Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1836-03-25
REMARKS OF MIR. PRENTISs,

REMARKS OF MIR. PRENTISS,
On the question of reception of a Petition from the
Society Of Fren Is, pray ing for the Abolition of
Slavery in the District Of Columbia Tuesday,
March |, 1886.
Mr.. President am unwilling that the
vote which | shall feel myself obliged to
give upon this question should be liable,
from silence ON my part, to any mlsconcep'
ton. In all my public acts, and on this oc.
caslon in particular, | am DESTROYS that the
grounds upon which proceed should be
dlstncllv'knowD, so that no misapprehen-
sion may t1is,, with respect to my conduct
or my m 't:ves, here or elsewhere. ! can
not yield my assent to some Of the doctrines
which have been advanced in this debate !;
and ] wish to say just enough to prevent
the possibility Of any inference that acqui
esce in them.
Sir, the abolition Of Slavery IN the Dis
trict Of Columbia is question, in all its as
poets and relations, Of great interest and
Gclicacy. 1t is question which have had
no disposition to agitate, especially at this
time: and at 10 time would | interfere, in
the slightest manner, with slavery as it OK
lists in some of the States. In my public
character, look upon slavery in the States
only as the Constitution of the United
States looks npoR it I; a a State institution
existing under State laws, and subject only
to State authority. | know it only as it is
known to the Constitution, and would not
treat it otherwise than the Constitution
treats it. | would leave it where the Con
s'itution has left it, dlsclammg all power in
! Congress over it and | would neither do
nor say any thing, in my public capacity
here, to disturb the right in this species Of
property, or III any manner to endanger its
security. While | say this. sir, in refer
ence to slavery in the States, am bound,
in candor and frankness, to say, that re-
gard slavery in this District in very diff,
| icrent light
The petitions which have been presented
| here do not ask any interference, or assert
! any power in Congress to interfere, with
slavery in lie States. They are confined
to Slavery in this District. They complain
Of It's existence here as a public evil, and
ask the nterpoSiton Of Congress to redress
The grievance. The Senator from South
Carolina (Mt. Calhoun has moved that the
petitions be not received. The Senator
from .eI.asy'. -nin {Mr Buchanpnl proposes
that the prayer Of the petitions be at once
rejected.
Sir, cannot ngree to either of these mo
tions. They differ, TO be sure, IN point Of
FORM but the effect Of both, it appears to
me, Is substantially the same. The first IN
order, the one now before the Senate, de.
MES, in terms, the right to petition at a Il
on the subject. The other, 1t is true, does
not, in form, deny the right; but while it
Processes to admit the right, it proposes TO
| reject the prayer of The petitions mmed
ateiy, without hearing, aud without con,
sldcra,ion. They are Doth essentially pre-
limlnary motions, p7ecluding alike the us
ua reference and examination into the
merits of the petitions; and, in my judg.
mcnt, they both, in effect, abridge the right
secured by the Constitution or, more pros
perly speaking, the right recognised by the
Constitution US prc-eSlstlng right d
right original aud inherent in the People.
Ii we eau make no law abridgng the right
to petition, we surely can nett hcr rlghttully
refuse to receive petition, nor reject il
instanter, on It's reception, without hear
ing. without any inquiry into the subject.
matter.
The distinction between rejecting the
petition, and rejecting the prayer OF the
petition. Immediately on It's being received
which is the motion proposed by the Sena
tor from Pennsylvania, Is too refined and
abstract, IN my apprehension, for subject
| Of such common and universal interest to
the People as the privilege and right to pc.
tllion. The distinction, ! must repeat, is
! 10 my mind, unlmpoflant, and exists rather
! in form than in substance. The character
Of the motion is not altered, or at all varied
| by the circumstance, that the motion ad-
mts If discussion. Discussion may be had
on almost eny and every preliminary mo
ton. Discussion, free and liberal discus
| sion, has been had on the motion not to re
celve. That motion is still pending and
II discussion is all that is to be looked 10,
every object has been attained, and gentle
men NAV as well vote for that motion at
once. The disposition proposed TO be CIV
en- to the petition, after 1t shall be received,
is equally summary, denying, as II does, in.
vestIgatlon aud consideration in the accuS-
toned forms Of proceeding and though il
may be formal and technical complluuce
with the Constitution, It Is, after all, 10
every practical and essential purpose, equi-
valent to rejection of the petition itself.
II we are bound to receive. we are bound
to hear and consider; and an abrupt aud
premature rejection Of the prayer Of the
petition, if not denial of the right to petit
ton, is a denial of every thing belonging to
the right which is of any Importance
When petitions are decorous IN their
language, and contain nothing which can
be Justly deemed intentionally offensive ;
when they cone from persons competent to
petition, and treat of subjects upon which
1t is competent for Congress Q act, ! hold
| that we are bound to receive them,a and give
them a respectful consideration. No petI-
ton, in my opinion, ought. To be rejected,
or can consttullonaIly be rejected and re-
fused hearing, on account OF the nature
of the subject of which 1t treats, unless the
subject be obviously aud unQucstionabIy