nor do I believe. 
 Sir, that you or the Legislature would approve an act 
 of violence. I have only endeavored to show you, 
 from what has been, what may be. 
 
 Mr. Lunt. The Committee consider the remarks 
 you have made very improper, and cannot permit 
 you to proceed. 
 
 Dr. Fallen sat down — and although there was 
 scarcely any moving about the house there was evi- 
 dently a deep emotion of displeasure. It was appa- 
 rent enough that few, if any present, felt the reason- 
 ableness of the Chairman's procedure. Jlr. Mosehy 
 of Newburyport, one of the Committee, remonstrated 
 with Mr. Lunt. A few minutes were occupied by 
 the Committee in conference with each other. 
 
 Mr. May. I should be unfaithful to my own con- 
 \'iction5 of right, to my associates, and to the sacred 
 cause of freedom, for which we have come here, if I 
 were to depart without declaring explicitly my utter 
 dissatisfaction with the course pursued by this Com- 
 mittee. We asked leave to appear at this board, and 
 show reasons, why there shoiild be no legislative cen- 
 sures passed upon abolitionists, or anti-slavery socie- 
 ties. Pcrmiasion was granted us — and j-et, now that 
 we are here, wc are not allowed fo do the verv thing, 
 2 
 
 for which alone we came here. I regret exceeding- 
 ly that you, Mr. Chairman, thought proper to stop 
 Dr. Follen. He was pointing out what we conceive 
 to be the chief danger, that is to be immediately ap- 
 prehended. And whit was there in his remarks dis- 
 respectful to yourselves, or to the honorable bodies 
 you represent? I am sure no disrespect could have 
 been intended — and I am wholly unable to perceive 
 what expressions used by him, should be considered 
 by you olTensive. He was endeavoring to show you, 
 why wc deprecate the passage of legislative censures, 
 more even than the enactment of a penal law. And 
 we conceive, that it was perfectly proper for him to 
 speak plainly of what, he and we apprehend, would 
 be the consequences. He spoke, it is true, indignant- 
 ly, as every man of correct principles and feelings 
 would, of the outrages committed in this city, the last 
 fall, upon the s.icred rights of citizens; and pointed 
 out, what he and we believe to have been, the con- 
 nection between the Faneuil Hall meeting and the 
 Mobs. And was it not fair in him to intimate that, if 
 the censure, passed upon Abolitionists by that large 
 and respectable body of our fellow citizens.encwuragcd 
 (if it did not cause the mobs,) that the passage of con- 
 demnatory resolutions, by the legislative bodies of this 
 State, would give even more encouragement to simi- 
 lar acts of violence ? 
 
 .Mr. Lunt. Whatever you. Sir — and your asso- 
 ciates may think of the remarks of Dr. Follen, it is 
 for the committee to decide whether they were prop- 
 er or iniproper. You are not to dictate to us in what 
 mr.nner we shall regulate the proceedings of this ex- 
 amination. You have no right to claim from us a 
 hearing on this subject. It is a matter of special fa- 
 vor on our part, that you are admitted to (his inter- 
 view at all — and now you must be subject to our di 
 rection. 
 
 Air. May. You have repeatedly. Sir, reminded 
 us, that we were here by special favor — and not by 
 right. I do not perfectly understand you. I know 
 that it is very common for individuals, whose interests 
 are to be aflected by any Act pending before the Le- 
 gislature, to appear before tfie committee of the Le- 
 gislature, by whom the Act is to be prepared, and 
 show rea.sons why it should be constructed in one way 
 or another. The Senate Chamber is now occupied 
 by several Committees, who are li»tening very pa- 
 tiently to what individuals are saying for or against 
 Acts, about to be proposed respecting Rail Road? or 
 Banks or some other inonied institutions, and I pre- 
 sume the right of those individuals to be there is not 
 questioned. We have fought an interview with you, 
 gentlemen, on a subject of infinitely greater moment 
 tlian all the monied in.-tilutions in the land. The 
 cause of freedom — the interests of humanity have 
 brought us here. If we h.ivc not taken the right way 
 to "-..t here, it is b*cau?e of my ignorance about tlic»e 
 
10 
 
 matters. I know nothing about the etiquette of the 
 Legislatue. By order of the Managers of the" Mas- 
 sachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, I addressed a letter 
 to the Chairman of this Committee, requesting to have 
 a hearing. The request was granted— and here we 
 are, invested, I presume to believe, with the rights of 
 your fellow citizens— and the most sacri-d rights ot 
 man— one of which is to be heard before we are con- 
 demned—and another, to exert ourselves that we may 
 avert evil from ourselves or others. 
 
 Mr. Lunt. I conceive. Sir, tliat you are here to 
 exculpate yourselves, if you can, from the charges al- 
 leged against you, and not to instruct us, or the Legis- 
 lature what we are to do, in reference to the conimu- 
 uications, we have received from certain other States. 
 Now H' you will confine yourselves to the explana- 
 tions, you may think it necessary to make, of your 
 anti-slavery proceedings, you may go on. 
 
 Mr. May. We are not here. Sir, as culprits. We 
 do not feel like culprits, nor do we mean to act as 
 such. We know that we are aiming to accomplish a 
 great public good, and to avert great national evils. 
 We feel that we are standing up before the world, in 
 the defence of high moral and religious principles — 
 principles, the continued disregard of which, must 
 bring ruin upon our country. We have been labor- 
 ing, and shall continue to labor, by all moral means — 
 by those means the free use of which is guarantied 
 to us in our Federal Constitution— to redeem the niil- 
 lions of our eni^lavcd countrymen from their cruel 
 bondage, and to redeem their oppressors fiom their 
 awful iniquity. We believe with an eminent states- 
 man of the South, that ' the hour of emancipation 
 must come,' and that ' if it come not by the generous 
 energy of our own minds, it will be brought on by the 
 awful process of St. Domingo' — servile and civil war. 
 It is to avert that awful catastrophe, that we are la- 
 boring. We arc alarmed at the magnitude the evil 
 has already attained. We have observed with dis- 
 may the general decline of that reverence for liber- 
 ty, which is the only security of our institutions. We 
 nee the tide of corruption rolling northward. And 
 we have come here to-day, for some liigber purpose 
 than merely to defend, or explain, our proceedings. 
 Wc have come in the hope that \\c may do some- 
 thing to induce the Slate of Massachusetts to take o 
 stand, worthy of herself — yes — to stand up as a bul- 
 waik that shall stay, and turn back, the proud waves 
 of oppression, that arc rolling over the land. 
 
 Mr. Loring. We should like. Sir, to know what 
 our ii;;ht», in the piescnt in-lunce, are .' The Govern- 
 or of this State ha^ called your attention to the sub- 
 ject ol »Inverj-, and to the attempts wo, with othci-s, 
 ore iriakin!; to abolish it. Several of the southern 
 States have called upon you to put down the aboli- 
 tionists by law — to nuke it a pert.il ofll-ncc for us to 
 meet, to spca!: or publish our thoui;hts on the subjict 
 of slavery. Now Sir, if it were an iifTuir, in which 
 
 our pecuniary interests were involved to the amount 
 of $5, you would probably have issued an order of 
 notice for us to come before yoa, that we might be 
 heard for or against the Act, you were about to pro- 
 pose. And shall we not. Sir, be considered as having 
 some right to appear before you in the present case, in 
 which our liberties, perhaps our lives are concerned, 
 arwl in which the dearest interests of our country are- 
 involved ? 
 
 Mr. GoodcU. We came here as freemen and we 
 mean to go away as fieemen. If we cannot be heard 
 as having a right, and not merely as a matter of spe- 
 cial favor — we had better send in a remonstrance to 
 the Legislature, and then we may come before you 
 with a better understanding of the ground on which 
 we stand, 
 
 Mr. Lunt, You would have done well to have 
 taken that course before. 
 
 [Here the chairman (Mr. Lunt) consulted with the 
 rest of the Committee, and after a few minutes said. 
 Although we are persuaded the remarks of Dr. Follen 
 were improper — still rather than you should go away, 
 and say you have not had a fair hearing, he may re- 
 sume his course of remark.] 
 
 Jh-. Fulltn. Before I proceed, Mr. Chairman, I 
 must beg again to be distinctly informed what it is, I 
 have said, that should be considered disrespectful tO' 
 the committee — or otherwise indecorous. And I must 
 also be informed whether our right to speak here i» 
 to be recognized by the committee, or whether we 
 are siill to bo considered as being permitted to speak 
 by special favor. 
 
 [The chairman declined making any satisfactory ex-^ 
 planations — and Dr. Follen therefore declined to pro- 
 ceed.] 
 
 After a few moments consultation with the repre- 
 sentatives of the Anti-Slavery Society — Mr. May 
 said to the Committee, We have concluded, gentle- 
 men, to occupy your attention no longer at this time.- 
 We shall present a remonstrance to the Legislature 
 to-morrow moining, and hope hereafter to be permit- 
 ted to meet you, with a better understanding of our. 
 rights. ^ 
 
 Nut iiaviiig preserved any miiiulcs of Mr. Garrison'* 
 remarks, we >ip|ilied lo liiiii for a report of ilirm. Hi.* 
 answer lo oiir request, liowever, tlid not cnnie iu lime for- 
 its iiiscriinn in ilie proper jilaec. 
 
 Mr. Gtirrison, in addressing the rommillrr, said : 
 Mr. Clinirman, inasmuch as your honorable commitlrc 
 have .said lo liic aboiiiionisis, ' I'huI, thou art pentiiiied 
 lo speak Ibi thyself,' I, for one, am disposed lo reply wiih 
 nil siucpiity, ' I thank ihec, kiu^ Agrippa.' Yel I am iioi 
 willing to consider il merely as a Juror, thai we are per- 
 milicd lo nppear helorc you. N«, sir. We th.nk iliai 
 wc linvc a rigiii to he heard iu our defence, paiieiilly, 
 on every point, to ihc utmost extent, as frccnun, and as 
 
11 
 
 citizens of the Commonwealih ; especially' as llie reputa- 
 tion and liberl3' of multitudes are involved in the present 
 investigation. Why, sir, if but (he pallry sum of five 
 dollars were at stake, all persons interested in the decis- 
 ion of the case would not only have a legal right to be 
 heard, but your comniiilee would probably issue a sum- 
 mons, and urge these individuals lo appear before you, 
 to show cause why judgment should not be rendered a- 
 gainsl ihem. The commillee on rail-roads, have been 
 listening lo statements pro and con, from numerous indi- 
 viduals or their counsel, for several weeks. Sir, are not 
 our liberli«s as valuable or as im[)oriant as a rail-road ? 
 
 My colleagues, who have preceded me, have demon- 
 strated, that, in assailing ihe execrable system of Ameri- 
 can slavery, we are violating neither the Moral Law nor 
 the Constitution of the United Stales, bul are acting in 
 accordance with the spiiil of them both. It will be need- 
 less, theref<>re, for me lo dwell upon these points. If God 
 requires us lo open our mouths for the dumb, in the cause 
 <»f all such as are appointed to destruction, we need no 
 other apology, no higher authority', for the course we are 
 now pursuing. But I fear that moral considerations alone 
 will not suffice, on the present occasion. I will appeal lo 
 northern selfishness. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect of this great ques- 
 tion which has not yet been presented lo the commiitee. 
 The liberties of the people of the free Stales arc identi- 
 fied with those of the slave population. If it were not so, 
 there would be no hope, in my breast, of the peaceful de- 
 liverance of the latter class from their bondage. Our 
 liberties are bound together by a ligament as vital as that 
 which unites the Siamese twins. The blow which cuts 
 them asunder, will inevitably destroy them both. Let the 
 freedom of speech and of ihe press be abridged or de- 
 stroyed, and the nation itself will be in bondage ; let it re- 
 main untrammelled, and southern slavery must speedily 
 come to an end. 
 
 Sir, we loudly boast of our free country, and of the 
 Union of these Stales. Yet I have no country! Asa 
 New-Englander, and as an abolitionist, I am excluded by 
 a bloody proscription from one half of ihe national terri- 
 tory ; and so is every man who is known lo regard slave- 
 ry with abhorrence. Where is our Union ? Andofvvhat 
 value is it to me, or lo you, Mr. Chairman, or to any one, 
 who believes thai liberty is the inalienable right of every 
 man, independent of Ihe color of his skin, or the texture 
 of his hair ? We cannot enjoy the privileges of the 
 Union. The right of free and safe locomotion from one 
 part of the land to the other is denied lo us, except on 
 peril of our lives! They who preach that slaveholdiiig is 
 sin, and that immediate emancipation is the duty of every 
 master, might as saf(;ly leap into a den of lions, or into a 
 fiery furnace, as lo go into the southern States ! There- 
 fore it is, I assert, that the Union is now virtually dissolv- 
 ed. The banner of its protection is now struck down to 
 the earth, and trampled in the mire of despotism. And 
 what is our crime? Simply this: We believe that lo 
 make merchandize of one-sixth portion of our country- 
 men is a cruel, anli-republican, and anii-chrislian prac- 
 tice. Let il not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that the 
 south has declared, (hat she makes no disiinction between 
 
 immediate and ultimate emancipaliouisis— she regards 
 them all as being worthy of death, 'wiihoui benefit of 
 clergy.' Look at .McDnffie's sanguinary message I Read 
 Calhoun's Report lo ihe U. S. Senate, authorising every 
 postmaster in the south lo plunder the mail of such north- 
 ern letters or newspapers, as he may choose lo think in- 
 cendiary I Sir, the alternative presented to the people of 
 New-England is this — they must either submit to b« gag- 
 ged and fettered by southern taskmasters, or labor un- 
 ceasingly for the removal of slavery from our country. 
 Whatever may be their views of the duty or expediency 
 of immediate emancipation, I am sure that they will nev- 
 er consent lo be enslaved themselves, nor lo be made iu- 
 struments in perpetuating ihe enslavement of others. 
 
