He introduced a resolution to the effect that these petitions were a direct and dangerous attack on the "institution" of the slave-holding States.

This Mr.Clay improved in a substitute, which stated that any act or measure of Congress looking to the abolition of slavery in the District would be a violation of the faith implied in the cession by Virginia and Maryland,--a just cause of alarm to the South, and having a direct tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.
Mr.Webster wrote to a friend that this was an attempt to make a new Constitution, and that the proceedings of the Senate, when they passed the resolutions, drew a line which could never be obliterated.

Mr.Webster also spoke briefly against the resolutions, confining himself strictly to demonstrating the absurdity of Mr.Clay's doctrine of "plighted faith." He disclaimed carefully, and even anxiously, any intention of expressing an opinion on the merits of the question; although he mentioned one or two reasonable arguments against abolition.

The resolutions were adopted by a large majority, Mr.Webster voting against them on the grounds set forth in his speech.

Whether the approaching presidential election had any connection with his careful avoidance of everything except the constitutional point, which contrasted so strongly with his recent utterances at Niblo's Garden, it is, of course, impossible to determine.
John Quincy Adams, who had no love for Mr.Webster, and who was then in the midst of his desperate struggle for the right of petition, says, in his diary, in March, 1838, speaking of the delegation from Massachusetts:-- "Their policy is dalliance with the South; and they care no more for the right of petition than is absolutely necessary to satisfy the feeling of their constituents.