Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-02-11
Twcnty-fourth Congress--lstsess.

setts, on presenting memorial from sundry inhabit-
ants of Massachusetts Tor the abolition of slavery and
the slave tralc in the District of Columbia delivered
in the House of Representatives, the 25th day Of
January, 1896.
After Mr. Gushing concluded his remarks
MIR Garland aud said that he did not rise to in
lict long speech upon the House. particularly this
hour OF the daythat he would discuss the subject
OF slavery here elsewherebut he could no, permit
the ingenious aud speco1s remarks of the honorable
menbsr from Massachusetts, (slr; Cushng) who has
INST taken his seat, to go 10 the public without hum
Bile effort on his part 10 parry their effects by exposing
their iallacy Mr. G. said, that whenever gentlemen
presented these petitions for interference with local
rights oil the people of the District of Columbia against
their wishes their reception to be secured Ivy being
wrapped in the folds of the sacredthe
tuficnai right of petition.
Mr. G. said, he proposed very briefly examine this
subject, with view to distinguish between the
tional right OF petition, and the constitutional obligation
OF TINS House to receive petitions, when presented and
to prove that this House under OBJ
legation To receive petitions founded in abuse of this
cred right and having IN view the sn6cersioh Of The rights
~ others MIR G SAID, when gentlemen from the North
accused members of the South OF dsregardng the
sututionai right OF petition, voting against the ecep
ion OF these abolition memorials, they did them great
injustice No people regarded with scrupulous ea
lousy the right OF petition lrgitinately exercised than
the Southern people but that it was against its abuse
they proested and II the invasion of the rights of
others under color OF this sacred principle, they resisted
MIR. q. said, with due Difference o the opinions of
other gentlemen, lac had always understood that the
Ject OF the Constitution, in guaranteeing the rghtof pc
tion was TO enable the people, any portion Of them
10 assemble without interruption or hindrunce and petit
Ton tor the redress of any grcedhce under which they
might labor, and which within the reach OF the boz
dy petitioned This the object OF the celebrated
magma charfa OF England; the object of every
guarantee of the right OF petition in every age of the
world, wherever it has existed. 1t was said Mir G.
emphaticay right guaranteed by the Constitutions 10
petition Tor redress ~ either pub
"c or pirate, but nothing more. MIR. Garland said,
sustain this position, he needed no other argument
than the article OF the Constitution cited by The o-
norable gentleman himself. 1t reads thus: Con,
gress shall make law respecting the establishments
oil religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
abrdging the ifecdou OF speech Of the press the
right Of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE,
ana to petition the Government for a redress
GRIEVANCES" Can the mind of any man. said Mr.
G be So lar ObScared perceive thai the
object OF this article the people The right
oil assembling aud petiti0aiag without hndrance or mo
leslaton founded upon the right ofa any portion of
The people, TO have their grievances, mot Me grievances
,y 0MeTS) redFessed lie said, he thought not; he
thought the article too ce. need the aid OF
Tor eiucdation Mr. Garland said every people knew
then own grievances best, aud he thought ex-
lravagant claim under this article, to assert that gave
the right OF one set of people Interfere with rights
OF another, and that Congress was bound
petitions, and grdvcly act upon them the Constitution
meant, said MIR e., such absurdty.
Mr. q said he would, by offering few hypothetical
examples, illustrate The aOsurdy of this exravagant
claim under the constitutional right Of petition broad as
is, and broad as ii should be-. Mr. G.. said that the
Constitution OF our Government strictly Federal;
that TO it's action and control condcd spe
cihed' defined powers in which there general and
community vi interest between all The States but that
the domestic rights of the States their own
exclusive jurisdiction; and that The Federal Government
could, conslitulonay, interfere with them
than could the Governments OF France and England
In the domestic relations OF the States, they are
not only independent OF the Federal Government
but OF the several State Governments Anonr TN,
several domestic concerns Of the States, which
Tie Federal government has jurisdiction what
ever, Is the institution of slavery slave hold.
ing States 1t is an admitted principle, said MIR,
g. It's constitutional guarantee that the jurisdiction
oi The States IN which slavery exists ercusire
The sat ject and that neither the Federal nor any State
Government has the right to interfere with it, This
principle being true, said Mr. q. 1t undoubtedly is,
he would ask whether the people of any portion of tho
State of Massachusetts had The right petition Con-
gross abolish slavery the State of virginia because
The right of petition is guaranteed by Constitutions
and that Congress bound receive their petitions
and gravely consider the subject-mate of the-a sub
lect-maer over which there is not only not delegated
any power bat rhieh thar pOrer eJpreSsig re-
stricted To what end they TO receive il. Merely
to get report from committee, aud grave decision
OF this House that it has right to egslae upon this
subject Surely this is an absurdity, sad Mr. g. for
which member OF this House will contend. 1t would
be idle waste Of time.
Sir, said MIR c.. (ior the principle would be precisely
the sa suppose these people to petition Congress
to Interfere with the domestic relations OF France Eng
land! Ought their petitions, in other words, would
Congress be bound to receives and gavcy consider the
subject Inater ofsuch petitions? Certainly Again,
ter the law of descents Virginia. and they same
constitutional right to do this, they have 10 petition
Congress to abolish Slavery in Virgina-wi gentlemen
says that Congress would be bound, under the Con-
suton5 TO receive, aud gravely consider the subject
matter of such petition! / humbly think not; ac-
cOrding 10 the laludinous views of the oe ntle,nan
from Massachusetts, (Alr Cushing the good people of
Massachusetts, have the constitutional right TO petition
about everything and anytlng, either Europe, Asia,
Africa, America even, Mr. Speaker that this House
should hang you, for OF what they might please
TO call your religious, or political, moral sins and
that the Constitution imposes upon Congress the oh.
legation to receive and grayely TO consider such Pc
uton When II IS seen, that the right of petition, and
the Obligation OF receiving and considering such petit
lions, the part of Congress- contended for by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, drives, ia practice,
such absurdtes Mr. g. sad he regarded the position Inc
had taken, proven to be true that the Constitution
frn fnHf
redress of their aetttt griegdlcoS and impose
upon Congress the duy Of receiving only such petitions
within the sphere OF their constitutional power
OF redress MIR c. said he lhzardcd but little say
ing, that IL This could be reversed and the people
OF Virginia were peutonng Congress 10 compel the
State, to establish slavery, that every Northern member
would rise IN bis place, and protest against the reception
OF such petition Impairment obtrusive. and with
out the legislative jurisdiction Of Congress. The pfn-
ciplc is precisely the same.
MIR. G.. said he had succeeded in proving, he hum
bly, thought nc had that the Constitution did
70 hc people Of Massachusetts any other State the
right 20 petition oi the abolition Of slavery in Virginia
for any interference with any Of its acknowledged dofnes
tic rights, impose Congress She duty Of receive
ing aud considering such petitions, il only remained for
him 10 prove ihu in relation 10 The domestic rQhts Of
the people Of the District Of Columbia they were in
dependent and os foreign to the people 0f Massachu
sets were those OF Virginia, aud that they had
more right 81 interference with tLc than the other
Mr. 6. said that the ccsson Of the District Of Columbia
made IL incompatible with the successful operations of
the Federal Government and the just protection Of the
tights, Of tic life, libcy and property Of its citizens that
Tie States Of Maryland and Virginia should retain the lc-
gslavc jurisdiction over the coded tcrtory hence il was
committed to the legislative care Of Congress. But it
entered into the heads Of those who ccdcd Of