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

auu most "unQuallhcu manner, That there
was no deliberate hody which did, mot. act
M the principle that it wasb bound to receive
petitions;! That a.member eff his long en-
|peCience and caution shouldvcnture to make
an assertion SO u%nfoundcd, is one among the
many proofs Of the .carelessness, both as to
facts and arguments, with which this I'M
portan. subject has been exaininedand dis
cussed'on that sidc.5
But it is not necessary to cross the Allan
tic or to. go back to remot periods 10 find
preccdcnts Tor the rejection of petitions
This body, on. a memorable OCCASION, and
alter fu!l dciiberation, n short time sinces
rejected a petition; and among those who
| voted for the rejection will DO found the
names ("f course i exclude my own Of
the most able and experienced men Of the
Senate. i rcfor to a case of resolutions in
the nature of aremonstrance from the citi-
zcns of York, Pennsylvania, approving the
actof the President in removing the Gepos-
Eitcs. ask the Secretary TO read the Jour
mails OH the occasion:
1.-The Vice President communicated a
preamble and Il series Of resolutions adop,-
cd at Il meeting of the citizens of i'ork
county, pennsylvania, approving the act of
the Executive IN removing the lulic m6ney
from the Bank OF the United EtatsssSngl
| tsS al u Itf III 81 M
SAID Bank which having been read. k;..
Clay objected To the reception. And ON
the question, shall they be received ! it was
determined i'll the ncgativc-yc,s 20,
nays 20.
"On motion Of Mr.. Preston, the yeas
and nays being desired ly ouc-ffthof the
Senators present, those who voted in the
affirmative. arc,
"McSsrs. Benton. Brown. Forsv,h t;T,,n-
dv, llrndriclS, Hill, Kane. Kim. of Albania,
Ming of Georgia.. Linn. Niriiran. NEncurn.
Norris, Robinson, SImpicv, 'TaItnadgc,
Iip;nn. White, White. wilkins, Wight.
"IIosc who voted in Ihc m%rgati>,, are,
"McssrS. Bib, Black, Caihuir, CLAW,
], Clayton. Ewing, Frc!inehuvsrG Kent.
Leigh, Moore. Naulain. Poindcxtr, Porter
I, P%r"n'iss, Preston, Robbins. Sii>bcy, Smith,
Southland. SIracrrc. Swift, Toln!iusn,W an-
canaan, Wch.tcr.'
, In r''inm his case il Is not my mention 20
: cal! IN question The consistency of al, mem
Der on hi: floor: il would be uusouhy of
The occa>ion. doubt not the voc1h.n Given
waS given with Il full conviction d its cor
t r%cr'nc->, asi il will doubtless be- in.la present
case, OH whatever sid. II NAV b, found.
{. My "',!cct Is, ~ show ;l,at he ]rripi;,ic for
which ] contend, 80 far from h~,in"opro>cd.
Is sustained by p'cc"hcn,s, here md else
where. ancient and modern.
In following, dis ! have, these o,,.,scd to
nc, 10 Magma C!larta, and The Declaration
of Rights, tor the ORIGIN an.i i~lt!imirs of
tho RICH, TO petition, | am moi disrecI. with
them. 10 sc' aside IN" Constitution asscn,
10 tic position they assume, tl,aliIhc rich,
Of petition existed before the Constitution.
and that il IS noi derived from ii;lul while
! LOOK beyond thar instrument for he right,
I l,ll H., |
lis extent and limits, To hr the hinhcsi an
llority The frs, ar"cm!rl article OF the
Constitution. which provides lin. CONGRESS
shall pass no law TO prevent tie rcnplc
irHccas'iy assembling and rci;rnnine for
Il redress oi grievances, was clcn,![ T,u,cnL-
n! To prescribe the limits within which the
rioi.t may ho "~"-"i-ri. Ii i uot mr,rnGcd
that To rc'isr To receive PETITIONS, touches.
in the slightest degree, on these limits. To
suppose that the trainers Of the Constitution
no, not the trainers, but those Jealous pa
trio's who were not satisfied with rha, in
s'rumcnt as il came ficm the hands of thc
Trainers, and who proposed ,hi. very pro-
vision, to guard wla; ihcv considered - .,.
cred right, pcricrn,"I 'i:cir 'n>h ~ brmciinn-
" as To omit u rs., niial gard. wri:ld i,c
10 40 great injustice 10 ~" Of ,lmsc
stern ard sd2aciOl> incn and v,t Ibis *
what the Senator from, Tennessee mr..
Grundy) has vcn,urcd TO assert. lie said
thai no provision WIS added 10 Guard Against
the election of petitions, because the obi.
CATION TO receive w aS considered! ST. clear that
II was deemed unnecessary; when he ought
To have known thai, according Ia the StnrtI-
ing practice III that time, Parliament was in
the constant habit, rs has been shown, of
refusing to receive rctifions-a practice
which could not have been unknown to
the amendment; and from which il uloy be
fairly inferred that, in omitting 10 provide
that the petitions Should be received, il WIS
not intended to comprehend their reception
in the right of petition.
have now, ] trust, established. hcvond
AL controversy, that VIC are NOT lvn!nd To re-
cclvc these PETITIONS, and that if we should
reJcci iiirni, wc would not, in the slightest
degree, infringe IA" right OF petition. Ii is
now time to look 10 IN" right. of This body.
aud 10 zee whether. ii NC SHOULD receive,
when il Is acknowledged that the ONLY rca-
son for rccciviu" Is, thai w" arc bound to 10
SO, W" would not establish p~rinrip!o which
you'll trench deeply on He rights of the
Senate. | have already shown thai where.
The action of the Senate commences. there
also lis right To determine how and when il
shall act, also commences. have also
shown Thai TN" action of ilr Srnm~4ar,s.
sar'iv begins on the presentation Of a petition;
that tho petition is then before the buiy
That Tic Senate cannot proceed to other bust
ness without making some disposition of il
and that, by the 9th rule, the first action
after presentation is on a question 10 receive
the petition. TO extend the right of mott
tIon to tic question on receiving, is 10 cx-
pungc this rulc-io abolish this unuucstion-
able constitutional right of the Senate. md
that for the benefit, in this case, of the aIo.
lilionisis. Their gain would be a, the loss
OF this body. have not expressed myself
too strongly. Give the right of petition ,hc
extent commended for decide that we ar,