proper tribunal before which Mr. Adams, if guilty of the crimes alleged, ought to be arraigned. He defended the right of petition. He believed where there was no power to grant the prayer of the petitioners, there was no right to petition. But he had voted against the 21st rule, because by that petitioners were excluded who had a right to be heard. As a slaveholder, he had differed from his brethren in reference to the whole gag proceedings. In reference to all gag rules, he said, away with them. Let those who wish, discuss this topic as much as they please. He attempted to show that the proceeding against Mr. Adams was to punish him for an imputed motive. What had he been guilty of? Had he sanctioned, the petition? How could they judge his motive? Nor had he violated the rules of order. He had simply presented a petition; and they were attempting to punish him for the manner in which he had considered it his duty to represent a portion of the people of Massachusetts. He told gentlemen to beware how they put it into the power of the gentleman from Massachusetts to go home and tell his constituents that he was a martyr to the right of petition.
Mr. Botts, of Virginia, also defended Mr. Adams. "He did not approve all that he had said on that floor. But he would not wound the feelings of that venerable gentleman. He believed he had expressed many sentiments in the irritability of the weight of years that hung on him, which his own calm reflection would condemn. There was enough passing under his immediate observation to provoke the gentleman, and if he might use the expression, to 'bedevil' him. But what was the offense with which he stood charged? He had presented a petition; and he had asked permission to present a remonstrance, and appeal to the petitioners against the folly of their course. This was not the first time the house had heard of the dissolution of the Union. A gentleman from South Carolina, now a member of this body, (Mr. Rhett,) had three or four years ago actually drawn up a resolution, asking congress to appoint a committee, to consist of one member from each state, to devise measures for the dissolution of the Union. [This called out Mr. Rhett in explanation. It was not his wish to dissolve the Union; he intended it as an amendment to a motion to refer with instructions to report a bill for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. He expected it to be laid on the table with the original motion. His design was to place before congress and the people what he believed to be the true issue upon this great and vital question. The resolution proposed a committee of two from each state.] It was, said Mr. Botts, not only the doctrine of the gentleman, but of the majority of his state. They held that a state had a right to secede from the Union. If one state had such right, others had."
Mr. Botts "considered this affair a great farce — a storm in a tea-pot. Talk of censuring the gentleman from Massachusetts! Look at the other end of this avenue. A man at the head of the right arm of the defense of this nation — the secretary of the navy, (Mr. Upshur,) — the last time he had had conversation with him, was an open, avowed advocate of the immediate dissolution of the Union. [Mr. Wise: I deny it.] Mr. Botts repeated the declaration, and
