Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1823-05-31
n. BUCkMASTER.
FOR THE SPECTATOR.

In the course OF the last year, several
attempts were made by gang of I'M
princlplcd desperadoes, to kidnaD Ger
tain free persons of color residing in
this county and in ST. Clair. The in
sutlieiency OF ,he existing laws against
tins abominaAle crime, became apparent
to all. A venerable and respectable
gentleman oil this county drew up a me-
mortal to the legislature Of tins state, and
Obtained the signatures of certain free
persons OF color; in which memorial
the danger and insecurity of the memo
rallsls, IN consequence oil the deficiency
OF the laws against kidnapping, were set
forth IN strong though true coiors. The
memorial also went on to pray for the
right oi suffrage. The venerable author
probably did not advert to the fact, that
The qualifications of electors were pre-
scrioed by the constitution, and could
not be altered by the legislature. The
author OF the memorial, although he had
opposed the election Of Mr.. Churchill DIS
i representative, thought proper 70 send
IL 10 nm, aad request him to present il
20 the House OF REPRESENTATIVES IL
this case what ought Mr.. Churchill 10
have done The Constitution guarantees
10 The people the right I" to apply to the
General Assembly for redress of grev-
ances." o. what avail would this right
be TO the people if their petitions could
be suppressed at The whims or caprice of
the individual member to whom they
were sent? Would it not be the great
est eiiron,ery for "a representative to say
to the people, 81 consider your memo
rial unreasonable, aud therefore it shall
not be submitted 10 the Geneial Assem-
bly, - But the case before us was one Of
still greater delicacy. Ii Mr.. Churchill
had refused to present Inc memorial,
the cry would have been raised that he
was the friend Of kldnappers, or that he
was SO illiberal and vindictive that he
would not present memorial written
by gentleman who had opposed his
election. But he did not REUSE. He
acted as every liberal minded person
would have done. He presented the
memorial, and the House received it.
Alter 1t had been read, he moved to re-
Ter II to the committee on the subject of
slavery and kidnapping; and the motion
was carried. Now, if Mr.. Churchill
was wrong in presenting The memorial,
the House was wrong in receiving it. If
he was wrong in moving its reference to
committee, the House was wrong in
adopting his motion. Ye, the friends
Of SLAVERY and kidnahhing have taken
advantage OF this circumstance to raise
clamor against Mr.. Churchill. 1t has
been asserted in the EdwardsvilIe siape-
haher that he suhhorted the memorial
in question; and upon his prompt and
explicit denial of,he assertion, the editor
OF that paper Affects to be ignorant hat
there is any difference between present
ing memorial, and SUPPORTING it.
But let US see how this sage editors
rule will apply to a gentleman ofhis own
party. Mr. West, a representative from
Madison county, presented a petition
from sundry citizens, praying that GER
tain justice OF the peace might be broke
on account of his religious PRINCIPLES.
Mr.. West knew tina, the law had pro-
yided another tribunal for the trial d