 Again. To say nothing of our right to call for the abo- 
 lition of slavery in the District of Columliia, and in ihe 
 Territories— we are bound lo demand the extinction of the 
 slave system at the south, because, by its contiiiuance, 
 the liberties of our free colored population are constantly 
 in jeopardy, some of their number every year being kid- 
 napped and sold into bondage. Several colored citizens 
 have been stolen from this Commonwealih. Ry the U. S. 
 Constitution, il is declared, thai the citizens of each Slate 
 shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citi- 
 zens in the several States. In Massachuselts, a colored 
 citizen stands on Ihe saine equality with the Governor of 
 the State. He is entitled to vote, and may be elected to 
 fill an\' office in the gift of the people. No slavcholding 
 State, therefore, can legislate against his rights, anymore 
 than ag:ainsl Ihe rights of Mr. Webster or Mr. Everett, 
 without violating the American Constitution. But what 
 is the fact? Why, sir, the south does with our colored 
 citizens just as she pleases, in the haughtiness of her 
 heart, and the omnipotence of her oppression. Theycati- 
 not tread upon her soil, wiihoul being seized and thrust in- 
 to a loathsome prison, and amerced with a heavy fine, 
 which, if the}' cannot pay, often causes them lo be sold 
 into perpetual bondage to the highest bidder! If any of 
 ihem go to certain southern ports as cooks or stewards in 
 our vessels, they are immediately taken and cast inio 
 prison, until the vessel is ready lo sail ! Il is thus that the 
 south adheres to our boasted Constitution. Where, then, 
 are the rights of the citizens of this Commonwealth ? Ay, 
 sir, where are our STA'l'E RIGHTS ? 
 
 I will allude to only one more feature of southern legis- 
 lation, which alone should kindle a flamo of indignation 
 in every breast. In certain of the snuihern Stales, if n 
 runaway slave should knowingly he received on board of 
 a northern vessel, for the purpose of carrying him onl of 
 bondage, according lo ihe dictates of humanity, the ves- 
 sel is liable lo be confiscated, and the captain and crew lo 
 be imprisoned or put lo death ! Nay, should a slave se- 
 crete himself on board without tlieir knowledge, they 
 would be thrust into prison, and subjected lo n iicavy Cnu! 
 No longer ago than last year, n case of this kind occurred 
 in North Carolina. A young slave secreted himself on 
 l)oard the schr. Duller, Capl. Carter, of Fall River, Mass. 
 lying at Wilmington, N. C. and jual ready for sea. Be- 
 fore ihe vessel left, the slave was discovered. After «n 
 examination before the magistrates, Capt. C. was admit- 
 ted to bail, (51400.) and the mate and two seamen were 
 
V2 
 
 comtniUed to prison, mititche Fall Term of the Superior 
 Court, for waul of security-. Subsequenily, money was 
 raised in ibis Stale lo bail liie oilier individuals, afler lliey 
 had remained many weeks in a life-killing prison. Al- 
 though these individuals were innocent of the crime alleg- 
 ed against iliem — i. e. of succoring a poor, trembling, guilt- 
 less captive — yet they chose rather to forfeit ihtir hail, and 
 lo leave the south without delay, than to risk a trial iu a 
 court of men-stealcrs. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the property of nortlicrn merchants, and 
 the liberty and even lives of northern seamen, are con- 
 stantly jeoparded at the south. They are completely in 
 the power of base and vindictive southrons, who may 
 happen lo cherish a special grudge against particular in- 
 dividuals. As one half of the fine, that is sure lo be re- 
 covered, is given to the infoniiant, it is only necessary for 
 
 some mercenary creature lo entice a slave lo hide himself 
 on board one of our northern vessels, (telling him that he 
 can thuj gain his liberty,) and then go and make a com- 
 plaint apjainst the captain and crew for harboring a runa- 
 way slave, and his villany prospers accordingly! 
 
 Sir, how long are these grievances lo be borne, and 
 these snares lo be spread for the feet of our northern citi- 
 zens ? And has it come lo this, that we must apologize 
 lor seeking the abolition of slavery by moral means ? 
 nay, that we must be censured, or gagged, for resisting 
 that which is trampling our dearest rights into the dusl? 
 It is time that the insolent .demands of the south should 
 be met in a s[)irit becoming freemen. The Legislature of 
 iliis Stale ought to speak out in tones of thunder against 
 a system, w hich is thus putting in extreme peril the proper- 
 ty, safety, and lives of the citizens of this Commouwenlth. 
 
 SECOND INTERVIEW. 
 
 TuESD.w, IVIarcii 8. 
 On the morning of the 5th of March a reinonsliance 
 was presented, by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery 
 Society, to the Senate and House of Kcpiescn- 
 talives, against the demands of the south, and against 
 any action of the Legislature in accordance with those 
 demands — concluding with the request, that the right 
 of the petitioners to be hcaid before the Committee 
 might be recognized, and they be permitted to appear 
 and show reason'^, why there should be no penal law 
 enacted, and no resolutions passed, censuring the Ab- 
 olitionists and Anti-Slavery Societies. The remon- 
 strance was read in both branches of the Legislature 
 and referred to the same Committee. On the 7tl), the 
 chairman of the Committee inlornied the Corro^pond- 
 ing Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, that the 
 Committee would meet tl>e Abolitiomsts again on the 
 afternoon of the 8tli. Accordingly, at the time ap- 
 pointed, the Committee sat in the Hall of the licpre- 
 setitalivcs, and a rmmerous audience, partly composed 
 of jjilies, attended the proceedinj^s. 
 
 Jlr. May commenced by saying he cxpocled anoth- 
 er gentlcmiin. Dr. Follcn, would have betn there to 
 address the Committee first ; but as that gentleman 
 had not yet ariived, he would occupy their attention 
 a few minutes. Whether right or wrong in our opin- 
 ion, said he, we abolitionists do regard the enslave- 
 ment of millions in our country as a most awful .^in, 
 and a most alarming evil. It seems tu us that sUvery 
 ii not only doing the great- vt injuries to thoic who 
 suffL-r, and to those v. ho inllict the wrong, but it is 
 
 inpidl}' destroying the peace and harmony of the L'nion, 
 sapping the very foundations of the Republic. We 
 have come to perceive that slavery must be abol- 
 ished, or we shall be ruined. Liberty, with all the 
 blessings of a free government, will depart from us. 
 We have too much failh in theover-i'uling providence 
 of a lighleous God — and too dear a recollection of the 
 history of past ages, to believe that we shall long es- 
 cape the destruction, which has always overtaken na- 
 tions, that liave persisted in the sin of oppression. It 
 therefore appears to us, that we have a duty to pciform 
 — that wc are bound to attempt, at least, to save our 
 country from ruin. True, other men, wiser and bet- 
 ter than ourselves, do not think and feel as we do — 
 but we cannot regulate our conduct by other men's 
 consciences. Tis true also, that the most respectable 
 people in the community are opposed to the anti-sla- 
 very enterprise. But then we know that people of 
 that class have never been forward in refoiin. The 
 greatest reformations, that have blessed the world, have 
 been begun by persons of little note, pcrh:ips poor and 
 despised. These recollections encourage us to go on, 
 and do all we can to deliver the oppressed from bond- 
 age, and avert the evils that imjiend over our guilty 
 land. Wc have therefore formed societies, we have 
 c.'tablished periodicals, we have sent out agents — the 
 design of all which is to arouse our nation to a con- 
 sciousness of the abominable wickedness, which is in 
 our midst. And now our Legislature is called on by 
 the south, to suppress our efforts — to make our pro- 
 ceedings to be penal otfences. 
 
13 
 
 I shall confine my remarks to two points. First, 1 
 shall contend that our publications are not incendiary, 
 nor insurrectionary. Secondly, that if they were, we 
 have not sent them to the slaves — we have not dis- 
 tributed them in such a manner as to warrant the 
 charge, that we are endeavoring to create an insur- 
 rection. 
 
 1. Our publications are not incendiary, nor issur- 
 rectionary. What is the meaning of tnce?idirt;"i/ ? If 
 I know, it means, tending to excite to evil, to sedition. 
 Insurrectionary means, tending to excite to violent 
 and murderous attempts to throw off the yoke of op- 
 pression, or the authority of government. Now, sir, 
 I insist that neither of these epithets can, with any 
 propriety, be applied to the publications of the aboli- 
 tionists. I appeal to them all. I do not deny that 
 many are intended to be, and are exciting. But I de- 
 ny that any of thein are intended, nor do I think they 
 are adapted, to excite the people to do evil, to commit 
 violence, unless it be in opposition to ourselves. Those 
 who are doing the deeds of darkness hate the light, and 
 hate those who expose them to it. Nevertheless their 
 deeds should be reproved. We are aiming in the first 
 place to expose the wickedness of our country, to bring 
 it to the light, that it may be seen and abhorred. We 
 have endeavored — we shall endeavor still more, to 
 arouse the people to this crying iniquity — to excite 
 their feelings of commiseration for the enslaved ; but 
 we never have intended to excite any evil feelings, 
 unless it be an evil feeling to abhor injustice, oppres- 
 sion, cruelty. We have endeavored to excite this 
 feeling. We would, if we could, fill every bosom in 
 the land with the utmost abhorrence of slaveholding — 
 making property of men — reducing rational and moral 
 beings to the condition of mere brutes. But we would 
 not excite the slaves, or their friends, to do any injury 
 to the masters. Gentlemen, I confidently appeal to 
 all the anti-slaverj- publications lam acquainted with. 
 You will find in them uniformly an explicit and ear- 
 nest disclaimer of all intention or right to resort to 
 physical violence. 
 
 [Mr. M.here presented copies of a large number of 
 publications, commenting upon them, and reading ex- 
 tracts from them, in confirmation of what he had .said of 
 their pacific spirit — particularly copies of the papers 
 which were burnt with so much fury at Charleston, S 
 C] 
 
 But the pictures, Mr. Chairman, the pictures we 
 have published, have given the greatest oircncc, and 
 have been pronounced most incendiary. I have brought 
 copies of them, that the Committee may see and judge 
 for themselves whether they deserve that title. Here, 
 for instance, is the picture of a kneeling slave. It is 
 very coarsely executed — so much so as to be almost a 
 caricature. But what, sir, is the sentiment of the pic- 
 ture ? Does it look like violence or insurrection .' Is 
 the kneeling pojlure, the attitude of one about to as- 
 
 sault his enemy ? .Vnd these chained arms, do they 
 look like fighting .' And these well-known, touching 
 lines of Cowper — ' the Negro's Complaint '—or the 
 equally beautiful verses of our beloved Whilticr— do 
 these contain any counsel to violence ? Read them, 
 Mr. Chairman — read them, gentlemen. They arc 
 very exciting, but they are by no means insurrection- 
 ary. 
 
 [Mr. May went on to exhibit several other pic- 
 tures — the Tree of Liberty — in which is exhibited on 
 the one side the efTects of free, and on the other the 
 effects of slave labor. Illustrations of the speeches 
 made in Faneuil Hall— a sheet on which are six pic- 
 tures, representing horrible scenes of daily occurrence 
 iu this land of liberty. Also a large sheet containing 
 sketches of several of the slaveholding establishments 
 in the District of Columbia. And lastly, a picture 
 copied by an American artist from one executed in 
 England, illustrative of the emancipation of the slaves 
 in the British West Indies on the 1st of August, 1834.] 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we wish you to look at these pic- 
 tures, and those in the small pamphlets I laid before 
 you, and decide for yourselves which of them is in- 
 cendiary or insurrectionary. They are very exciting, 
 I know — it is for this reason we make use of them. 
 Many minds and hearts are more immediately and 
 deeply affected by a pictorial representation, than by a 
 verbal description. These pictures are intended for 
 the north rather than the south, where the shocking 
 originals of these pictures are to be found. But «ome of 
 them have been sent to the south, that our brethren 
 there may know what we are doing here, to expose 
 the American system of slavery, and to excite a gen- 
 eral abhorrence of it. IVe have no wish to conceal 
 from them any thing we are doing, or intend to do. 
 
