Cheraw gazette and Pee Dee farmer. [volume] (Cheraw S.C.) 1838-1839, 1839-04-05

of petition, because their voice could ony
reach the throne through the medium ofsup
pIica,on-of petition. 1t was the omnIPo
tency of the prince on the one hand, anc
The impo,ency OF the subject on the other
Under such circumstances, it was not only
natural but polite for the subject 10 address
the sovereign in the abiect language of sup
plication-of petition. But, sir, does 1t be-
come American frcemen. the sovereign peo'
ple-in whom all power resi- es-t' ap'
proach their rcpresentatives-ther agents
their servants-the creatures of their own
makng--wi,h the abect. scrvilc language
of petition, payer, supplicatlon No SIT
No! Thank God! it is the peculiar pro-
vince, the proud privilege oflhe American
people, to speak 20 those in power, on all
sub ects Of general political moment, IN me
potent ard authoritative language OF 'nsruc-
tion--of dicta;ion. And who will ath'm
! that the right to instruct, to dictate does 5
not supcrsedc the poor privilege TO pet'i!,oh
What, sir; shall it be deemed i privilege
for the creator 10 supplcate the ereaure
The master to petition the servant Wny'
sir this would be investing the order OF th'nss
with witness. | hold that it's not oefI,'ns
the American people to address the IAN
guage Of prayer-of pettion--ot saPP"ea.
tion--to any power save to that OF h'i'sh9
power. When freemen pray let them sup
pca:e the only power superior 10 u'e'r
! own--,bo God of the Universe,
But, sir, i. is not my intention to dwell
longer, a, this time, on the subject. On
some future day may enter fully into a
discussion orlhis question. 1t shall now be
nv objec, TO prove-adm,t;ng the right OF
petition, as now do, in all It's length anu
bread,h--,hat The citizens OF the STATES nave
no right 10 petition Congress TO abolish sia'
very in the District of Columbia. Let no
man charge me with desire to s'rangie inc
| right of petition in order 10 nuke out my
case. lhold that am not obnoxious to the
charge. am the last man that would at
tempt, by word or deed, directly or indirect
ly, TO cmbarrass or abridge the legitimate
exercise OF any valuable right. Nor, sir,
would I bring any important privilege into
dispute or contempt by the abuse OF IT,
And contend that it is as much an abuse
Of this privilege for the citizens ofthc States,
and especially TO the non.sIaveholding
States, to petition the American Congress
10 abolish slavery in the District Of Colum.
bia as it would b. for such citizens to pet.
ton the Parliament ofGrea, Britain, or the
French Chamber of Deputies, for like
purpose: or as it would be for the citizens
Of Name to petition the Legislature of Vir-
gina 20 abolish slavery within the limits OF
that State. No man, in the possession OF
his wits, having the least acquaintance with
The character Of our Government, will as
s 1T that it would be denial ofthc right Of
petition, for the Legislature Of Virginia to
reject petitions from the citizens of the State
of Maine praying for the abolition of slavery.
And ifit would not be denial of the right
in this case, how can It DC de.
niaI ofthat right for the Legislature of this
District to reject petitions oflike import from
citizens of the Sta!es? Woul1 it uot be
equally proper for the citizens ofthe District
Of Columbia 10 petition the Legislature OF
Mass ochusetts to pass laws for the relief
and moderation of the condition of the la~
borers employed in the manufactures OF that
State, as for the citizens Of Massachusetts to
petition Congress to abolish slavery IN the
District of Columbia? If rejection of pc.
ltions would not be denial OF the right OF
petition in the one case, how could it be so
in the other? For contend, and shall
show most conclusively, that the citizens
ofthe District of Columbia have the same
right TO interfere IN the internal police OF
Massachusetts, tha: the citizens OF Massa.
chusetts have TO interfere IN the Internal pol.
ice Of the District Of Columbia.
1t will be perceived by the House, from
wha, have stated, that regard Congress
as the local Legislature of this District; !;
standing in the same relation, in one resp CT
to the citizens Of the District, as DO the State
Legislatures to the citizcns Of the States.
Entertaining this opinion, then, ! contend
that the rejection by Congress Of petitions,
coming from citizens Of any Of the States,
praying for the abolition Of slavery in the
District of columbia, is no more denial oil
the right of petition than it would be for the
Legislature Of Maryland or Of Arkansas 10
reject petitions coming from, citizens ofVer'
mont or Rhode Island, praying for the abo.
ltion of slavery. 1t will 5e conceded by all
at least by all protesting the Democratic
faith-that 'every free citizen must be rep
resented ;" and that the power Of tie repre-
sentative is derived from the will OF The rep
resented. This elementary principle OF The
American constitution forms The basis fall
legislation. This being so, it follows, that
the Tree citizens Of this District "mus: be
represented" Previous to the cession OF
the ",en miles square," by the States OF
o,l I;rr;oio tho nt th(Sn