The native American., 1839-03-02

ure day may enter fully into discussieno OF
his question. 1t shall now be my object 10
the right Of petition. as now
do, in all its length and breadth--that the citi-
zens ofthe States have no right to petition Con.
grcss to abolish slavery in the District OF Co
lumbia. Let no man charge me with desire
TO strange the right Of petition in order TO make
out my case. hold that am not obnoxious to
the charge am the last man that would at
tempt, by word or deed directly or indirectly. to
embarrass or abridge the legitimate exercise OF
any valuable right. Nor, sir, would bring any
important privilege into disrepute or contempt
by The abuse Of it. And contend that il is as
much an abuse Of this privilege for the citizens
Of the States, and especially the n-slarehold-
ing States, 10 petition the American Congress TO
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as it
would be for such citizens to petition the Par
lament Of Grea, Britain, or the French Chamber
Of Deputies, for like purpose, or as It would
be for the citizens Of Maine to petition the Lee
gisla,ure Of Virginia 10 abolish slavery within
the limits Of that State. No man, in the pos
session of his WITS having the least acquaintance
with the character OF our Government, will as
sert that it would be denial Of the right Of Pc
tition for the Legislature Of Virginiat 10 rcjecrp-
| titions from the citizens Of the State Of Maine
praying for the abolition Of slavery. And if il
would not be denial Of the right of petition
in this Sc, how can il be denial Of that light
for the Legislature Of this District to reject petit
tions Of like import from citizens Of the States?
| Would it not be equally proper for the citizens
of the District of Columbia TO petition the Lee
gislature of Massachusetts 10 pass laws for the
relief and Moderation Of the condition Of the la
borers employed in the manufactures Of that.
State, for the citizens Of Massachusetts to pc
tition Congress to abolish slavery in the Distric,
Of Columbia II a. rejection Of petitions would
not be denial Of the right Of petition in the one
case, how could ii be SO in the othrr? For
contend, and shall show most concl,isively, that
the ctizens Of the District of Columbia have the
same right to interfere in the internal police Of
Massachusetts, that the citizens Of Massachu-
sets have to interfere in the internal police of
the District Of Columbia.
1t will be perceived by the House, from what
| have stated, that | regard Congress as the To-
cal Legislature Of this District; standn. in the
same relation, in one respect, to the citizens Of
the District, as do the State Legislatures to the
citizens of the States. Entertaining this opinion,
then, | contend that the rejection by Congress
OF petitions, coming from citizens Of any Of IN.
States praying for the abolition Of slavery in the
District Of Columbia is no more denial of the
right of petition than it would be for the Lrgis
iature Of MARYLAND or Of Arkansas 10 reject pc
titions coming from citizens Of Vermont or Rhode
Island. praying for the abolition Of slavery tt
viii be conceded by all-at least BIZ all profess
ing the Democratic fat!,--that ''erery free citi-
zen must be represented" and that the Doacer Of
The Representatives is derired from The vii Of he
represented. This elementary principle Of the
American Constitution forms the basis Of all le-
sislation. This being SO, il follows, that the
free citizens Of this District 'em,Ist be represent
ed" Previous to the cession of the "ten miles
square" by the States of Maryland and Virgin
ia, the citizens Of these States residing within
the present limits of this District were represent
ed BY the respective Legislatures Of those States.
Aud as neither Virginia nor Maryland had the
power so far 10 disfranehise their citizens as TO
deprive them of "he rfgAifo be represented !"
that right, OF course, remains unmpared. The
States making the ''cession" could delegate no
power to Congress which they themselves die
not possess; consequently, Congress can exercise
no power by virtue Of the "acts of cession.' .
which it would net have been competent for
those States to have exercised. The citizens OF
the District of Columbia, therefore, like all other
free citizens, are entitled TO be represented. And
as they are not representcd by the States which
made the "cession," they must necessarily, be-
represented by Congress, to HON the '.cession''
was made. But what must be regarded as de-
cisive on this point, is the fact that Congress
may tar the citizens Of the District Of Columbia
jast as State Legislature may tax the citizens
Of a State. Sir, the character and genius Of our
free Government preclude, repudiate, and abhor
the idea Of faration without representation. Sir,
the Congress of the United States are the rep
resentatives of the citizens of the District Of Co.
lumba. Congress as a Legislative body, exer-
else. two species Of legislative power over this
District, the one Federal the other municipal
The first limited as to its objects, but co.exten-
sive with the Union. The last, unlimited as
10 shjccts, but imperative beyond the territorial
limits of this District The relation in which
Congress stands 10 the citizens Of the District,
therefore, is twofoId. First as the representa-
tives Of the whole Union and srcond as the To-
cal Legislature of the District. Tn the latter ca
pacity, Congress stand precisely in the same re-
Iation to the citizens Of the District as the State
Legislatures do to the citizens of the States; and
are as much bound, in all their
acts affecting merely this District to obey the
will of,he people residing within the limits oi
the District, as are State Legislatures to ODE, |
the will Of the citizens Of The States Wthoa,
the consent Of the people Of the District, there
fore, Congress have no right to abolish slavery