 2. If it could be shown that our publications and 
 prints are, in any sense of the words, insurrectionary 
 —still I insist that we have not distributed them in 
 such a manner as to warrant tha charge, that we are 
 endeavoring to create an insurrection. We have not 
 sent them to the slaves, nor to the free people of color 
 at the south, for the reasons which I stated last week. 
 We have sent them, as I stated at our former inter- 
 view — we have sent them to men of standing and in- 
 fluence, in the communities where they reside— to 
 ministers of all denominations, to members of the state 
 and national legislatures, to judges and justices, and to 
 men whose names wo have obtained from the Regis- 
 ters. If some slaves have seen the pictures, or have 
 read the publications we have sent (o their masters, 
 this has been incidental, and not a part of our plan. 
 Our object and endeavor are to exhibit to the slave- 
 holders, and those who arc co-operating with them to 
 perpetuate the despotism of our republic, the awful 
 consequences of slavery, and the certain destruction 
 which will overwhelm this nation, if we do not speed- 
 ily depart from this iniquity. Light and liberty are 
 but very partially diffused over the southern state ; 
 
14 
 
 and efforts are now making to restrict their diffusion 
 over the northern states. At the south, excepting on 
 the elevated places of society, excepting tlie favored 
 few, the population are walking in moral and intellec- 
 tual darkness — no system of general education is es- 
 tablished there, and the means of religious instruction 
 are very partially provided. The mass of the people, 
 white as well as black, are alarmingly ignorant and 
 awfully licentious. At the north, we find that the 
 people have already been roused by the pro-slavery 
 party, to commit violence upon the most sacred rights 
 of men and citizens — yes, to trample under foot the 
 palladium of our liberties. It is now evident to all, 
 that slavery must be abolished, or we shall all be 
 slaves, or little better than slaves. 
 
 Samuel E. Sewall, Esq. asked the indulgence of the 
 Commiltec while he suggested some considerations deem- 
 ed important in relation to the momentous question before 
 them. The subject committed to this Committee was 
 founded on that part of tlie Governor's Message relating 
 to the supposed opinions and acts of the Abolitionists. 
 'J'lie Governor's Address rceommended no legislative ac- 
 tion, but simply expressed opinions. So far, theiefore, as 
 the Governor's Address was concerned, nothing seemed 
 required of the Committee. But the Resolves of South- 
 ern States had been also referred to the Committee, which 
 demanded legislative action. The acts of the Abolition- 
 ists, and the existence of Anti-Slavery Societies among 
 us, were represented as being in direct violation of the 
 compact of Union between the States, aad as incendiary 
 and insurrectionary, in the highest degree. Those Reso- 
 lutions from five Southern Slates, particularly from South 
 Carolina, call upon this State to suppress all Anti-Slavery 
 Societies, and to make it highly penal, by law, to print 
 and publish newspapers, tracts, or pictures, having any 
 reference to the subject of Slavery. To show that this 
 demand was made directly upon the Legislatuie of this 
 Commonwealth, he would read a few of the Resolutions sent 
 here from South Carolina. [Mr. Sewall then began to 
 read the Resolves, declaring that the abolition of slavery 
 in the District of Columbia by Congress, would be a vio- 
 lation of the Constitution, nnd requesting the Legislatures 
 of other States to pass laws for suiipressing .\bolition So- 
 cieties, die] 
 
 Mr. LunI, the Chairman, objected to the reading. The 
 Commiltec, he suid, understood the resolves, and hail 
 read ihem all. 
 
 Mr. S. snid he had rca<l enough to show the nature of 
 the demand nia<le upon this I.e<;islature, though he should 
 have wished to rcati all relating; to that subject. Never, 
 before (his, in the history of tin? Re|>ul>lic, had one slate 
 undertaken to dictate the course of legi.slation to be pur- 
 sued by another stale. These resolves coidd be received 
 in no other ViaUi liian as a dictation — a direct interference 
 wiili our domiMiic legislnlion. The laneuage was arrn- 
 gnni aii<l insulenl. Ii demanils of us In |)nnish our own 
 free ciliitons for doing what it in pi-rfeclly legal nnd con- 
 stitutional for them lo do. Such n procee<)ing was wilhniit 
 parallel in the history of tin go\ eminent. The di'maiid 
 
 of the South on the Legislatures of the North, was not to 
 punish acts, but to punish opinions. No evidence was 
 produced, and none could be produced, that the abolition- 
 ists had done or were doing a single act to excite the 
 slaves to insurrection. The public documents of the 
 Anti-Slavery Societies, and all they had written and pub- 
 lished, were addressed not lo the slave, bul to the master. 
 No attempts had been made lo excite the passions of the 
 slave, but to rouse the feelings of the master to the sense 
 of his duty to the slave and to himself. All this has been 
 fully demonstrated by the gentlemen who have already 
 spoken, I shall therefore consider it as proved. Our only 
 fault is, said Mr. S., that we have exhibited more sympathy 
 for the slaves of ihe South, than the slaveholders have. We 
 have exercised more freedom of speech than is pleasant 
 to the tyrants of the Soulh, who demand of you, to punish 
 us for using what the Constitution guarantees to all, free- 
 dom of speech and of the press. 1 take the position then, 
 that our only fault in the eyes of the soulh, is speaking 
 and writing what the south do not like. We have been 
 guilty of no offence against the Constitution, no oflence 
 against an}' statute of the Commonwealth, no offence 
 known to the common law of the land. The only pretence 
 for any allegation against us, in this novel species of in- 
 dictment by which we are arraigned here, is that we are 
 guilty of an oflence under ihe Common I^aw. It has been 
 contended by some, that we of the North have not a right 
 to speak or write any thing which those of the South do 
 not like, and attempts have been made to cite precedents 
 founded on international law, to support this doctrine 
 touching the relations between the States of this Union. 
 But few precedents of this kind have been found. One 
 was the case of a Frenchman, under a foreign government, 
 who was prosecuted for an attack on the character of Na- 
 poleon, when fiisl Consul. Another case was that of a 
 person indicted in England for a libel on the Emperor Paul 
 of Russia. These cases had been relied on to show thai it 
 was illegal for the subjects of one nation, lo speak or write 
 against another nation. Now it was a sufficient answer lo all 
 this, to say thai these precedeuls have never been practiced 
 on in this country as a part of our Common Law, and never 
 can be, without the violation of a paramount law, the Con- 
 stitution. I do not believe that the doctrine ever will be 
 admitted in a free slate, that it is unlawful to speak against 
 tyranny in any part of the world. I do nol believe thai 
 we shall ever hold, as a part of out Common Law,ihal it 
 is a libel for an American citizen lo speak what he pleases 
 of the King of Great Britain, or any other foreign prince, 
 or of the institutions of other countries. If then we do 
 nol admit, thai there can be such an oflence under our 
 laws, as a libel on the rulers or the instiiulions of another 
 country, how can we admil that there can be such an of- 
 fence as a libel on the insliuuioiis of oilier Slates in the 
 Union ? 
 
 W'c arc charged witli violating the spirit of the Consti- 
 iiilioii by attacking slavery. It is asscrlid ihal wc have 
 interfered with the domestic concerns of Ihe Souihern 
 States, llnw? If Massachiiseiis should pass a law lo 
 liberaie the slaves, or should raise nn army and send it lo 
 Hoiilh Carolina for that purpose, that would be an inler- 
 ference. The only interforcnco of which it is pretended 
 
15 
 
 U'e have been guilty, is a moral interference, and this wc 
 have a perfect right to exercise— to write anti speak on 
 any subject we please, being held amenable only to the 
 laws of the Commonwealth. Tlie Bill o( Kights declares 
 that the liberty of the press is essential to the security of 
 freedom in a stale, and it ought not, therefore, to be re- 
 strained in this Commonwealth. If, then, clearly under 
 this provision, we may freely discuss the institutions of 
 our own State, may we not, in our own Stale, discuss the 
 instiutions of any other Slate 7 
 
 but, in point of fact, the Constitution does not guarantee 
 Slavery, much less does it, in letter or spirit, proliibit the 
 discussion of it. The word slavery or slave is no where 
 to be found in the Constitution. Now if it were the inten- 
 tion of the framers of the Constitution to have guaranteed 
 the preservation of slavery in the Slates, as it does the 
 preservation of a Republican form of government to each 
 State, would it not havo plainly said so ? Is it not extra- 
 ordinary that we should be told, that by adopting the Con- 
 stitution, we guaranteed an institution which is not named 
 in any instance in that instrument? And this forc- 
 ed construction of the Conslitulion, thai it guarantees 
 slavery, though it is not named, is urged by those who in 
 other respects, are always complaining of the latitude 
 given to the construction of the Conslitulion. So far from 
 slavery being guaranteed by the Constitution, any bod}-, 
 not familiar with our country and its institutions, would 
 never infer from reading the Conslitulion, that there was 
 such a thing as slavery in the United Slates. On the con- 
 trary, he would sujipose it impossible for slavery to exist 
 in a country whose Consiilulion was founded on the dec- 
 laration that all men are born free and equal. There are 
 but three allusions to slavery in the Constitution, and these 
 consliiuie no guarantee whatever. 
 
 'i'he (irst allusion to the existence of such persons as 
 slaves, is to be inferred from ihe language of the 3d sec- 
 tion of the 1st Article, apportioning representation, 'in- 
 cluding those bound to service for a term of years, and 
 excluding Indians not taxod, three-fifihs of all other per- 
 sons.' VVe who know the fact that there are slaves, pre- 
 sume that they were those other persons meant by the Con- 
 siilulion. 
 
 The second allusion to slavery, is in the 9lh section of 
 the 1st Article — ' the migration or importation o\' such per- 
 sons as any of the States now existing, shall tliink proper 
 to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior lo 
 the year one thousand eight liundred and eight, but a tax 
 or duty ma}' be imposed on such importation, not exceed- 
 ing ten dollars for each person.' This is not a guarantee 
 of slavery, but is a mere restraining of the acknowledged 
 power of Congress to put an end to the foreign slave- 
 trade, until 1308. So far as it applies at all to the argu- 
 ment, it is in favor of abolition and against slavery. Soine 
 contend that by this provision, the Constitution diti sanction 
 the slave-trade until 1808. But this is a forced construction, 
 though if true, it does not reach our argument, 'i'he slave 
 trade, it should be remembered, was never carried on by 
 the authority of General Government, but under that of Ihe 
 States. The Slates had the power of carrying on the 
 slave-trade, previously to the adoption of the Consliiu- 
 ticin. riiev did not derive any power lo do it from the 
 Canslilulion. But the General Governmcut gamed by 
 
 the Constitution, the power of abolishing it in 1803. Nd 
 guarantee, therefore, for slavery after 1803, can be found 
 in this provision. 
 
 The third allusion to slavery, and the one most relied 
 on, is in the Od section of the 4th Article—' No pfrson 
 held lo service or labor in one stale und.T the laws there- 
 of, escaping into another, shall not, in consequence of any 
 law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service 
 or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party 
 to whom such .service or labor may be due.' 'i"hi<i is a 
 provision requiring one State to deliver up fugitives from 
 another State, who are held to service or labor by the laws 
 of that Slate. But it is no more a guarantee of slavery, 
 than it is of apprenticeship ; and the argument from it 
 would be just as strong against speaking and writing 
 against apprenticeship, as against slavery. Under thi« 
 clause, a Court of Souih Carolina is as much bound to 
 deliver to a citizen of 3Iassachusetts a fugitive apprentice, 
 as we are bound to deliver to a citizen of South Carolina 
 a fugitive slave. 
 
 These arc all ihe provisions in the Constitution, which 
 can be regarded as having any reference lo the existence 
 of slavery Where is there in them any guarantee of 
 that institution ? Especially where is there any guaran- 
 tee that we of the North shall not speak and write against 
 slavery ? 
 
 But suppose the Conslitulion did guarantee slavery ; still 
 the propriety of such a provision in theConslilulion would be 
 as open to discussion as any other, and slavery itself might 
 be as freely spoken against as any other institution in the 
 country. The Constitution itself provides for changes lobe 
 made in it, whenever the people so decide, and thus is in ef- 
 fect a guarantee of the right of the people to discuss ns free- 
 ly as they please, every provision in the Constitution. This 
 is the very basis of all popular rights. Th« Conslitulion 
 is merely a form of government for the people, ordained 
 and established by ' we the people.' Every article in the 
 Constitution is a guarantee for the provisions contained in 
 it, and yet all these provisions may be freely discussed. 
 The mode of choosing Electors of President and Vice 
 President, was guaranteed, in the same way, and yet it 
 has been discussed and been changed, and the new pro- 
 vision is also discussed and rcconiinendalions of another 
 change, been freqiumlly made to Congress. Even a re- 
 publican form of government, which is expressly guaran- 
 ti'cil lo every State in the Union, (the only place in the 
 Constitution were a guaranty is named) ma}- be discussed. 
 If any citizen were foolish enough to contend for abolish- 
 ing a rcpulilican form of government, and establishing a 
 monarch}", who denies his right to do so? What legisla- 
 ture would undertake lo punish or censure him for it ? 
 
