Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-03-09

SO the Mouse refused to lay the memorial on
the table.
that the petition eouched in respectful terms.
and appeal to DO signed by very large number of
citizens. 1t did not point out advise any par
ticular mode of action by tho House. No fault
appeared upon tho face of tho paper, yet, a
gentleman from Georgia had suggested that tho
proper course of the House would be, to rcpel the
momoralsts; to put their memorial out OF the door
OF throw it urdcr tho table. But every citizen of
this republic had right to petition that House,
and if ho did SO in respectful manner, Mr.. b. was
prepared to act on his petition as circumstances
might require. Another Wow had been takon on
the other side, and colleague of his, (Mr PRN.
pLsroN,) had suggested that tho motion be fore
the House, involved the right of Petition; but in
this, ho certainly was mistaken. Tho manner in
which petition should be disposed of. had no
connection with tho right TO offor it. Tho House
had already received the me moral The right OF
petitioning had been exercised, and, however, tho
memorial might bo disposed of, that right remain
cd still involate. MIR. Ii. enquired, what object
tho House could have in protesting to act on ths
petition? How could the action of that House
be brought to redress tho grievances it com
plains of What wore those grevaneesi They
were two first, that Georgia had extended her
laws over tho Indian Territory: and second, thai
two citizens of tho United States had boon con.
demned and punished as criminals, under the laws
of that State. Tho petition also said, that
certain treaties of the United States had guaren.
lands. Now it was notorious, that the two indivi.
duals had been tried and fully convicted, of what
was deemed criminal offence, and the validity OF
the law was in the petition drawn into question
But since then, tho Supreme Court had decided
that all the acts of Georgia extending the jurisdc.
ton of her laws over the Indians, and declaring
tho acts which these persons committed to be cri.
minal, were unconstitutional; inconsistent with
existing treaties, and therefore null and void
"oll assuming thist be so, it might have been
hat IA
such Judgment; that tho judg .nent should be
enforced, and that the executive arm should be
applied to carry the judgment into effect. On
that point however, he was not called to express
any opinion, not was that Hsuse. They wero not
there for tho purpose of giving effect either tho
executive to the judicial power They there to
enact laws-to lay down the rule of action. 1t re.
maiRed for the judiciary to interpret those laws s.
to issue their mandate accordingly and if il
the duty of tho Executive to call out the mill
tary force In those subjects however, variety OF
subjects were involved, which did not como before
tho House on d mere collateral matter. What
did gentlemen propose? Ho hoped tho House
would DO apprised of the object in view. Was it
said that the law of the United States was defect
iye1 That was not complained of. The com.
plant was as ts the interference of Georgia with
the rights of tho Indians. But this House could
do nothing which would affect Georgia IN the case
The laws it had already enacted. were abundanty
sufficient to meet all the questions which could a
rise on this petition. Gentlemen might saw tina,
Georgia had improperly treated the missionaries
Granting this to DO true, had the House the poweI
TO relieve theml Could that House repeal the laws
of Georgia. Could its action operate in any vay on
those individuals? No doubt the persons who pre-
scented tho memorial entertained a very homes,
conviction that Georgia had been guilty of re me
expressions, and though he could not concur entire
ly In that opinion, he admitted that they had a
right to present their Vows on the subject in me
mortal; while the House, the other hand hac
all equal right to dispose of that memorial as the,
might see it as they would of any other memorial
1t 1t should be manifest that the House could no
act 1t might very properly lay the memorial OF
the table. Hc could not see how the House wa,
called to act either of the subjects in the memo
rial. Was 1t tho province ofthat House to enforc,
treaties?
Mr.. DODDRIDGE here interposcd, and inquired
OF the Speaker whether it was in ordor to go into
the merits on a mere question of reference?
The SPEAKER replied in the negative; but he
understood the gentleman arguing to shew tina
the memorial ought not to be referred at all.
MIR. Is. resumed, and said that he was cndeavor
ing to shew that there was nothing on the face o
the memorial which called for, or could receiv,
tho action of the House. The gentleman from
Massachusetts, had spoken of decision of the
Supreme Court, and of the fact that two mission
aries were imprisoned. He did hope the gentle.
man would explain to the House the object that
was to be obtained. That House could do nothing
to further the effect of decision of the Supreme
Court. If that Court had jurisdiction of tho case
their judgment was binding, and it was tho dut,
of the Executive to enforce it; but if thew had no
Jurisdiction, the House could not give it to them
He thought it would be treating the memorial will
no disrespect to lay it upon the table, and not,
by referring it to Select Committee to treat if
ns If 1T was matter of special importance He d.,
not suppose the gentleman from Massachusetts, sc
designed, but his motion might induce many t.
get up such petitions. He could not a. rec will
the gentleman from Georgia, that all tho signers
that memorial were black coats, or deluded instru
ments, acting under their influence. He knew
| not that such was not the case; but that number
OF the slgners were acting under n deep an,
honest feeling. He cons dcred indeed that feelin,
| as In great degree mistaken, but he had not
doubt it was perfectly honest, and the House Nigh
with propriety receive their memorial
Mr.. ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut said tina
he did not look upon this memorial in the same
light as some other gentleman seemed to do, who
had addressed the House, and he was happy tina
1t had not been laid upon the table. Be it wha
IL might, its character was substantially this: Ar
application from two citizens of the United States
who feel themselves to be in bondage respectful,
mado through their friends, to this government Ia
know whether they were in fact constitutional,
imprisoned, and were to remain7 He did moi
consider the question between the Government
ana Georgia, but between tho government and
these citizens, who set forth that in conseuucnc,
OF the action of the Government in relation &c
Georgia thoy had been imprisoned, and who came
20 the House to know whether there was no relic
~ I,eh UaSe' Inc question was, what could BIZ
uohei would any say that this was a question
that belonged to the Committee on Indian Af
iairsf What had that Committee to do with IL
clearly nothing! Fit was appropriate to any one
OF the Standing Committees of tho House. it must
De the Commute on the Judiciary. He did not per
sonally wish that it should 90 10 that con,mttoe
but the subject was before the House. and deon
interest was felt respecting it throughout tho com
munity Ought it not to be sent to committed
who would give it prompt attention. The gentle
man from New York (Mr. BEARDsLEY,) had SAID
that the House could not act upon the subject
mIpht bo he 4 ~