The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1839-05-02

srd broad extent If his power Of the
Uopse. AMI 70 men fsls deeper soliei-
tuae "a guarl and completely prOiecs Hhe
populsr powsrs of the press, she freedom
Of spesrh. AMI The night 10 petition
VS. iii not the amendments repeal 50
murh 4 the power Of each House 10 de-
te,mins he rules Of is proceedings -
a.. Inconsistent uilh the freedom OF
,Dssch, of the press. or the right 20 Pc
,l,ion! Why merely protect these rights
from invasion By . law Of Congress. and
leave Them 81 the mercy Of either House.
By The original constitution, the House
possessed The undonbled power n pass
= resolution in the very words Of The re-
solution Of December. 1888: "Ihat eve
nv ps,i,ian, memorial. resolution. propo-
silian, or paper. touching or relating, IN
any way or To sny extent whatever. 20
slavery a. Aforesaid. or tic abolition
thereof, shall. on Ihe presentation there
of. wiihou, any further action thereon,
be laid on The liable. without being de-
baled. printed. orrsferrsd." This pow
er, too was grsn'ed 10 The House in sr-
prsss terms. II was, therefore. we'll
known powsr. The Convention Of the
states which proposed these amendments,
was jealous Of the powers conferred by
the original Constitution, and The object
of the amendments was 10 guard against
their abuse. The members of that Con-
ven,iou we're among the abless Of The
times. and intimately acquainted with the
Constitution. and with the established
usases oil legislative bodies; and the sim .
pie reason for protecting the right Of Pc
ii.ion IRON q Law Of Congress, and not
protecting i. from The power Of the House
TO regulate its own proceedings. was,
that the right itself. as il had existed for
ages. as il had been praelised upon in
England and in this county. was q right
uhlch could be invaded by a law Of Con-
eress, because a law OF Congress would
operate upon individuals. and individual
action. out Of doors. by making IL penal
TO write or sign q petition. They well
knew that no resolution Of either House.
in relation 10 its own proceedings. could.
by any possibility. operate upon the right
20 petition.
Il must be observed that the right 10
petition has never been defined by any
statute or written Law in England or this
country. lis value and importance have
never been called into question still the
extent Of the right. al the time Of adop-
ling The Constitution, and even down to
the present period. has never been defn-
ed. except by legislative usage. When
the trainers Of the amendments 10 the
Constitution recognized "lhs right 10 Pc
ti,ion." they necessarily intended The
RICH, Ina, had been prsc.ised upon in the
English and American Legislaiures.--
Practice. being The basis. is also the linn
IL and sxtsnt OF the right. In England.
and in all the legislative bodies in this
country, this right 10 petition had been
constantly exercised, and at the same
time the power Of each House 10 determ-
inc the rules Of its proceedings has also
been exercised, in many cases, to a much
greater extent. aud for less cogent rea-
sons than exist in the case under consid.
GRAFTON.
What. then. is the right 10 petition, as
established BY the practice of FIVE hun.
bred years. and limited and defined By
that practice! II is q right 10 do certain
individual acts. not in conjunction with
The House or tribunal appealed TO. but
wholly independent Of that tribunal. i,
is a constitutional, and consequently .
legal. right. like the right to sue in a
court Of justice. They are alike rene
dial rights. and equally sacred in the
eye Of The Constitution.
The undersigned lays great stress up.
on this definition Of the RICH, Of petition.
that, like the RICH. to sue, il is a RICH, in
the individual TO do certain individual
sets. unaided and uncontrolled by the lri-
bunsl 10 which his petition is addressed,
and that il does not and cannot interfere
with the power of that tribunal TO regu-
late its rules Of proceedings. The pow
81 IL the House to regulate its own &C.
ton upon the petition never can interfere
with the equally sacred right Of the Pc
hIioner TO regulate his own individual
action. II any court should proven. a
plaintiff from purchasing aud serving .
~ns. and entering his action in court, The
Judges would be personally responsible
N damages for such an interference. II
Is legal RICH. for the violation Of which
the individual is entitled 10 his legal re-
medy. II this or any other House OF
Representatives should prevent petition
er IRON doing any individual act embrac-
ed IN the "righ. 10 petition" each mem.
Der so interfering would be personally
liable TO damages, for that. too. is te-
gdt right. Tor the violation of which the
individual would be entitled TO his sppro-
PIRATE legal remedy. These individual
acts consist IN right in any number Of
men peaceabIy 10 assemble, TO deliberate
upon their grievances, 10 draw a petition