 The aboliiionisls, therefore, whether right or wrong, 
 stand on the same basis with all oiliers claiming freedom 
 of speech. No law can reach them which would not di- 
 rectly violalcihe iruaranlij of the Coiistiiulion, that free- 
 dom of speech an<l ihe press shall iioi be abrldgeil. 
 
 Many conlciul that if ihe press is free from a direct cen- 
 sorship, it is a free (ness — ihal the liberty of \\\i press 
 consists in the liberty to publish what you please, bul lia- 
 ble lo be punished for it, after it is published. In regard 
 to the abolitionists, these advocates of Ihe freedom of the 
 pres-;. carried the doctrine still further, so as lo propose a 
 
16 
 
 iJireel censorship upon Ihcm, lo prevent llieir publishing 
 any thing unpleasant to the South. Tlie Common Law, 
 whicii in this respect is controlled by our Constitution, lays 
 down thecloclrine that the press is free to publish what il 
 pleases, but the government will punish it if it does pub- 
 lish. You may have the liberty lo publish first and be 
 punished afterward I What was tliLs, but an alter censor- 
 ship of the press, equally as restrictive, and yet less fa- 
 vorable to the citizen than a prior censorship, which would 
 prevent his doing, what the other mode permits him to do, 
 in order that he may be punished ! 
 
 Mr. .S. contended that the freedom of the press was ns 
 much violated by any law punishing what is published as 
 if it were a censorship of the press to prohibit publishing. 
 Wtiat sort of liberty was it to tell a man he ma}' publish, 
 lull if he does he shall be fined or imprisoned? In Eng- 
 land the press was freer in practice than it would be if 
 the known law of libels were enforced. The Common 
 Law, (in relation to public Libels) which it is atlempled 
 to enforce here, is almost a dead letter there. Had it been 
 enforced, a large part of the publications in England, for 
 years past, on public measures, would have beea public 
 libels, and must have been suppressed. The Common 
 Law has been rendered inoperative there by public opin- 
 ion, and the press has discussed what it pleased. The 
 truth is, that the principles of constitutional freedom, and 
 of popular rights, have been more cherished in England, 
 as they have been more understood. The Catholics and 
 Dissenters have been freed from religions disabilities — the 
 rights of the laboring classes have been more recognis- 
 ed, and the entire freedom of speech and of the press has 
 been established in spile of the Common Law.* In this 
 Commonwealth there is less freedom of the press than 
 there is in England, on many subjects. Wc have seen 
 here ati indictment against an unfortunate man for blas- 
 pliem}", under an old law. It was with great reluctance, 
 and with several trials, that a verdict was got from a Jury, 
 and no man who has attended to that case and its influ- 
 ence upon the community, will say that it has helped to 
 advance the cause of religion. In the Southern Slates, 
 freedom of the press, in regard to slavery, is not known. 
 'i'he proceedings of the Star ("liamber and the Inquisition. 
 were humanity itself when compared to the Statutes of 
 gome of ihc Southern .States against discussing slavery. 
 In one, if not more of the Stales the punishment of death 
 is put upon any publication against slavery. 
 
 In considering this point, said Mr. S., I have nothing to 
 do wilh private libels. Every individual, who may be 
 injured in reputation has a right lo a remedy, and this is 
 nil that can be required for the protection of private char- 
 acter against the licentiousness of the press. That con- 
 xidcrniion does not enter into the argument. I refer en- 
 tirely lo puhlir libcU, as ihey are called, such as those 
 Hgninsl government, religion, and morality. 
 
 Siip|Kne Massichii^-ell.s hIjoiiIiI pasH hiich a law as is 
 required of lier, piinisliing any of her riii/.ens who 
 
 • A recent l,ondon paper contains nn rUborate atgn- 
 ment on the qiie-.tioii wlnllier it is not brst for En;;land in 
 abolish .Moiiarrliy. and li:ivo an elective Cliirf .Magislrale. 
 Many of the Engli"<h prcs^e-s Irrrly discuss ihe propriely 
 of nbolithiiig tlir lloiisr of Lords. These divtussioiis are 
 never |)uiiitlieJ or ceioured. 
 
 should speak or write on the subject of slavery. Woiiltl 
 tliat supjtrcss the publication of their opinions by the 
 Abolitionists .' Does any one suppose this for a mo- 
 ment? Who and what are the men wliose mouths it 
 is proposed to stop by violence and unconstitutional 
 laws ? Men of integrity, of piety, of zeal, of perse- 
 verance, of intelligence, — men who are conscientious- 
 ly devoted to their opinions, and as ready to sufTijr im- 
 prisonment, fines, stripes, persecution and death for 
 the sake of their opinions and their consciences, as 
 ever was any jjersecuted sect. The persecution of 
 Abolitionists will h^ve the same effect that persecu- 
 tions of men for conscience sake, have always had. 
 It will unite and knit them together, it will combine 
 with them the friends of free discussion in defence of 
 liberty of speech — it will inspire them with new zeal 
 and new motives to do and to suffer in a righteous 
 cause, and it will excite for them the sympathies of 
 all who in reality feel, though they do not act with 
 them. Their property may be confiscated, their per- 
 sons may be thrown into jail, their lives may be for- 
 feited, but still their opinions will flourish. As fast as 
 you take the life of one, others will come foward as 
 ready to suffer for freedom and truth. No man who 
 ever read history or ever studied human nature, can 
 doubt that such would be the clTect of persecuting the 
 Abolitionists. 
 
 One of the principal arguments against us is, that 
 we of the North are not interested in slavery, and 
 therefore have no business to discuss it. We might 
 as well say that the head is not interested in a wound 
 in the arm. The whole system suffers. So does the 
 whole system of our Union suffer from slavery. The 
 North is united with the South, and the only thing 
 that endangers the Union is slavery. We are inter- 
 ested, therefore, in prevailing on the South to abolish 
 slavery, because wc are interested in preserving the 
 Union. 
 
 We are interested in slavery, because we support 
 slaves by consuming the products of their labor, the 
 sugar, rice and cotton of the South ; and wherever 
 .slave labor is thus encouraged, free labor is excluded 
 or becoiiies degraded. The morals of the North are 
 aflected by slavery. There is no fixed standard of 
 morals at the South, there can be none in tlie midst of 
 a degraded slave population. We ore in danger of 
 adopting the same notions of the first principles of free 
 government and the relations of the laboring classes in 
 society. In this we ara deeply interested. Besides, 
 the slaves consume less of our products, as well as 
 piodiice less themselves than if freemen occupied their 
 place. In Harbadoes the imports have doubled fince 
 the slaves became free. In a commcicial point of 
 view, therefore, wc have, in common with the South, 
 a strong interest in the removal of slavery. 
 
 Wc ate iiitcrcslid in another point ol view. The 
 
17 
 
 CohstUution guarantees (liat the citizens of each State 
 shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens of the several States. This is a dead letter, 
 wherever slavery prevails. A large class of our citi- 
 zens are grossly injured by the laws of the Southern 
 States growing out of s!avery> They prohibit, under 
 severe penalties, every colored citizen of another 
 State from entering a slave State, and thus violate the 
 Constitution of the U. S. more directly than they 
 charge Abolitionists with doing. Even the white cit- 
 izens of free States have been put to death without 
 law, and no legislation is demanded o< the South by 
 the North, to protect our own citizens. If we had a 
 proper respect for the rights of our citizens, we should 
 protest more loudly against the South for their viola- 
 tions of the Constitutional compact, than they do against 
 Abolitionists f<jr tliscussing slavery. A free citizen of 
 color when found at the South, even on board one of 
 our vessels, is seized and confined in prison, while the 
 vessel remains in port. Free colored citizens, who 
 have committed no offence, are taken up and if they 
 cannot prove their freedom are sold to pay jail 
 fees; and yet not a word is said about all this, in a 
 Northern Legislature. We have not demanded of the 
 South as she demands of us, to legislate. A recent 
 case of this kind, said Mr. S., came under my own ob- 
 servation. A free citizen of this State, named John 
 Tidd, sailed in a vessel to New Orleans, While there 
 the captain thrust him into the Callaboosc, and came 
 away and left him. When his case was made known 
 here, the Mayor of Boston, Gen. Lyman, by request, 
 wrote a letter to the Mayor of New Orleans, stating the 
 facts, and Tidd was released, thus proving that he was 
 tletained for no offence but his color. But for the in- 
 terference here, this free citizen must have been maile 
 a slave. In another case, a slave concealed himself 
 in a Northern vessel, sailing from one of the ports of 
 N. Carolina, The captain knew nothing of it, but he 
 and the crew were seized and thrown into jail, to be 
 tried for their lives, for not knowing that the slave was 
 concealed on board the vessel I After some time, the 
 captain was enabled to procure bail and was released, 
 the others were left behind in jail, to be tried for a 
 capital offence. Yet none of these things move us, 
 but all our indignation is poured out upon the Aboli- 
 tionists ! There is scarce a day passes that some cif- 
 zen of the North is not injured by the unjust laws of 
 the South, and yet we make no complaint. If we had 
 the spirit of the South, we should loudly complain. 
 
 Again we are interested in slavery because we are 
 compelled to deliver up the slave to his master. Now 
 there is not a man, woman or child in New England 
 who would not aid rather than obstruct a run away 
 slave. Yes sir, not the most obdurate Colonization- 
 jst, would voluntarily interpose to deliver up a slave. 
 It is the air we breath, the 'jpiiit of our iostitutions, the 
 feelings wc inherit from our fathers. Arc wc not then 
 
 3 
 
 Interested in not being compelled by law to do vio- 
 lence to our feelings and our consciences in this mat- 
 ter? 
 
 We are also interested in slavery in the District ol 
 Columbia and the Territories. On this point I refer 
 the Committee to the speech of the Hon. Mr. Hoar of 
 this State, in Congress, which settles that question as to 
 the right and power of Congress to abolish slavery in 
 the District and Territories. No ingenuity can evade 
 the conclusion of that argument. Taking it then to be 
 settled that Congress has the right to abolish slavery 
 in the District of Columbia, I ask, have we no right 
 to discuss it .' Are we to be censured by this Legis- 
 lature for urging Congress to do, what it is demon- 
 strated Congress has a right to do .' 
 
 Slave factories exist in the District of Columbia, 
 within sight of the Capitol, in which cargoes and droves 
 of slaves are collected to be sent off by the slave deal- 
 ers. The prisons of the L^nited States are used to con- 
 fine run away slaves. Free citizens are sold under th« 
 eye of Congress to pay jail fees ; and the answer to all 
 this is, we must not be suffered to speak about slavery. 
 The South will do as they please with our citizens 
 who go there, and we must punish tho<c we have at 
 home, whose conduct is disi)lcasing to the South I 
 
 But I place our right to plead for the slave on a 
 higher ground — the right of a common humanity. 
 Wherever man i-; suffering under ignorance and op- 
 pression he i-f entitled to our sympathy. W he be as 
 far removed from us as China or Japan, it is still not 
 only our right, but our duty to feel for him, and to aid 
 him. And our obligation to aid him is only limited by 
 our means of being useful. 
 
 The abolition of slavery throughout the civilized 
 world will soon be accomjilished. He must have 
 been an idle or an indifftrent spectator of what is go- 
 ing on around him, who does not see the approach of 
 this consummation. England has already freed her 
 slaves. The former Spanish colonies have accom- 
 plished much in the work of emancipation. France 
 and even Spain are now preparing the way for aboli- 
 tion. America cannot long re.ist the moral influence 
 of the rest of Christendom. 
 
