squadron, and at daylight found himself almost brave officer, and was verified in all the relations encompassed by it-three ahead and four astern. of his life, and in his constant conduct. StandThen began that chase which continued seventy-ing on the bank of the Susquehanna river, at two hours, in which seven pursued one, and seemed often on the point of closing on their prize; in which every means of progress, from reefed topsails to kedging and towing, was put into requisition by either party-the one to escape, the other to overtake; in which the stern-chasers of one were often replying to the bow-chasers of the other; and the greatest precision of manœuvring required to avoid falling under the guns of some while avoiding those of others; and which ended with putting an escape on a level with a great victory. Captain Hull brought his vessel safe into port, and without the sacrifice of her equipment-not an anchor having been cut away, boat stove, or gun thrown overboard to gain speed by lightening the vessel. It was a brilliant result, with all the moral effects of victory, and a splendid vindication of the policy of cruising-showing that we had seamanship to escape the force which we could not fight. Havre de Grace, one cold winter day, the river flooded and filled with floating ice, he saw (with others), at a long distance, a living object-discerned to be a human being-carried down the stream. He ventured in, against all remonstrance, and brought the object safe to shore. It was a colored woman—to him a human being, doomed to a frightful death unless relieved; and heroically re.ieved at the peril of his own life. He was humane in battle. That was shown in the affair of the Little Belt-chased, hailed, fought (the year before the war), and compelled to answer the hail, and tell who she was, with expense of blood, and largely; but still the smallest possible quantity that would accomplish the purpose. The encounter took place in the night, and because the British captain would not answer the American hail. Judging from the inferiority of her fire that he was engaged with an unequal antagonist, the American Commodore suspended his own fire, while still receiving broadsides from his arrogant little adversary; and only resumed it when indispensable to his own safety, and the enforcement of the question which he had put. An answer was obtained after thirty-one had been killed or wounded on board the British vessel; and this at six leagues from the American coast: and, the doctrine of no right to stop a vessel on the high seas to ascertain her character not having been then invented, no political consequence followed this bloody enforcement of maritime police-exasperated against each other as the two nations were at the time. Commodore Rodgers made another extended cruise during this war, a circuit of eight thousand miles, traversing the high seas, coasting the shores of both continents, searching wherever the cruisers or merchantmen of the enemy were expected to be found; capturing what was within his means, avoiding the rest. A British government packet, with nearly $300,000 in specie, was taken; many merchantmen were taken; and, though an opportunity did not offer to engage a frigate of equal or nearly equal force, and to gain one of those electrifying victories for which our cruisers were so remarkable, yet the moral effect was great-demonstrating the am- At the death of Decatur, killed in that laple capacity of an American frigate to go where mentable duel, I have heard Mr. Randolph tell, she pleased in spite of the "thousand ships of and he alone could tell it, of the agony of Rodwar" of the assumed mistress of the seas; car-gers as he stood over his dying friend, in bodily rying damage and alarm to the foe, and avoiding contention with his own grief-convulsed withmisfortune to itself. in, calm without; and keeping down the struggling anguish of the soul by dint of muscular power. At the attempt of the British upon Baltimore Commodore Rodgers was in command of the maritime defences of that city, and, having no That feeling heart was doomed to suffer a means of contending with the British fleet in great agony in the untimely death of a heroic the bay, he assembled all the seamen of the son, emulating the generous devotion of the ships-of-war and of the flotilla, and entered judi- father, and perishing in the waves, in vain efforts ciously into the combinations for the land de- to save comrades more exhausted than himself; fence. and to whom he nobly relinquished the means Humane fecling was a characteristic of this of his own safety. It was spared another grief of a kindred nature (not having lived to see it), in the death of another heroic son, lost in the sloop-of-war Albany, in one of those calamitous founderings at sea in which the mystery of an unseen fate deepens the shades of death, and darkens the depths of sorrow-leaving the hearts of far distant friends a prey to a long agony of hope and fear-only to be solved in an agony still deeper. Commodore Rodgers died at the head of the American navy, without having seen the rank of Admiral established in our naval service, for which I voted when senator, and hoped to have seen conferred on him, and on others who have done so much to exalt the name of their country; and which rank I deem essential to the good of the service, even in the cruising system I deem alone suitable to us. CHAPTER XXXV. ANTI-DUELLING ACT. Joseph Dixon) asked him how many card tables he had put up in their place? This was a side of the account to which the suppressor of billiard tables had not looked: and which opened up a view of serious consideration to every person intrusted with the responsible business of legislation-a business requiring so much knowledge of human nature, and