Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-03-10

" common good, and to seek for redress of their
no reason can be given why their legislative as
eo Wncn represents them ALL may not exercise the same
% = uietr pehal We nowhere find any constitutional
OF restraint OF the exercise of this power by the
oae and II not prohibited is reserved to the State We
iaan men that the people had UNREASONABLE right in
S a. wen as IN other NODES express their opinions of the
measures Of the general government and to SEEK by adj
euons or remonstrances, obtain redress of their
grievances and relief from their suferings.'
II mere was constitutional objection to this mode of
Poceeuhg will be readily admitted that was in all res
Pec 'he most eligible In the of distress and danger
Wnch then oppressed all hearts, was to be apprehended as
peore suggested that large and frequent assemblies Of the
peoe hlht lead to measures inconsistent with the peace
ana oroer OF the community an appeal was to be made
to the government of the United States it was likely to be
more efecua proceeding from the whole State collective
w. han from insulated assemblies of citizens and the app-
cation that form would tend also repess the pubck ex
ceme and prevent any sudden and unadvsed proceedings
OF peoples by holding to them the prospect Of relief
through the influence of their State government This lat
ter consideration had great weight with the legislature and
believed to have been the only motive that could have
induced some Of the delegates that convention to quit the
secluson to which they had voluntarily RETIRED to expose
themselves to all the fatigue and anxiety the odm
the misrepresentation caumnes, and unjust reproaches
winch SO frequently accompany and follow the best exerons
for the pubEck good.
each of the States had the right thus to seek re-
dress OF grievances it is clear that States might
consult together tor the purpose and the only mode in
which they could consult each other was by mutual appoint
ment OF delegates for that purpose.
But this is not the only ground, is it the strongest
which to rest the justification of the proceedings question
If the government of the United States in time of such dis
ress and danger should be unable should neglect a
ford protection and relief to the people, the legislature of the
State would not only have right but would be their duty,
to consult together, and practicable, furnish these from
their resources This would be in aid of the general
government How severely the people OF Massachusetts
perenced at that rme the want of this ability disposition,
IN the general government need not repeat the legs
ature of sing State might under such circumstances
deavour provide for its Defence without infringing the
tona compact reason is perceived, why they might not
appoint committee delegates to confer with delegates of
neghbong States who exposed to like dangers and
suferngs devise and suggest their respective legs-
atues measures by which their mi h be en-
poyed In manner not repugnant to their obligations as
members of the Union A part of New England had been
invaded and then held by the enemy, without effort
by the general government to regain and another va
son which then threatened and generally expected had
taken place. and the England States had been still de-
serted by the government and left rely their
sources obvious that the best mode Of providing for THEN
common defence would have been by simultaneous and
combined operation of all their forces The States original
y possessed this right and hold that has never been
rendered. nor taken from them by the people.
\ The argument this point might be easily extended; but
we may confidently rely the grounds above mentioned
wit the right of the people, through their State legislatures
or Otherwise petition and demonstrate Tor redress oil then
grievances; and the right of the States time Of war and
of threatened invasion make the necessary provisions iol
their own defence To these objects confined the whole
authority conferred by legislature the delegates whom
they appointed. They directed to and confer
with other delegates and devise and suggest measures OF
relief for the adoption of the respective States but not
represent or act for their constituents by agreeing to,
adopting any such measures themselves behalf of the
States.
But whilst we strenuousy maintain this right Of the people
to complain petition, and demonstrate in the sronges
terms against which they think to be unconstuon
all UNJUST oppressive, and to do this IN the manner WHICH,
they shall deem convenient efectua, provided bt
in an orderly and peaceabe manner we readily admit tina
wise people would not hastily it, especially in this
imposing form, every occasion OF partial and Temporal
ry discomfort or suffering We therefore proceed to con-
sider
Secondly the propriety and expediency Of adopting thai
measure in the autumn Of 1914 On this point it is enough
to saw that the grievances that suffered and the dangers
that were appehended that e and the strong exctemen
which they produced among all the people, which is stated
particularly elsewhere this address, rendered some
measures for their relief Indispensable necessary Ii the leg
slatue had undertaken their cause appeared be GER
tan have already suggested, that the people would
take it into their own hands and there reason to ear
that the proceedings that might be less orderly and
peaceful and at the same time less ehicaclous.
Thirdly. We have already stated the objects which our
State had in view, in proposing the convention
at Hartford and the powers conferred their delegates LII
instead Of these avowed Objects there had been any secret
plot for ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the Union, in which had been
desired to engage the negbourng States, the measures Tor
that purpose may suppose would have been conducted
the most private manner possible On the contrary the res
ouon of legislature for appointing their delegates and
prescribing their powers and dues openly discussed and