 The history of abolition is yet to be written. It 
 will be deeply interesting, as it will record the tri- 
 umph of the higher principles of our nature, of rea- 
 son, justice, and humanity over prejudice, avarice, 
 and sclfi-hness. One page of that hi-tory will record 
 the proceedings of the Legislature of Massachusetts 
 on the subject before you. I trust that it will be such 
 that our dcseendants may read it without shame 
 
 Dr. FoUen, (late Professor in Harvard University) 
 addressed the Committee. He .-aid he b«d been elev- 
 en years a resident, and fix years a citizen of this 
 Republic. The principles on which the Anti-Slavery 
 Societies were foun.led, were the same which brought 
 him to this country, and without the rr.jnymenl o( 
 
18 
 
 which he could not wish to remain in it. The jirin- 
 ciple of freedom, and especially the right of free dis- 
 cussion, were secured to the citizen in the Constitu- 
 tions and Jaws of the country. The principle of Cree- 
 dom of speech was the only point really at issue be- 
 fore the Committee of the Legislature. It was pro- 
 posed, through the medium of this Committee, to re- 
 commend to the Legislature either penal enactments, 
 or a vote of censure against the Abolitionists, and for 
 what .' Simply for the exercise of the Ireedom of 
 speech and the piess, not only without any violation 
 of law, but clearly within the law and the Constitu- 
 tion. In no case, said Dr. F., has it been pretended 
 that aught but si)eaking and printing, has ever been 
 attempted by abolitionists to accomplish the objects 
 they have in view. We are to be censured, if at all, 
 by the Legislature, not for what we have done, but for 
 what we believe and saj-, though there is no law, and 
 no law can be made under the Constitution, against 
 which we have offended. We have endeavored by 
 persuasion, by argument, by moral and religious ap- 
 peals, to urge upon the Nation, and especially upon 
 our Southern brethren, the necessity of freeing them- 
 selves from the slain of slavery, which rests upon our 
 institutions. This is all that we have done, and what 
 we sliall continue to do. What is there so singular in 
 this, that the Abolitionists of this country should be 
 marked for Legislative censure .' It is now admitted 
 that the voice of the civilized world, out of this coun- 
 try, is with the Abolitionists.* The civilized nations 
 of Europe, have ahcaily done or are fast doing, what 
 must be done in this country, at some time or other. 
 Emanci])ation must come. Mr. Jefferson prophesied 
 truly when he said many years ago, that an end to 
 elavcry must come. Whether it shall come in peace, 
 by argument and persuasion, or in blood, as it did in 
 St. Domingo, rests upon ourselves to determine, 'i'he 
 Abolitioni-'l<, feeling in the spirit of the prophecy of 
 Jefferson, that emancii)ation must come, seek to bring 
 it about in peace, i)y rousing the country to a sense of 
 the dangers growing out of this institution, and in- 
 creasing, so long as it i-emains among us. If we are 
 told we must not discuss it now, we ask, when will 
 the lime come to discuss it ? When will the South 
 be belter prep.ired than she is now, for the disrussiun? 
 On this point, I will (piot'; the language ol a Southoin 
 man anil a slaveholder, Mr. Summers of Virginia, 
 who, in his speech on slavery, in the Legislature of 
 Virginia, in 1832, said : 
 
 ' Sir, — the nviU of lliis vynli'm ra-imi In- eiiiimiTalcil. 
 It wiTf iiiim-ii>i.iiry to iittLiii|)l ii. 'I'luv (;l(m- ii|Min lis :>t 
 cxcij i-K-p. \N'lii-ii ilii- owner IouKh U) iiiH WaHtrd cstme, 
 • lilt kii"»\- an I f •U ilwiii. When ihir fiiilnsiicin ex;MnliiP» 
 'lii;<-oiiililiiiii i.C liinciiiiiitry, and limls her ujonil iiifliiriirc 
 gone, lii-r |.ll_ti<ir,il Mlii-iitjlli lllllMlli^llod, IliT |ii.lilii:il |iow- 
 ir M.iiiiMg, 111 ». ra .III I iiiiiNt coii(l<s ilium. Will gciitlL- 
 
 " Sec .Mr rfoslon"'. l.dr 'pccili in C'ungrcss. 
 
 men inform us when this subject will become less deliratc 
 when it will be attended witli fewer difticulties than al 
 present — and at what period we shall be better enabled to 
 meet lliein 1 Shall we be more ade<|nate to the end proposed, 
 after the resources of the State have been yet longer par- 
 alyzed by the withering, desolating iiitlueiice of our pres- 
 ent syptem 1 Sir, every year's delay but augments the dif- 
 ficulties of this great business, and weakens our abilitv to 
 eompas.s it. Like silly children, we endea\or to postpone 
 the work, which we know must be performed.' 
 
 These arc the doctrines of the abolitionists. I might 
 quote from the speeches of several other gentlemen of the 
 Virginia Legslature, all holding the same doctrine, our 
 doctrine, for which we are to be censured, perhaps ptm- 
 itlied by the Legislature of Massachusetts. And what 
 more have we done than the members of the Virginia Leg- 
 islature have themselves doiw 1 one of the Slates, which 
 now retiuires you to pa.«s laws to punish us for doing what 
 they have done themselves, only we have not stated the 
 case so strongly as was done by the members of the Leg- 
 islature of Virginia, in 1832. 
 
 I would not justify all tl»e language used by abolitionists 
 in their speeches and writings. Whenever they have been 
 >vrotig, as I thought, I have censured them, I censure them 
 now. But it would be impossible to belong to any party 
 or body of men, if the whole were to be made responsible 
 for every extravagant expression thai might be utteied by 
 an individual. 3Iusi every man refuse to act any more on 
 a principle, because some one who professes the same is 
 extravagant or intemperate in language 1 An<l especially, 
 will the Legislature attempt to punish or censure freedom 
 of speech, because some may use it improperly ? We must, 
 in all such cases, take the broad ground of right ; free- 
 dom of speech and freedom of opinion, a right secured to 
 us by the Conslitution of the United States ; and secureii 
 to us by the constitution of human nature. It is the only 
 condition of improvement, the only safeguard of liberty. It » 
 a light which cannot be taken from one cta?« of citizens, 
 without rcarhing all. 
 
 On this jMjint alone, (recdom of speech under the Con- 
 stitution, are we assailed. You cannot ceiranre freed. nn of 
 speech in alioliiionists, without preparing the way to cen- 
 sure it in any other class of citizens, who may for the mo- 
 ment be obnoxious to llie majority. The (|m'stion, there- 
 fore, is not whether you will put down the itliolitionists, 
 but it is whether the Legislature of MassachusetUi will 
 suppress freedom ot sjiorrh foreverl We say to you, save 
 yourselves, as well as us from consetiucnces which we niust 
 allbcar alike, if on this point, we gi\e up the iVceilom of 
 discussion. We apprehend also, and not without reason, 
 personal consftpiences to ourselves, should any toIc of 
 censure be passed by the Legislature. Although I feel 
 that many of my friends have bciii di'cply injured by the un- 
 just cxrileininl which has been got up against them, found- 
 ed on uiisre|)resentation, \et 1 can look at it with the e\e of 
 a fiicnd ot the people. Even the mobs which have done 
 so much discredit to the country in the estimation of the 
 civilized worki, I am glad to bo able to believe, Uave acted 
 on a delusion «liich had for its oljrrf, thou<;li mistaken, 
 to preservo the Union. They believed we wanted to m- 
 fringo the ciimpaci of the Coneliltilion, by violent tneans. 
 
19 
 
 I 
 
 and destroy the Union. This wastiieir error from the mis- 
 representations, made so often, of the designs and acts of 
 the abolitionists. As a friend of liherty, I am glad to be 
 able to look on the popular excitement, from which my 
 friends have suffered, i)i this light, but where Judge Lynch 
 
 has presided, I must say, as I ^aidthe other day 
 
 Mr. Lunt — (Chairman of the Couimiltce.) — I call 
 you to order, sir. This is not respectful to the Committee. 
 [The call to order excited universal surprise, as from the 
 peculiarly mild and gentlemanly address of Professor Pol- 
 len, those who had been listening to him, could not com- 
 prehend the point of order. No one seemed more unaffect- 
 edly surprised than the Professor himself. — Reporter.] 
 
 Dr. Fallen. — I am not conscious of having said any 
 thing disrespectful to the Committee. I beg to be inform- 
 ed in what I am out of order. 
 
 Mr. Lunt. — It is not respectful to the Committee to 
 allude to what you were called to order for, the other 
 day. 
 
 Dr. Follen. — I thought the other day I had been called to 
 order for taking for granted that the Legislature would 
 pass penal enactments, or a vote of censure, against the 
 abolitionists. 1 do not understand why I am stopped now. 
 Mr. Lunt. — Your allusion to mobs, for which you were 
 called to order at the last session, is not proper. 
 
 Dr. Follen — Am I then to understand, that speaking 
 disrespectfully of mobs is disrespectful to this Committee'? 
 Mr. Lunt. — Your allusion is not proper, and cannot 
 be permitted. 
 
 Dr. Follen. Only allow me to have a distinct under- 
 standing of the objection. I have spoken, and was about 
 to speak of the mobs where Lynch law has been practis- 
 ed. Is there anything disrespectful in that to the Com- 
 mittee, or to the Legislature 1 
 
 Mr. Lunt. — I consider the allusion to mobs, in the 
 manner I understand it to be made, implying that the ac- 
 tion of the Legislature may sanction mobs, is improper, 
 and cannot be permitted while I occupy this chair. 
 
 Mr. Mosely of Newburyport, (one of the Committee,) 
 said he dissented wholly from the chair. He saw nothing 
 in the allusion to mobs, disrespectful to the Committee or 
 to the Legislature, and be considered that Dr. Follen was 
 entirely in order. 
 
 Dr. Follen. — If I have not the freedom of speech to 
 speak of. the evil consequences which we, as abolition- 
 ists, apprehend may follow a legislative censure, which 
 may be used by interested and reckless men, as a sanction 
 of mobs to assail us, then I have nothing more to say. If 
 this is not allowed — if we cannot point out the direct or 
 indirect tendency of legislative action, by a vole of censure, 
 or otherwise, to incite mobs against us, then 1 have noth- 
 ing more to say. 
 
 Mr. Lunt said, he would clear his skirts of this matter 
 before the Legislature, and would take the opinion of the 
 Committee, whether an allusion to mobs should be permit- 
 ted. 
 
 Mr. Mosely (being asked his opinion) said he understood 
 Dr. Follen to be explaining a point, deemed by his friends, 
 as presenting a strong argument against any action of the 
 
 Legislature. Here were communications from legislatures 
 of several States, complainiug of the conduct of a jwrtiou 
 of our fellow-citizens, demanding legislative action, anil re- 
 (|iiiring of us to pass penal laws against them. I under- 
 stand that Dr. Fullen and the other gentlemen de^ire to 
 address the Committee, supposing they are the persons 
 thus accused in the comnmnications from eouihern legisla- 
 tures. Now they wish to show that there has been mis- 
 representation of their acts and objects; that this misrep- 
 resentation has led to acts of personal \iolcnce against 
 them, and that they apprehend, in case the Legislature 
 should adopt resolves censuring them, that mobs would 
 thereby be excited against them for unjust causes. This 
 is one view they take of the consequences, which our acts 
 may produce. Now if it can be shown that such may be 
 the result of any act on the part of the Legislature, it ap- 
 pears to me to be directly relevant, and a matter of serious 
 personal consequence to them. I am therefore willing to 
 hear all they have to say. I do not say that I shall agree 
 with their views, or act in conformity to their wishes, but 
 I am ready to hear them through. I did not understand 
 Dr. Follen to be out of order when he was stopped. 
 
 Mr. Lunt — The allusion was not only improper in it- 
 self, but was such as no man, in a Couii of Law, would be 
 pcrmilled lo make. 
 
 3Ir. Lucas and Mr. Corbelt, two of ihe Commillce, 
 appeared silently to assent to the views of the Chairman, 
 fllr. Lunt, who then said — I am hajipy lo find that I am 
 sustained by a majority of the Commiltee. It was decid- 
 ed that Dr. F. was out of order, and must not allude lo 
 mobs. 
 
 Tver. Mr. Man here rose and called the attention of the 
 Cliairman to the Memorial, under which tiiey now appear- 
 ed before the Commiilee. The former iniciview ihey had 
 with the Commiltee, was granted by the Chairman on ap- 
 plication lo him, but as it appeared lo be regarded by the 
 Chairman, as a matter of mere grace, and not of right, 
 they had addressed a memorial to the Legislature, to bo 
 heard as a matter of right. The memorial was granted 
 hy being referred lo this Commiltee ; and it was the obvi- 
 ous intent of iho Legislalure, llial ihe memorialists should 
 be heard. He would read the memorial, which he did. — 
 [The memorial concluded with a request to be permilled 
 to show lo the Committee why there should be no penal 
 law enacted, and no condemnatory resolutions passed by 
 the Legislature against the mcmorialisis.J We have this 
 permission, which we are now using, said Mr. May, and 
 we can go no farther in this inierview. unless Dr. Follen is 
 permitied lo proceed and show the efiVcl.t likely to follow 
 legislative action against us, as a reason why 'hero snould 
 be no such action. Dr. Follen is spe.iking lo that point 
 which we deem most imporiant. If he is not permitted 
 to use that as an argument, and others itficr him, our Inr- 
 ther interview will be of no use. 
 
 Mr. Lunt (the chairman) was understood lo say— that 
 the remonstrance being referred lo iho Commillce. ilid not 
 at all restrict the Coinmiiicc as to the manner, in which 
 the memorialists should be heard. 
 
 [This i)osilion of Ihe chairman excited the more sur- 
 prise, because he certainly gave iho reprcsenlaiives of the 
 
20 
 
 Ami-Slavery Socieij, at the former interview, to uatler 
 
 ■ land thai if they would come before the Coiniuitlce, with 
 « right to be heard on the point in question, it must be in 
 pursuance of a remonstrance to the Legislature, and the 
 action of that bedy on such a remonstrance. It was be- 
 cause ihev thus understood him, that the abolitionists took 
 the course which lie indicated to them, and yet he saw fit 
 lo arrest them precisely at the same point, where he did 
 ou the former occasion.] 
 