so seldom invoking the little we possess. It has been on my mind ever since; and I have had constant occasions to witness its disregard—and seldom more lamentably than in the case of this anti-duelling act. It looked to one evil, and saw nothing else. It did not look to the assassinations, under the pretext of selfdefence, which were to rise up in place of the regular duel. Certainly it is deplorable to see a young man, the hope of his father and mothera ripe man, the head of a family-an eminent man, necessary to his country-struck down in the duel; and should be prevented if possible. Still this deplorable practice is not so bad as the bowie knife, and the revolver, and their pretext of self-defence-thirsting for blood. In the duel, there is at least consent on both sides, with a preliminary opportunity for settlement, with a chance for the law to arrest them, and THE death of Mr. Jonathan Cilley, a represen- room for the interposition of friends as the tative in Congress from the State of Maine, affair goes on. There is usually equality of killed in a duel with rifles, with Mr. Graves of terms; and it would not be called an affair of Kentucky, led to the passage of an act with honor, if honor was not to prevail all round; severe penalties against duelling, in the District and if the satisfying a point of honor, and not of Columbia, or out of it upon agreement within vengeance, was the end to be attained. Finally, the District. The penalties were- -death to all in the regular duel, the principals are in the the survivors, when any one was killed: a five hands of the seconds (for no man can be made years imprisonment in the penitentiary for giv- a second without his consent); and as both ing or accepting a challenge. Like all acts these are required by the duelling code (for the passed under a sudden excitement, this act was sake of fairness and humanity), to be free from defective, and more the result of good intentions ill will or grudge towards the adversary printhan of knowledge of human nature. Passions cipal, they are expected to terminate the affair of the mind, like diseases of the body, are liable as soon as the point of honor is satisfied—and, to break out in a different form when suppressed the less the injury, so much the better. The in the one they had assumed. No physician only exception to these rules is, where the suppresses an eruption without considering what principals are in such relations to each other as is to become of the virus which is escaping, if to admit of no accommodation, and the injury stopped and confined to the body: no legisla- such as to admit of no compromise. In the tor should suppress an evil without considering knife and revolver business, all this is different. whether a worse one is at the same time planted. There is no preliminary interval for settlementI was a young member of the general assembly no chance for officers of justice to intervene-no of Tennessee (1809), when a most worthy mem- room for friends to interpose. Instead of equalber (Mr. Robert C. Foster), took credit to him-ity of terms, every advantage is sought. Instead self for having put down billiard tables in Nash- of consent, the victim is set upon at the most ville. Another most worthy member (General unguarded moment. Instead of satisfying a point of honor, it is vengeance to be glutted. This is preposterous, and leads to deadly conNor does the difference stop with death. In sequences. It is cheaper now to kill a man, the duel, the unhurt principal scorns to continue the combat upon his disabled adversary: in the knife and revolver case, the hero of these weapons continues firing and stabbing while the prostrate body of the dying man gives a sign of life. In the duel the survivor never assails the character of the fallen: in the knife and revolver case, the first movement of the victor is to attack the character of his victim-to accuse him of an intent to murder; and to make out a case of self-defence, by making out a case of premeditated attack against the other. And in such false accusation, the French proverb is usually verified the dead and the absent are always in the wrong. The anti-duelling act did not suppress the passions in which duels originate: it only suppressed one mode, and that the least revolting, in which these passions could manifest themselves. It did not suppress the homicidal intent—but gave it a new form: and now many members of Congress go into their seats with deadly weapons under their garments-ready to insult with foul language, and prepared to kill if the language is resented. The act should have pursued the homicidal intent into whatever form it might assume; and, therefore, should have been made to include all unjustifiable homicides. than to hurt him; and, accordingly, the preparation is generally to kill, and not to hurt. The frequency, the wantonness, the barbarity, the cold-blooded cruelty, and the demoniac levity with which homicides are committed with us, have become the opprobrium of our country. An incredible number of persons, and in all parts of the country, seem to have taken the code of Draco for their law, and their own will for its execution-kill for every offence. The death penalty, prescribed by divine wisdom, is hardly a scare-crow. Some States have abolished it by statute-some communities, virtually, by a mawkish sentimentality: and every where, the jury being the judge of the law as well as of the fact, find themselves pretty much in a condition to do as they please. And unanimity among twelve being required, as in the English law, instead of a concurrence of three-fifths in fifteen, as in the Scottish law, it is in the power of one or two men to prevent a conviction, even in the most flagrant cases. In this deluge of bloodshed some new remedy