The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-12-17
mo. IS.

|
fl'eemep, would feel contempt for a cor
dust so pusillanimous, SO inconsistent with
the dignity OF a nation.--'rhey could not Go
otherwise (however they might seem to APP
prove the measurc) than despise the mean
ness or people, no would make shew of
resistance III defence Of their injured rights.
and after repeated snsults, reluouish tho
contest, without repatriation, and tan.ely sub
mt to the most aggravated aggres sioHs. u
we were to deliberate OH pursuing such a con-
duct---lf we express doubt on the prcplic-
ty OF rejecting with Indignation such propo-
sitlon, we would Justly. merit and rcceiye the
universal eXecration Of the people Of Ameri-
ca. Mr. c. concluded by declaring his de-
termination TO vote against the reference u
the petition to any ccmmittce-ail<, expres-,
sing his hope that such refoieCce would not
lie agreed to by the House
MIR. Ehf'es said, that IN voting agaiis ST tho
reference of the petition he should not consi-
Ger himself as casting censitre ON the pre-
senting it, or as violating Ge right # petit
oning which every man pcs eSsed One rea-
son only would influence him in his vote He
did not consider Congress possessed Of that
information which would enable them to act
on any subject relative 70 our relations with
Great-Britain. He thought the House should
not depart from rule which they had laid
down, though thev had been four weeks IN
session, and every gentleman felt sense of
the injury received, thev were determined
not to take any step till they had tull intor-
nation on which to ground their deternlina-.
ton And now because body Of merchants
came forward and pet;toned for 1T sllo,r,
they depart from that rule? Ii had been said
that not referring it would be disrespect TO
these who offered it; and the gentleman from
=. I. had said it would be violation OF the
constitution. With respect 10 the petitioners,
a petition introduced BY them would meet
NpCtc I, i h.
been introduced by the most conspicuous
member IN the House; if motion had been
made by member to enquire into the pro-
Pllety OF repeating this law, he would III the
same manner have voted against referring
1t. AS to the constitutional right Of petition
ing, when petition was received and read,
the constitution was fulfilled. Whether it
should be referred or how otherwise disposed
or, remained for members to determine for
which decision they were &nswerablc TO their
consclences. his objection was fully an
Swered by the precedent in the case of the.
faZoo Claim, the memorial ON which was re-
Jected without reference. Under these
views he should vote against the reference.
and IN doing SO, did not wish to wound the
feelings of any member, or consider himself
as violating the constitution.
MI Clay conceived that the constitution.
in securing to every citizen Of the United
States, the right of petitioning, meant that
the nature Of his petition should be enquired
INTO; but he was neither advocating the pc
ttion, nor indicating the intentions Of every
man whose name was subscribed to the pc
titicn; he only wished that a proper respect
might be paid to it. There was no necessity
for entering into Executive secrets, or go in
ITO the Office Of the Secretary of state; la.
merely wished an enquiry into the petition.
Mr. Cook was sorry that go N CHI time had
Deen spent to so l:ttle purpose; ne conceived
the committee of commerce and manufac--
lures had no farther information on our poll
tlcal relations than any other part of ths
House.
Mr. Rhca Cr.) said he should always con-
Sider sacred the constitutional right of petit.
tIoning the legislature on any point; but ic
was IN the power of the legislature to say
whether they you'd give thae petition hear
ing or rot after they had received it.
Mr. Lyon said it was immatcria! as to tho
Responsibility OF the petitioners. He under
stood what the nature of the petition was,
and thought it right that they might make
all enquiry he wished them to have direce
answer, and as quick as possible by refu-
sal to refer their petition.
The question was sgreed 20 be taken by
yeas and NAYS.
Mr. RaHdoihh very much regretted that
the gentleman from Ma sachusetts should
hav: attempted tonake this a party question
DV| 81 t!lc cas- ana NAYS were C2GCu he was
compelled very reluctantly to say a few word.
upon it.
! [Mr. Cro7yning8hield, in explanation said,
that ne had no idea that any thing had Drop
| ped from him which went to shew that he
considered ia party question, for he did nos
mean so 20 conder it himself; he did not
know the political characters Of the petition
| eIS whether in or out, whether called re-
! puDbcahS, or OF what other denominations 10
ought not TO be discussed as a party question,
| puc the question ought to be this: whctherin
our present delicate situation it were propcp
| so refer it at ell lie would not interrupt the
! gentleman further.
| The explanation Of the gentleman rrighe
have been very satisfactory to himself; buf
! Mr.. u. could nc. comprehend it as such Af-
| .er what had passed--wlien his friend iron.
Pennsylvania (Mr Clay) had been denaunc~,
ed even for presenting The petition maz
whom he would not degrade by comparison,
! IN point Of character, abilities, on patriotism.
with his dcnunciatons it was easy to see the,
| object which gentlemen had in view Tho
| right Of petition was an inherent right Of the
citizen, recognised by the constitution, and
during the time that he had held seat in
that House, ne remembered but single case
in which the reference Of petition had been
refused. IL was the Yazoo petition which
| had been mentioned What cvap,t,1.s rs