 Air. May — I presume we siiould not have been pennit- 
 ted by the Legislature to come here, on our request lo be 
 allowed lo show cause why there should be no legislative 
 action against us, unless it was intended we should have 
 ihe liberty lo do so. Jf such was nol the intention, I am 
 sorry they permitted us lo come at all. It is llie whole 
 objecl for which we came here. 
 
 Mr. Lnnt, after some consultation with the rest of the 
 Committee, intimated that Dr. Follen might proceed. 
 
 Dr. Follen resumed — I understand that I am now allow- 
 ed freely to speak of the injurious consequences, which 
 we, as abolitionists, fear will [)e the result of any Legisla- 
 tive action against us. If this is not acceded to, then in 
 the opinion of my friends, we have not the right of a full 
 hearing, such as is granted iu every Court of Law, and by 
 •very Legislature in the Union, before proceeding lo pass 
 any act that n)ay injuriously afl'ecl a class of citizens, or 
 the rights of individuals. Jf I am mistaken in this view of 
 the subject, I wish lo be stopped in tbe beginning, ns I have 
 no inchnalion to do any tiling, which is contrary lo the 
 decrsion ef the Committee. 
 
 Mr. Lunt — You can state what you apprehend, from 
 any action of the Legislature. 
 
 Dr. Follen — I apprehend, then, from a vote of censure 
 by ih« Legislature upon the sentiments and measures of 
 the Abolitionists, ihe snme consequences thai have follow- 
 ed the expression of opinions condemning the abolitionists 
 in another pUce. I allude to the meeting in Faiiueil Hall, 
 which was followed by a mob. 'i'Wai meeting had passed 
 rcjtoiutions of censure, which iiad e.xciled misapprehension 
 of tbe real motives and designs of Abolitionists, and eiidan- 
 gcreJ their lives. I complained at that lime, of the injus- 
 tice dime us, by representing us as designing to destroy 
 the Union. To every one of llie Hesolutions adopted in 
 that Hall, we can subscribe, but the preamble lo the Res- 
 olutions, of which we complain, s|)oke of the Abolitionists 
 as holding npinions entirely op|)o->iie to those we maintain. 
 We were lieUI up lo the public odium as disuiiionists. — 
 What was llie consequrncc ? Persons thinking themselves 
 justified and suppoiied by mstiiy of ihe most respectable 
 und influential men in tlic country, undertook lo cany into 
 riTfCt iLe opinions expressed at the meeting in Kanueil 
 Hall, by a mob. Individuuls, peaceably and lawfully ns- 
 lenibled, were assailed with violi.-ncc, and pul in peril of 
 their lives. The rights of properly were dinregarded. — 
 The »ign of ihe Aiili-Slavery Society was lorn down nnd 
 destroyed, and the upcrlncle was exiiibilecl m Ihe most en- 
 lightened and orderly city in the Union, of a mob, in iho 
 jiare of day, leading an innocent man lliroiigh the streets 
 of Oosiuii, wiih a IliIiit about him. Ycl not a single 
 
 ■ agi«tfaie<ir couri of Justice Uavc taken cognizance of 
 
 those acts of violence. I believe thai those engaged in 
 that outrage, are heartily sorrry for the mob, and 1 wish 
 to bury it in oblivion. 1 take no pleasure in alluding to 
 it, and have only done so, as showing the consequences 
 likely lo follow measures, which may now be intended 
 against the Abolitionists. Our view is, simply, that if a 
 vote of censure should pass the Legislature, il might be 
 followed by a repetition of the same ouiiagcs. 
 
 INIight nol the charge of exciting disunion, which w« 
 affirm is unjustly made against us, with moie justice, be 
 made agaiust our assailants ? The paper in this city, iu 
 which the mob was called lo march under the banner of 
 Judge Lynch, formerly defended Nullification, the fruit of 
 which is disunion. There has been no call lo legislate 
 ngainst thai, and no censure is proposed. 
 
 We do not say that Ihe Legislature will sanction mobs, 
 or that they mean to incite them against us, but iliai we 
 apprehend that mobs may follow any act of censure on 
 their part, as the}' followed Ihe voles of censure in llifl 
 Fanueil Hall meeting. Il is for the wisdom of the Legis- 
 lature to determine whether the Abolitionists alone, are to 
 be endangered by mobs. A mob excited against Aboli- 
 tionists now, may excite another mob, far more dangeious 
 lo others than that would be to us. Il is impossible to 
 prescribe limits to lawless ads of popular violence. If I 
 were a man of pio[)erty, 1 should fear nothing so much as 
 a mob. The laws especially protect property and favor 
 men of properly, and il is only by maiiilaining the laws 
 against violence in any form, iliai the rights of properly 
 can be secured in any communiiy. \ inohgot up against 
 Abolitionists, may stir up a mob against property. \Vc 
 would not rely on mobs. We should condemn them as 
 much, if againsi our opponents, as against ourselves. We 
 would let those rely on mobs, who cannot carry their 
 measures by argument and law. \Ve rely on the Legisla- 
 ture of .Massachuseils to protect us, in common with all 
 the ciiizens of the Common we.ilili, while in the peaceable 
 and lawful exercise of our right of freedom of speech. — 
 Why then should we be censured for doing whai the Leg- 
 islature cannot declare to be an offence againsi law? — 
 There is nothing iu the Constitution, which confers ihe 
 power on Ihe Legislature lo pass censure upon citizens in 
 the exercise of a legal right. It would combine judicial 
 with legislative powers, which the Constitution expressly 
 forbids. It would condemn citizens wiihoul being Iried 
 for any offence, and place them before the public, as if 
 they were outlaws, not entitled lo protection in iheir per- 
 sons or properly. I speak now of the consequences ilinl 
 arc likely lo follow a vole of censure by the Legislature, 
 'i'iiis is the only light in which I view ihc acts of popular 
 violence that have taken place, and in which I wish lo al- 
 lude to iliem. I do il with paii: and regret, but from nc- 
 crssiiy. Our aim is uoi lo reproach any one, and we only 
 seek, in using this argument, lo impress upon the [..egisln- 
 lurc wh.il we regard as a highly imporlant reason, why 
 iliey should nol ndofil a measure, ihe tendency of which 
 is so obviously lo incite lo acts of violence against ns. — 
 Our wish therefore is, and we rcspeciliilly request the Leg- 
 islature, that no action may be had on the sutiject, since 
 the existing laws are sutlicieat lo meet every emergency. 
 
21 
 
 vVr. William GoodtU next adJres.^ed the Commit- 
 tee. He said that the dangers to the Abolitionists, 
 which must follow a vote of censure from the Legis- 
 lature, were not merely apprehended as dangers to 
 them personally, but as a violation of the fundamen- 
 tal principles of right. If personal danger to them 
 were all, they would not have said one word. They 
 would have suffered in silence as they had done, and 
 were prepared to do again. But there were other in- 
 terests involved in this discussion, of far higher im- 
 portance than the interests of any particular class of 
 men, or any number of individuals. He might press 
 upon the Committee, all the personal interests and all 
 the private injuries of himself and friends, which 
 were at issue in this matter, but he passed that by. 
 He might urge upon the consciences of men, the 
 moral and religious obligation, paramount to all oth- 
 ers, to break the yoke of the oppressor and let the 
 oppressed go free, but he passed that by. He might 
 speak of two millions and a half of our countrymen, 
 whose rights as men and human beings are involved 
 in this question, but he passed that by. He asked no 
 indulgence, no exclusive privilege for any class, but 
 he relied on the rights of the whole people. The 
 abolitionists asked nothing as such. They neither 
 complained, or desired protection, as abolitionists, 
 but as men and citizens, claiming for themselves 
 only a participation in the equal rights of all. He 
 relied on this common principle, well assured that no 
 legislative action, such as the South demands against 
 abolitionists, can be had, without endangering the 
 rights of all, violating the first principles of the Con- 
 stitution, and subverting free government. To cen- 
 sure or condemn the freedom of speech in any foim, 
 by a legislative act, would be an assumption of judi- 
 cial power by a Legislature, where no judicial power 
 IS given. 
 
 For what are abolitionists arraigned as criminals, 
 with no law, against which it can be pretended they 
 have offended ? For nothing else but exercising and 
 defending the inalienable rights of the people. What 
 have we said that is not said in your Declaration of 
 Independence, and why are we condemned for carry- 
 ing into practice, what others have been immortaliz- 
 ed as patriots for writing and adopting .' We must be 
 censured for saying that slavery ought to be abolish- 
 ed. Be consistent then, and censure the father of this 
 country. I turn to the portrait of Washington, as it 
 looks upon us in tliis Hall, and I remember that he 
 said he earnestly desired to see the time when sla- 
 very should be abolished ; and for saying this, and 
 urging it upon our countrymen, the mandate has 
 come from the South to stop our mouths, and has call- 
 ed us here, to answer as for a crime. Are the Legis- 
 lature prepared to pass a vote of censure on the sen- 
 timents and language of Washington .' 
 
 The penman of the Declara'.ion of Independence, 
 
 approved and maintained the same doctrines, for which 
 we are to be censured. Censured, for what .' It is 
 not the Abolitionists you will censure, but you will 
 censure the first principles of freedom. Hear what 
 Jefferson says, and then say if you will censure him, 
 for we say nothing more. 
 
 ' And can llie liberties of the nation be ilioughl secure, 
 when we have refused the only firm basis, a conviction in 
 the minds of the people thai these lil)erties are the gift of 
 Cod? Thai liny are nol to be violated hul with his 
 wralh ? Indeed, I tremble for my country, when I recol- 
 lect Ihal God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever ; 
 ihal, considering numbers, nature and natural means only, 
 a revolution in the wheel of fortune, an exrhani^e of situ- 
 ation is among possible events ; thai it may become proli- 
 able by a supernatural inlerrerence. 'I"he Almighty has 
 no attribute which can lake side with us in such a contest.' 
 — Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, published 1782. 
 
 In a letter dated Monticello, 1814, 3tr. JtJ)'tr$on wrilti 
 
 thus ill his old a^e : 
 
 ' Dear Sir — Your favor of July 31, was duly received, 
 and read with pleasure. The senlimcnts breathed through 
 the whole, do honor both to the head and heart of the wri- 
 ter. Mine on the subject of the slavery of the negroes 
 have long since been in the possession of the public ; and 
 liine has only served to give them stronger root. Yel the 
 hour of cmdiicipalion is advancing in the march of linie. 
 It will come ; and whether brought on by the generous 
 energy of our own minds, oi by the bloody process of St. 
 Domingo, exoileil and conducted by ilie power ofour pres- 
 ent enemy, [it will be recollected that we were then en- 
 gaged in war,] if once stationed permanently within our 
 country, and olTering an asylum and aims to the oppress- 
 ed, is a leaf of our history not yel turned over. 
 
 ' I am sensible of the partialities with whi«h you have 
 looked towards me, as the person who should undertake 
 this salutary but arduous work. Bui this, my dear sir, is 
 like bidding old Priam buckle on ihe armor of Hector, 
 ' trementibus <rro humeri et inutile ftrrum cin^i.' No, I 
 have overlived the generation with wiiich mutual labors 
 begat mutual confidence and influence. This enterprise is 
 for the young ; for those who can follow it up, and bear it 
 through to its consummation. It shall have my prayers, 
 and lliese are the only weapons of an old man.' 
 
 Will you censure John Jaj', (the Chief Justice of 
 the United States) who sent forth the abolition essays 
 of Hopkins of Rhode Island, and Edwards of Con- 
 necticut, and signed a Constitution of an Abolition 
 Society, by which these and other illustrious men 
 united in a league to put down slavery throughout 
 the world ? 
 
 Will you censure William Pinckney, a citizen of a 
 slaveholding state, who, in the Legislature of Mary- 
 land uttered stronger language of condemnation 
 against slavery, than ever issued lioni an anti-slavery 
 press. 
 
 [The following passages arc fiom the speech allud- 
 ed toby Mr G.] 
 
 ' •• Founded in a disgraceful Iraflicto which the parent 
 country lent her fostering aid, from motives ol interest, 
 but which even she would have disdained lo encourage, 
 had England been the destined mart of such inhuman mer- 
 chandize, Us continuance is as shamffiU as its origin. 
 
 ' But wherefore should we ronfinc the a^i^e of cen- 
 sure to our ancestors, or those from whom they purchas- 
 ed ? Are nol we iHiUAI.l.Y guitttj > They strewed 
 around the seeds of slavery ; ice cheiish and sustain iho 
 growth. Tiieij introduced the system ; we enlarge, invig- 
 urale, and confirm it. 
 