is called for in addition to the death penalty; and it may be best found in the principle of compensation to the family of the slain, recoverable in every case where the homicide was not justifiable under the written laws of the land. In this widespread custom of carrying deadly weapons, often leading to homicides where there was no previous intent, some check should be put on a practice so indicative of a bad heart-a heart void of social duty, and fatally bent on mischief; and this check may be found in making the fact of having such arms on the person an offence in itself, prima facie evidence of malice, and to be punished cumulatively by the judge ; and that without regard to the fact whether used or not in the affray. The law was also mistaken in the nature of its penalties: they are not of a kind to be enforced, if incurred. It is in vain to attempt to punish more ignominiously, and more severely, a duel than an assassination. The offences, though both great, are of very different degrees; and human nature will recognize the difference though the law may not: and the result will be seen in the conduct of juries, and in the temper of the pardoning power. A species of penalty unknown to the common law, and rejected by it, and only held good when a man was the The anti-duelling act of 1839 was, therevassal of his lord-the dogma that the private fore, defective in not pursuing the homicidal injury to the family is merged in the public offence into all the new forms it might assume; wrong this species of penalty (amends to the in not giving damages to a bereaved familyfamily) is called for by the progress of homi- and not punishing the carrying of the weapon, cides in our country; and not as a substitute for whether used or not-only accommodating the the death penalty, but cumulative. Under this degree of punishment to the more or less dogma, a small injury to a man's person brings use that had been made of it. In the Halls him a moneyed indemnity; in the greatest of all of Congress it should be an offence, in itinjuries, that of depriving a family of its sup-self, whether drawn or not, subjecting the of port and protector, no compensation is allowed. fender to all the penalties for a high misde meanor-removal from office-disqualification that he might move an adjournment-evidently to hold any office of trust or profit under the United States-and indictment at law besides. CHAPTER XXXVI. SLAVERY AGITATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRE to carry off the storm which he saw rising. Mr Slade refused to yield it; so the motion to adjourn could not be made. Mr. Slade continued, and was proceeding to answer his own inquiry, put to himself—what was Slavery? when Mr. Dawson again asked for the floor, to make his motion of adjournment. Mr. Slade refused it: a visible commotion began to pervade the SENTATIVES, AND RETIRING OF SOUTHERN House-members rising, clustering together, MEMBERS FROM THE HALL THE most angry and portentous debate which had yet taken place in Congress, occurred at this time in the House of Representatives. It was brought on by Mr. William Slade, of Vermont, who, besides presenting petitions of the usual abolition character, and moving to refer them to a committee, moved their reference to a select committee, with instructions to report a bill in conformity to their prayer. This motion, inflammatory and irritating in itself, and without practical legislative object, as the great majority of the House was known to be opposed to it, was rendered still more exasperating by the manner of supporting it. The mover entered into a general disquisition on the subject of slavery, all denunciatory, and was proceeding to speak upon it in the State of Virginia, and other States, in the same spirit, when Mr. Legare, of South Carolina, interposed, and "Hoped the gentleman from Vermont would allow him to make a few remarks before he proceeded further. He sincerely hoped that gentleman would consider well what he was about before he ventured on such ground, and that he would take time to consider what might be its probable consequences. He solemnly entreated him to reflect on the possible results of such a course, which involved the interests of a nation and a continent. He would warn him, not in the language of defiance, which all brave and wise men despised, but he would warn him in the language of a solemn sense of duty, that if there was a spirit aroused in the North in relation to this subject,' that spirit would encounter another spirit in the South full as stubborn. He would tell them that, when this question was forced upon the people of the South, they would be ready to take up the gauntlet. He concluded by urging on the gentleman from Vermont to ponder well on his course before he ventured to proceed." Mr. Slade continued his remarks when Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, asked him for the floor, and talking with animation. Mr. Slade continued, and was about reading a judicial opinion in one of the Southern States which defined a slave to be a chattel-when Mr. Wise called him to order for speaking beside the question— the question being upon the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and Mr. Slade's remarks going to its legal character, as property in a State. The Speaker, Mr. John White, of Kentucky, sustained the call, saying it was not in order to discuss the subject of slavery in any of the States. Mr. Slade denied that he was doing so, and said he was merely quoting a Southern judicial decision as he might quote a legal opinion delivered in Great Britain. Mr. Robertson, of Virginia, moved that the House adjourn. The Speaker pronounced the motion (and correctly), out of order, as the member from Vermont was in possession of the floor and addressing the House. He would, however, suggest to the member from Vermont, who could not but observe the state of the House, to confine himself strictly to the subject of his motion. Mr. Slade went on at great length, when Mr. Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, called him to order; but the Chair did not sustain the call. Mr. Slade went on, quoting from the Declaration of Independence, and the constitutions of the several States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called him to order for reading papers without the leave of the House. The Speaker decided that no paper, objected to, could be read without the leave of the House. Mr. Wise then said: "That the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the very first day of the creation, instead of slavery as it existed in the District, and the powers and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now examining the State constitutions to show that as it existed in the States it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This was out of order." the hall, and a general scene of noise and confusion prevailing. Mr. Rhett succeeded in raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which raged in the House, and invited the entire dele the hall forthwith, and meet in the committee room of the District of Columbia. The Speaker again essayed to calm the House, and again standing up in his place, he recapitulated his attempts to preserve order, and vindicated the correctness of his own conduct-seemingly impugned by many. "What his personal feelings were on the subject (he was from a slave State), might easily be conjectured. He had endeavor Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindication of his course, and was about to read a memorial of Dr. Franklin, and an opinion of Mr. Madison on the subject of slavery-when the reading was objected to by Mr. Griffin, of Southgations from all the slave States to retire from Carolina; and the Speaker decided they could not be read without the permission of the House. Mr. Slade, without asking the permission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, assumed to understand the prohibition as extending only to himself personally, said "Then I send them to the clerk: let him read them." The Speaker decided that this was equally against the rule. Then Mr. Griffin withdrew the objection, and Mr. Slade proceeded to enforce the rules. Had it been in his power ed to read the papers, and to comment upon them as he went on, and was about to go back to the State of Virginia, and show what had been the feeling there on the subject of slavery previous to the date of Dr. Franklin's memorial: Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, inquired of the Chair what the opinions of Virginia fifty years ago had to do with the case? The Speaker was about to reply, when Mr. Wise rose with warmth, and said "He has discussed the whole abstract question of slavery: of slavery in Virginia: of slavery in my own district: and I now ask all my colleagues to retire with me from this hall." Mr. Slade reminded the Speaker that he had not yielded the floor; but his progress was impeded by the condition of the House, and the many exclamations of members, among whom Mr. Halsey, of Georgia, was heard calling on the Georgia delegation to withdraw with him; and Mr. Rhett was heard proclaiming, that the South Carolina members had already consulted together, and agreed to have a meeting at three o'clock in the committee room of the District of Columbia. Here the Speaker interposed to calm the House, standing up in his place and saying: re "The gentleman from Vermont had been minded by the Chair that the discussion of slavery, as existing within the States, was not in order; when he was desirous to read a paper and it was objected to, the Chair had stopped him; but the objection had been withdrawn, and Mr. Slade had been suffered to proceed; he was now about to read another paper, and objection was made; the Chair would, therefore, take the question on permitting it to be read." Many members rose, all addressing the Chair at the same time, and many members leaving to restrain the discussion, he should promptly have exercised the power; but it was not. Mr. Slade, continuing, said the paper which he wished to read was of the continental Congress of 1774. The Speaker was about to put the question on leave, when Mr. Cost Johnson, of Maryland, inquired whether it would be in order to force the House to vote that the member from Vermont be not permitted to proceed? The Speaker replied it would not. Then Mr. James J. McKay, of North Carolina-a clear, coolheaded, sagacious man-interposed the objection which headed Mr. Slade. There was a rule of the House, that when a member was called to order, he should take his seat; and if decided to be out of order, he should not be allowed to speak again, except on the leave of the House. Mr. McKay judged this to be a proper occasion for the enforcement of that rule; and stood up and said: "That the gentleman had been pronounced out of order in discussing slavery in the States; and the rule declared that when a member was so pronounced by the Chair, he should take his again, he should not do so, unless by leave of seat, and if any one objected to his proceeding the House. Mr. McKay did now object to the gentleman from Vermont proceeding any farther." Redoubled noise and confusion ensued-a crowd of members rising and speaking at once who eventually yielded to the resounding blows of the Speaker's hammer upon the lid of his desk, and his apparent desire to read something to the House, as he held a book (recognized to be that of the rules) in his hand. Obtaining quiet, so as to enable himself to be heard, he read the rule referred to by Mr. Mc |