Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1836-04-21

tic orto 8 hack TO asinofssseriodsd find
prescdents for the, rejection of pctitionss-
This body memorable Occasion, mid
after full aeiig55htion, 81 short time, siSSef
rejected a Petition aTdsan,ong those SyI,6s
v0tod for the ~reiection wilt be found the
names (of eoursesI excluded my oWn4sofs
the most able.and .experieucsds men os the
Senate. Il refer TO acasesof resolntiohsin
the nature of, aremOnsfrance from tlseciti-
zens ofHYork, Pennsylvania, approyiHs The
the Presidentin Observation-Disclosures
Eites. II askthe Secretary to read thoioiir-
nafs On. the OCCASION:
The Vice President commnnfcafedsa
preamble and aseries of resohtions3adblt-
ed at a meeting of the citizensgofSAsork
county, P~enpsylvania, approving the aefof
the fixecutiye IN removing tile pnlie TsbpsEy
from the Banks .cf4the United STATE
Eoppesedah the reneasaiSo of tss. a,
said Bank; which having been read Mr..
Clay objected to the. reception. Aid on
the question, shall they be rcceivcd1 twas
Edetermincd in the negative-ycts 90,
nays 80.
"On motion Of Mr.. Preston, till, yeas
and nays being desired by oue-ffthof the
Senators present, those Wy no voted in the
Affirmative, are,
Mcssrs. Benton, Brown. Forsytlt Grun-
dy, Hendricks, Hill Kane. King of Ahhama,
King of Georgia. Linn, McKean. Mingum,
Morris, Robinson, Sl,cplcv, Taltnadrc,
Upton, White, White, wilkins, Wight.
"Thosc who voted in The negativj, arc,
Messrs. Bib, Black, Calhoun. CLAW,
Clayton. Ewing, FrclinghuYseb Kent,
Leigh, Moore, Naudain, Poindextt, Porter
Prcntiss, Preston, Robbins, Silsbd, Smith,
Southland, Srrasue, Swift, TomlinSn, Wac-
saman, Webster"
In riiing this case it ia not my mention 10
call in question the consistency of aly menu
Der on this floor; it would be unworthy of
the OCCASION. doubt NOT the vole1hn given
was given with a full conviction d. its cor
fcc'ness, ASH. VIII doubtless he in TN present
sc;lsc, on whuievcr side II NAV II found.
My pljecf Isl, TO show that the rritiple for
which ] contend, SO far frorn hein.bpposcd.
is sustained by prcccdcn,s, here Ind else
where, ancient and modern.
In following, as / have, those hppscd TO
me, 10. Magma Charta, and The Declaration
of Rights, for the origin and The limits of
the rightto petition, am not disposed, with
them, 10 SET aside the Constitution assent
TO the position they assume, thatfrhc right
Of petition existed before the Constitution,
and thai it IS moi derived from il ;Ibm while
| look beyond that instrument fol The right,
| hold the Constitution, on a question as to
lis extent and limits, to be the highest au-
lhority The first amended article of The
Constitution, which provides tint Congress
shall pass no law 10 prevent the people
pcaccahlv assembling and %pcrfppinp for
Il redress &C grievances, wac.
ed to prescribe the, limits withid whichSthe
riqhtn,ay-Lo esc-c;-eL. Ii is not prptcndcd
that to refuse to receive petitions, ,ouches.
in the slightest degree, on these limits. To
suppose that the trainers Of the Constitution
no., not the trainers, but those Jealous pa
trlots who were not satisfied with that in
strument as it came from the hands of fhe
trainers, and who proposed this very pro-
vision. to guard wha, they considered II sa-
cred right, performed thcir task SO buuciing-
~ as TO omit any essential guard, would be
TO do great injustice To The Of thnsc
stern and sagaciouS men !; and vet this is
what the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Grundy) has vcn,urcd to assert. He said
that no provision was added To guard against
the rejection of petitions, because the obi
gntion TO rcceivewas considered SO clcartIlat
it was deemed unnecessary; when he ought,
10 have known thar. according to the stand
ing practice at that time, Parliament was in
the constant habit, as has been shown, of
refusing t. receive pctitions-a practice
which could not have beer unknown to
the amendment {; and from which it may be
fairly Inferred that, in omitfing to provide
that the petitions should be received, it was
not INTENDED to comprehend their reception
in the right of petition.
! have now,sl trust, established, bry0nd
all controversy, that we are not bound to re-
cciye these petitions, and that if VIC should
reject, Them, VIC would NOT, in the slightest
degree, infringe the right of petition. 1t is
now tinia to look to the rights of this body,
and to see whether, if we should receive,
when it is acknowledged that the only rca-
son for receiving is, that we are bound to do
so, we would not establish; "a principle which
would trench deeply on The rights of the
Senate. ! have already shown that where
the action OF the Senate commences, there
also IFS right to determine how and wlIenit
shall act, also commences have, also
shown that the action Of tho S~enHefsces-
5surils begins on lie presentation OF q ppesfifion :
that The petition is then before The noay
That the Senate cannot proceed 70 otIieT bust
ness without making some disposition.ef it 8
and that, by the 9th rule, the fist action
after presentation is on n question to receive
the petition. To extend the rightFof peii-
ton to the question on receiving, is to ex-
puDgc this rule-to abolish this unuUesiion-
able constitutional right of tho Senate. and
that for.the benefit, in this case, of the abo-
itionists. Their gain would be at the loss
OF this body. have not expressed myself
TOO strongly. Give the right Of pettitionsthc
extent commended. for ; decide that we ARE
bound, underthe Constitutions receive these
incendiary petitions. and the very motion
before the Senate would be, ont of order. If
the Constitution makesit our duty to receive.
we would have no discretion left to reject
as the motion pre-stlpposes. Our rules of
proceeding must be in accord with The Con-
stitution. Thus in the case of received
bills, which, by the Constitution, must ori-