22 
 
 ' Sir, it is really matter of astonishment to me, that the 
 people of Maryland do not blush at the very name of free- 
 dom. I wonder that modesty does not keep liiem silent 
 in her cause. Thai they who have, by ilie deliberate acts 
 of iheir Legislalure, treated lier most obvious dictates 
 with contempt ; who have exhibited for a long series of 
 years, a spectacle of slavery which they still are solicitous 
 to perpetuate; wlio, not content with exposing to the 
 world, for near a century, a .speaking picture of abomina- 
 ble oppression, are still ingenious to prevent the hand of 
 generosity from robbing it of half its horrors; that they 
 should step forward as the zealous parlizans of freedom, 
 cannot but astonish a person who is not casuist enough to 
 reconcile antipathies. 
 
 ' For shame, sir ! let us throw of the mask, 'tis a cob- 
 web one at bi-st, and the world will see through it. It 
 will r)ot do thus to talk like philosophers, and act like un- 
 rdailing tyrants ; to be perpetually sermonizing it, with 
 liberty for our text, and actual oppression for our com- 
 mentary-.' 
 
 Shall the man of the South speak thus, and we be 
 compelled to hold our peace ? Mr. Chairman, I should 
 disdain to stand here to plead for my personal secur- 
 ity. It is not because we fear that we came here to 
 give our reasons, why the Legislature should not 
 censure freedom of speech. No, I will not fear. — 
 Blessed be God, though the mountains be removed, 
 and though the depths be broken up, yet will I not 
 fear. I fear not for myself, but I fear for the liberties 
 of my country. In behalf of my friends, of my fel- 
 low-countrymen, I ask the Committee, and through 
 them the Legislature, to pause before they act on 
 those documents from the South. What are they .' — 
 A demand lor the unconditional surrender of the 
 North to the South, for the surrender of the first prin- 
 ciples of your Constitution, for the surrender of your 
 liberties. It is a blow at the independence of your 
 laboring classes. These documents are founded on 
 the doctrines promulgated by Governor McDufBe, 
 that no laboring man ought to have any hand in the 
 affairs of government. This is not a new doctrine. — 
 It was proclaimed in 1829, by an eminent citizen of 
 Virginia, since strongly talked of lor President of the 
 United States. In proof of the position that the ob- 
 ject of the South is to destroy the free labor of the 
 North, and reduce our laboring citizens to the moral 
 and physical condition of their slaves, I point to the 
 speech of Mr. Leigh, now of the Senate of the Unit- 
 ed States; a speech delivered by him in 1829, before 
 a single Anti-Slavery Society had been formed at the 
 North, or a single publication been put lorth, or a sin- 
 gle writer had wielded a pen in the cause of anti-sla- 
 very. In that s|)eech will be found, distinctly laid 
 down, the doctrine that the laboriitf; population of no 
 nation on earth, are entitled to liberty or capable of 
 enjoyiufi it! He distinctly puts forth the doctrine 
 th.%t the mass of the people who perform the labor, 
 are incapable of self-government. And this is the fa- 
 vorite theory of (Jovernor McDiifrie, that liberty can- 
 not exist unless those who pcifonn the olfiies of labor 
 ^rc reduced to sl.ivcry. Mr. Chairman, wc am charg 
 
 ed with aiming at disunion, when we seek what we 
 conceive to be the only means to save the Union. I 
 charge upon those who promulgate the doctrines on 
 your table, a deep and foul conspiracy against the lib- 
 erties of the laboring people of the North — 
 
 Mr. Lunt (Chairman of the Committee) here in- 
 terrupted Mr. Goodell. I must interfere, he said, you 
 must not charge other States w ith a foul conspiracy, 
 nor treat their public documents with disrespect. By 
 the Constitution of the United States, full faith and 
 credit must be given to the acts of a Legislature of 
 another State.* 
 
 Mr. Goodell — Something may be pardoned to a 
 man when he speaks for the liberties of a nation. 
 
 Mr. Lunt — You used the word conspiracy. 
 
 Mr. Goodell — If the word conspiracy is too strong 
 I would use another; but I trust I shall not be ac- 
 counted an offender for a word. 
 
 Mr. Lunt — The documents emanating from other 
 States, are entitled to full faith and credit here. 
 
 Mr. Goodell — Certainly, Sir, I wish them to be 
 regarded as official, accredited documents, and I refer 
 to an accredited document from the Governor of South 
 Carolina, in which he says that the laborers of the 
 North are incapable of understanding or enjoying 
 freedom — that liberty in a free state, best subsists with 
 slavery, and that the laborers must be reduced to sla- 
 very, or the laws cannot be maintained. The Chair- 
 man says that the documents coming from other states 
 are to be accredited, and so I say, and I take the doc- 
 uments as they are, and will give to them all the credit 
 they are entitled to. There is another document to 
 which full faith and credit should be given. I ask the 
 Cointnittee to look into the report of Mr. Callioui\ in 
 the Senate of the United States, on the subject of 
 suppressing the publications against slavery. They 
 will there find the truth forced from a Committee of 
 southern slaveholdeis, that the Constitution of the 
 
 * Article 4, Sec. 1. ' Full faith and credit shall be giv- 
 en in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial 
 proceedings of every other Stale. And the Congres* 
 may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in whicli such 
 acts, rccorils, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the 
 effect thereof 
 
 [.Mr. Lunt, we believe, is the first lawyer, who ever 
 thought of applying this provision of the Constitnlinn in 
 nny oilier manner than as a rule of evidence in Courts of 
 law. The ' faiih and credit' which the Constilution means, 
 applies merciv to the authenticity o( the document, not to 
 the milliner in wliirh it is to l>c spoken of by the cili2ens 
 of niiiiilicr Slate. Rlr. l.nnt may find a specimen o( the 
 sort of ' faith and croilil ' wiiich .Massaciiusctls gives to 
 resfilves of other Legislatures which she does not like, in 
 the resolves of our Legislature in 1832, denouncing in the 
 strongest terms tlie- Nullification Ilesol\es against the 
 'I'arilT, si'iil here tiy South Carolina, when (Jov. Mnmillnn 
 was ready ' to go to tiu- ileaih (or the sugar,' as Gov. AIc- 
 Uiifiic- Diiw is. to go to the cb'jiih for slavery. A Com- 
 mittee of the l.egislaliire reported, tliat the doctrines of 
 the J^oiilli Caroliiia Resolves were such, ns would justify 
 INfnssacliusctls in withdrawing from the Ciiion, if they 
 were carried into eirect] 
 
23 
 
 tJnUed States prohibits Congress from the exercise of 
 any power to abridge the freedom ol speech or of the 
 press, or the right ot the people peaceably to assem- 
 ble, and petition the Government for a redress of griev- 
 ances. A Committee in Congress, from some of tbe 
 very States which call on this State to stop the mouths 
 and the meetings of Abolitionists, dare not recommend 
 any measures in violation of the freedom of speech 
 and of the press, which are secured in the Constitution 
 of the United States ; and this, Sir, is a docnmcnt en- 
 titled to full faith and credit — [beginning to read the 
 doings of the Legislature of South Carolina, respect- 
 ing the abolitionists, in which they declare an entire 
 accordance with Gov. McDuffie, in the sentiments 
 expressed in his Message.] 
 
 Mr. Lunt (the Chairman, here interposed with ap- 
 parent warmth, he said) — Stop, Sir! (Mr. Goodell 
 stopped, but remained standing.) Mr. Lunt — Sit down, 
 Sir. The Committee will hear no more of this. You 
 will not be permitted to proceed in this manner. I 
 will not allow sneering allusions to the members of 
 the Committee, or to the Constitution. 
 
 Jifr. Goodell — My duty is discharged, Mr. Chair- 
 man, if I cannot proceed. We came here freemen, 
 and we will go away as freemen should. 
 
 [A voice here said, from the crowd, let us go quick, 
 before we are made slaves. Most of the audience 
 had risen, but there was no otlier indication of disor- 
 der, nor could it have been apprehended, from the 
 character of those present; the assembly being made 
 up of refined ladies, members of the Legislature, 
 highly educated men, and religious and moral citizens. 
 The Chairman of the Committee appeared more ex- 
 cited than any other person in the Hall.] 
 
 The Rev. Mr. May here remarked, that they had 
 hoped their friends would have been permitted to pre- 
 sent to the Committee all the arguments, which they 
 deemed important, and which they thought they had 
 a right to do under the reference to this Committee of 
 their Memorial to the Legislature, asking to be fully 
 heard. If, however, they were denied by the Chair- 
 man, their right of being heard, the interview must 
 here terminate. 
 
 The Chairman intimated ihat they had heard 
 enough. 
 
 [The audience here began to leave the Hall, and 
 there was a general, though not disrespectful indica- 
 tion of regret and indignation at the course taken by 
 the Chairman.] 
 
 Dr. Gamaliel Bradford (not a member of the Anti- 
 Slavery Society, who was present as a spectator) asked 
 the Chairman if he might say a word as a citizen ? The 
 Ciiairmnn assented, and Dr. Uradford pronounced an 
 
 eloquent, thrilling, and impassioned, Iml entirely respect- 
 ful appeal in favor of free discussion. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1 am aware of the censure, and what is often of 
 more consequence to a retired person, the ridicule, 
 that may attach to the interference of so humble an 
 individual on this occasion. But I trust something to 
 the regard for freedom of opinion, which must exist 
 in the hearts of the committee, in that of one at least 
 of your number who hails from a locality too near the 
 old rock, not to feel indulgence for some extra zeal 
 for the liberty of expression and the right of private 
 judgment. 
 
 1 have read. Sir, somewhere, of a republic of an- 
 cient times, and on the other side of the woter, in 
 which, though it was neither criinin.il nor shameful 
 to be on one side of exciting questions, it was always 
 both, to be neuter — in which though the zealous 
 aristocrat, or democrat might be alternately ostraci- 
 sed, as his own, or the other party was triumphant — 
 he had always a fair chance of regaining the ascenden- 
 cy — but that he who tried to sit upon both stools was 
 sure to fall to the ground and to be crushed beneath 
 the vigorous efforts of the combatants above him. 
 
 But, Sir, the experience of modern times has 
 brought with it more wisdom or moderation — a man 
 may now sit upon the fence, as long as he pleases, 
 calm as a summer's morning, and patiently and safely 
 consider on which side it may finally be best lor him 
 to get down. 
 
 In regard to some questions, however, I liave not 
 yet reached this maturity. I am yet apt to be a 
 child, when freedom of speech is brought into ques- 
 tion — my cradle happened to be too near the old cra- 
 dle of liberty — not to vibrate occasionally with the 
 rocking of that ancient nurse of her sons — my lath- 
 er's crutch stood too handy in the nursery not to be- 
 come a favorite hobby-horse. 
 
 As long as it was a mere argumentative question 
 about the snyings and doings of the abolitionists — for 
 the rights of a distant and dcgracUid race, I can con- 
 ceive of a man's balancing his respect for their phi- 
 lanthropy, by doubts about the good judgment and 
 availability, of some of their elTorts— of his perceiv- 
 ing and urging, that their zeal, even in a good cause, 
 did sometimes eat up a portion ol their diiicretion, 
 and even their temper. 
 
 But, when the man of the South ventures to rcacli 
 his odious cart-whip over Mason and Dixon's line, 
 when he dares even to think of such an insult as 
 shaking it over the head of a New-England man — I 
 can see immediately which side of the fence is clean 
 enough for my walking on. I for one am rrady to 
 tell him, that there were other persons imported into 
 America, in times past, than either black or white 
 slaves — that there was such a vessel as the gr>od ship 
 
24 
 
 MAtVLowtR, and that her cargo is not yet all out of 
 the market. 
 
 I cannot expect, Sir, to do much for the abolition- 
 ists on such an occasion. But if I cannot stop thft 
 Juggernautic car, wliich is set in motion to crush 
 them, I may at least clog its wheels a little — 
 
 ' With failing hand above my head 
 Can shake the fragment of a blade ' 
 
 and call upon the bystanders to 
 
 ' Redeem the pennon- 
 Charge again — 
 Cry, Freemen to the Rescue ' — 
 
 and not I trust, altogether, in vain. 
 
 I propose to maintain brielly, that the doings of the 
 Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society are not contrary 
 to international or constitutional law and in a very 
 slight degree such as can be considered opposed to the 
 moral law. I shall support these positions, not by a 
 legal argument — I am no lawyer — the committee 
 will need no ghost to teach them that, but rather by 
 the way of illustration and parallel — which has often 
 quite as much effect, with phiin folks like myself. 
 
 To begin with international law. Some time since, 
 a slave ship, containing eighty negroes, from some 
 part of our slavcholdiiig territory — the Distiict of Co- 
 lumbia, for aught 1 know — having been driven by 
 stress of weather into Bermuda, the Governor o( the 
 Island, forthwith set free the whole cargo without 
 hesitation or apology. And what was tho conse- 
 quence .' Was there any demand for redress on that 
 occasion .' Was there any cry of indignation raised 
 in the land at this invasion of the property of our 
 Southern brethren .' If there was, it was very gen- 
 tle — it never reached my ears. And why was there 
 no such movement.' Because, every body saw that 
 it would have been absurd. The nations of civilized 
 Europe would have derided it — our good friend Nich- 
 olas himself, faithful and true as he is, would have 
 ■hook his autocratic head, and pointed to the place 
 where Poland — wa«. The very turbaned Turk would 
 have shook the ashes out of his jjipc and smoothing 
 down hi4 beard, exclaimed. ' O Holy piophet, what 
 these Christians are, who let even their women go 
 abroad, and yet wish to chain up men who have souls.' 
 
 But let us reverse the illustration ; suppose, sir, in- 
 «tca<l of a goodly vessel freighted with slaves, it had 
 been a Chebuckto boat, loaded with notions ; wood- 
 en clocks, salt-fish, tin-ware and nutmegs — and that 
 the Governor of Bermuda had laid his hands upon the 
 cargo— tct all the clocks a-going, restored to their na- 
 tive element the h.inipered cod-fish, 
 
 ' Knrob'd the roaring wafers with the irnir. 
 And scattcr'd all the apices in the stream.' 
 
 And what would have been the result .' Why, sir, 
 the itripes m her bunim would have been dl'ernately 
 pale and red with wr.iih, and carh pellicular star 
 
 sparkled with indignation. A roar of frecli-ade &tid 
 pedlar's rights, from the universal Yankee nationf 
 would have shook the wall of the capitol and called 
 upon the General to teach the aggressors the law- 
 We should see, easily enough, that international law 
 Was with us — we see that it will protect a great many 
 kinds of notions, but never the notion of property in 
 man. We come next to constitutional law. 
 
 There is no pretence that the abolition movement 
 is forbidden by the letter of the Constitution — and 
 how shall we discover its spirit in regard to it. We 
 can judge of the spirit of an agreement by observing 
 the conduct of honest and intelligent parties to it. 
 Let us with this view, consider the conduct of one 
 man — of him who has been worthily styled, by a 
 most adequate judge, the American Socrates — Benja- 
 min Franklin. 
 
 ' I hope,' said he, in his final speech in the Conven- 
 tion, ' that for our own sakes as a part of the people, 
 and for the sake of our posterity, we shall act heart- 
 ily and unanimously, in recommending this Constitu- 
 tion, wherever our influence may extend, and turn 
 our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of 
 having it well administered.' 
 
 And thereupon he signed the Constitution — and re- 
 turning home spent a considerable part of the re- 
 mainder of his life in doing, as you will find shown in 
 one of the pamphlets on your table, just what the 
 abolitionists are doing now. He acted as President 
 of an Abolition Societj', under an act of incorpora- 
 tion, in which such extraordinary provisions are made 
 for its perpetuity, that it seems to me that the aboli- 
 tionists of our day would not find much difficulty in 
 reviving and acting under its charter, and the laws of 
 Pennsylvania. He signed a jietition to Congress on 
 the subject, and, when a debate arose there, on these 
 abolition petitions, published a most cutting parody on 
 the arguments and conduct of the Southern opposers 
 of the prayer of the petitions — comparing them to 
 those of Algerinc pirates. 
 
 Now, Sir, it follows if the present pretensions of 
 the South arc correct, that either Doctor Franklin did 
 not understand tho contract which he had just signed 
 — or else that he deliberately di^^regardcd its obliga- 
 tions. I am willing to present this dilemma to our 
 Southern brethren and allow them to impale them- 
 selves on either of its horns which they prefer. But 
 1 hope no New-England man — I trust no Massachu- 
 setts man — I am sure no Boston man — will be willing 
 to accept either of the i)ropositions — when one of them 
 UMkes out I"ranklin a fool, and the other stamps him 
 a ycoundrcl. 
 
 I come last to the moral law. The abolitionists, as 
 we all do. Sir, look for the moral law in the Bible — 
 they hold that the law and prophets hang fram the 
 prfcept • Thou shalt love thy neighbor a? thyself' 
 ' But who,' says their opposer, ' is my neighbor .' ' — 
 
^ 
 
 25 
 
 and here, sir, if the abolitionists liave committed some 
 errors, it has been from a mistake, which our South- 
 ern brethren should be the last to object, that of too 
 strict construction. To the question ' Who is my 
 neighbor ? ' they have supposed themselves to find 
 the whole answer in the account of the ' man who 
 fell among tnieves.' 
 
 This, Sir, seems to me the amount of their delin- 
 quency — and if the consequence is that damage must 
 be done, in their persons, to the great principles of 
 the liberty of speech and ot the press, and the right of 
 private judgment, I hope the blow will not come from 
 a Massachusetts Legislature — it would be a parricidal 
 blow. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. May here said to the Chairman, that 
 he wished to be understood on the part of the Memo- 
 rialists. They had formerly appeared merely by per- 
 mission of tl.e Chairman, but they had now come un- 
 der the sanction of the Legislature, who had granted 
 their memorial to be heard before the Committee. — 
 We do not think we have been permitted to do, what 
 we asked of the Legislature permission to do, ana 
 what, by referring our Memorial to this Committee, 
 we think they intended we should be permitted to do, 
 as a right. 
 
 Mr. Lunt— How, Sir.' 
 
 Mr. May — We have been stopped in what we con- 
 sider the most important part of our argument, and 
 subjected to interruptions and a treatment which has, 
 in eliect, denied to us a lull and fair hearing. 
 
 Mr. George Bond of Boston, desired to say a few 
 words to the Committee in the present aspect of the 
 subject. He came here accidentally, as a spectator, 
 having been engaged before a ComnuLtee in the Sen- 
 ate Chamber, and entered the Hall while one of the 
 petitioners (Mr. Sewall) was about closing his re- 
 marks. I am not a petitioner, nor an abolitionist, and 
 belong to no Society connected with the question of 
 slavery. But though opposed to some of the meas- 
 ures of the abolitionists, I hold to some opinions in 
 common with them. If, under these circumstances, 
 the Committee will permit, I beg leave to ofTer a few- 
 remarks. 
 
 [Mr. Bond here waited for a reply. The chairman 
 preserved silence, but the gentleman of the Commit- 
 tee nearest to him, (Mr. Lucas) intimated that he 
 might proceed.] 
 
 It strikes me, said Mr. B., that this is a subject ot 
 deep and vital importance, to other and higher prin- 
 ciples than those involved in the question of slavery 
 or anti-slavery ; and I fear, as a citizen, that the man- 
 ner in which this subject has been treated by the 
 Committee, will produce an excitement througiioul 
 the Commonwealth. 
 
 With due respect to the Committee, I beg leave to 
 ■say, that from the little experience I have had in leg- 
 
 i 
 
 islative proceedings, it is not the practice to require o( 
 persons appearing before a Committee a strict conlor- 
 mity to rules. They are not expected to know ihcm 
 and are therefore usually indulged in telhng their 
 own story in their own way — provided it be not dis- 
 respectful. 
 
 And, Sir, if in the warmth of a discussion on a sub- 
 ject of deep interest, the bounds of strict propriety 
 should be overstepped, is it expedient to regard it as 
 an olience ? 1 trust, Sir, I shall not trench on for- 
 bidden ground, but 1 feel desirous that the petitioners 
 should be treated as other citizens are, and be pa- 
 tiently heard although their language may not be 
 such as suits the Committee. 
 
 I have certainly heard nothing from the gentlemen 
 of the Anti-Slavery Society that called for the course 
 that has been adopted, and it does seem to me that the 
 Committee are too fastidious — too hypercritical 
 
 Mr. Lunt. Be careful what you say. Sir. The 
 Committee will not submit to it. 
 
 Mr. Bond. 1 certainly have no wish to say any 
 thing unpleasant to the Committee, but I cannot but 
 regret the course that has been taken to withhold a 
 hearing from the parties interested. The consequen- 
 ces must be unfavorable even to the object the Com- 
 mittee have in view. It will tend to increase excite- 
 ment. It seemed to me that this was a simple case of 
 hearing citizens before a Committee. Those who ap- 
 pear before the Conmiittee, came here through their 
 memorial, asking a hearing, which had been rectited 
 by the Legislature and referred to this Committee, 
 and I supposed that the Committee would allow the 
 gentlemen who came here, to say what they pleased, 
 using proper language. If they slate their case im- 
 properly, it will injure them, and not the Committee. 
 I may be wrong, but I regret to see grounds given 
 for the gentlemen and their friends to say they have 
 been denied a hearing. The action on this question 
 here is of immense importance in the influence it 
 may have, not only upon those who appear before the 
 Committee, but upon tiie Legislature, the communi- 
 tj, the Commonwealth, and the whole country. I 
 can but hope that the Committee will permit the gen- 
 tlemen to say all they wish to. 
 
 [When Mr. Bond closed, a voice in the Gallery said 
 audibly, I say Amen, and others said ditto. Order 
 was immediately restored by the call of the Sergeant 
 at Arras. The Committee broke up, without a formal 
 adjournment, the Chairman immediaiely retiring. Ag 
 they rose, Mr. Mosely, one of the Committee, said to 
 the Chairman — ' I am not sati.-fied with this conduct. 
 Vou have been wrong from the beginning. I will 
 not sit in such a Committee.' The numerous audience 
 very shortly retired from the Hall, earnestly express- 
 ing, in conversation, (heir astonishment and regret, 
 and in some cases indignation, at the conduct of the 
 Chairman of the Committee] 
 
2(' 
 
 Alter the second interview, the Managers uf iLl 
 Mass. Anti-Slavery Society met, and, after consulta- 
 flon, concluded to ask nothing further of the Legisla- 
 ture. They were of the opinion, that so many per- 
 sons were witnesses of what had transpired between 
 them and the Committee, that (lie case would be fair- 
 ly represented to the public ; and that the members 
 of the Legislature who were present, would make 
 known to the Senate and House, that the Abolitionists 
 had not been admitted to a fair hearing by the Com- 
 mittee, should the Report of (he Committee, or the 
 dkcussion upon the Report, be such as (o require 
 from them such a disclosure. 
 
 On the morning of (he 9(h, however, Hon. Mr. 
 WhKmarsh, of the Senate, a gentleman till then un- 
 known to the Aboli(ionis(s, saw fit to declare, in his 
 place, that lie had been a witness of the procedure of 
 the Committee, and that the members of the Anti- 
 Slavery Society had been very improperly treated, 
 and had not been permitted to do, what they had re- 
 spectfully asked leave of (he Legislature to do, in 
 their remonstrance ot the 5th, which had passed both 
 branches ol the Legislature. He therefore moved 
 that the Committee be increased by the addition of as 
 many, as then composed it, and that the members of 
 the Anti-Slavery Society be admitted to a full and 
 fair hearing. This gave rise to an earnest debate — 
 and the motion of the Hon. gentleman was set aside 
 on the plea, that as the remonstrants had not them- 
 selves complained of the treatment they had received 
 from the Commi((cc, it was not proper to enter a 
 complaint for (hem — (ha( it \vould be time to censure 
 the Committee, when it should be found, on the rep- 
 resentation of (he par(y injured, (ha( (hey had not 
 conduc(ed in a manner wordiy the representatives of 
 the Legislature of this ComiuonwcaKh. 
 
 I:. :onsequeuce of this occurrence in the Senate, it 
 occnied to the Abolitionists due to themselves, and to 
 the gentleman, who had so generously undertaken to 
 vindicate their rights, to inform the Legislature, (hat 
 they had not received from (heir Commidee the treat- 
 ment, which they had a right (o expec(, and leave 
 this simple s(atenient in the hands of the Legislature, 
 without asking any further hearing. The following 
 Memorial was therefore presented on (he morning of 
 the 10th. 
 
 To the Honorable Senate of the Commonwealth of 
 JMassachusctts. 
 
 The Memorial of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery 
 Socie(y resp6C(fully represen(s, 
 
 That, although (hey have been pardally heard be- 
 fore the Joint Committee of the Legislature to whom 
 their recent petition was referred, yet your Memo- 
 rialists respectfully declare, that the majority of (he 
 Commi((ee would not grant them a full hearing of (he 
 arguments which they proposed to address to said 
 Comiriidec, l)u( (hat they were interrupted, nhon ad- 
 vancing arguments entirely relevant, as they believe, 
 to the subject before (he Coinmi((ee, and (hus pre- 
 ven(ed h-oin presenting their views on subjects ol (he 
 decpes( importance to themselves aiid the other citi- 
 zens of (his Commonwealth. Your Memorialists 
 would, therefore, most respectfully, pro(es( against 
 the passage of any law for suppressing abolition so- 
 cieties, or declaring the circulation of the publications 
 of abolitionists a penal offence, and against (he pas- 
 sage of any resolutions censuring the measures of such 
 societies or of abolitionists generally, believing (hat 
 i( would be a gross invasion of (he rights of citi/.etis, 
 either to enact penal laws against them, or (o censure 
 (heir principles and measure s without allowing ihcin 
 to be heard fully and patiently in (heir defence. 
 
 JOSEPH SOUTHWICK, President. 
 HENRY E. BENSON, Secretary. 
 
 Boston, ]\Iarch 9, 1836. 
 
 54 W 
 

 
 
||;:|-::>i['|:i;; 
 
 ;||i|||i:^|||l|;||||i||