Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1839-05-16

| hihAlHi, 'hhl WncTe 'beTe w no remeuy tneT
is no right. If King Of England commit
murder, by this maxim he does no wrong
aud violates no right. II Is an abuse Il
power-a political and not legal wrong.
Asa se:-oif, TO justify this abuse of powe
in the House, which is a political and moi
legal injury, and for which the sufferer lla
no remedy but the ballot box, the author o
the argument ofiirms ,hu, It is an abuse an
fraudulent abuse of the power TO petition
to obtain the names Of hundreds of childrcI
under ten years of age, and to let them pas
as persons whose opinions are entitled Il
weight. That the opinions at children undr
ten years OF age are not entitled To weight
| depends upon the subject to which the opln
ions relate. The right of petition, as ,h'
| argument observes. ~ mere right To ASK
winch children are quite as competent to eX
ercse Us the hoary headed. This objection
to the signing of petitions by children b.
longs 10 the same school with that whicl
holds II nnbccoming ~ cOmtn. 1t ls No
much in The spirit of Him who said, Suffe
little children to come unto me, and forbl'
them not. As for letting the names of chill
dren pass ms of persons whose opinions art
entitled to weight, If there has been an,
misrepresentation of the names Of childrei
IA being the names of adults, it might de-
serve the charge of being fraudulent; bu
The right of petition depends in no sort what
ever on the weight of the opinions Of tn,
petitioners. The right TO ask, as the argu
mcnt comedies, necessarily implies the dut,
To hear, and not only 10 hear, but TO consider
In that consideration, the weight OF opinions
10 which the petitioners are entitled, the ngr
the ser, the condition, the moral character, und
the numbers OF the petitioners, may be all
important to The proper final disposal OF th'
petition by the House but the duty OF thu
House to c0nsid,r is as binding upon The
House as the duty 10 hear, and as necessarily
implied in The right of petition. The rlgh
OF the House TO reject the prayer of petition
has never been contested, nor have | ever
denlct! that the exercise of that right is dis
crc'lonnry; hut 1t is not arbitrary. The re
insal to receire petition is an arbitrary
abrldgment of tho petitioners right. A re-
fnsal TO grant the prayer of petition is the
exercise OF discretionary and strictly con-
stltutional power.
On the petitions which have presented
to The House there are the names of many
children from 10 and II to 81 years of age ::
IN some of them whole columns Of minors.
mule and iemHl", with the age of each lndi-
vldual at the side of the name. consider
the right Of children Of are to sign their
names to petition as perfect as that Of their
fathers, even legal voters nor should deem
It fraudulent if, among the tens and hundreds
OF thousands Of names subscribed To the Pc
tlilons which have presented, there should
be many hundreds of children under ten
years Of age, without notice of lie fact.
There Is, no doubt, among some of the
ardent abolltlonists, an excessive zeal tn ln-
crease the number of signers to their pcti-
lions, and that It has occasionally prompted
rypedients unwarrantable in themselves, and
which would forfeit even the right OF having
their petitions considered or presented. il
have received several petitions which ! have
not thought II my duty 10 present. ! have
presented many without knowing who the
petitioners were, or whence they came
The refusal of the House to consider any OF
ihcm has relieved me from the necessity OF
aulhentlcatlng the signatures, or Of dlscrlmi
mating between those which it was the dut,
OF the House To consider, and those which i
might reject. did present one which the
House refused to receire, on the ground that
1t was dsrespec,tul To the House; and al
though voted for its reception because
did not think it Intentionally disrespcctful,
admitted explicitly the right OF the House To-
refuse to receive a petition upon thnt ground.
The creates. fallacy of the argument to
which now refer, is, the inference from the
right Of the House TO reject petition for
good md special reasons that it has an arbi.
irary right Of refusal to receire any petition
and very naturally it proceeds, from the
maxim Of The English law, that the King can
do no wrong, or, IN other words. that where
there is no remedy, there is no right-to Il G
authority of precedenis in the British House
of Commons.
II cannot but strike any person acquainted
with the history of The American revolution
as strange, that precedcnts in the British
House Of Commons should be addnccd as
authority for an arbitrary power of refusal to
receive petitions in american Legislative as.
semLIies. 1t is no doubt standing order OF
the British House Of Commons to, receive no
petitions against the imposing Of d,ities-and
the author of the argument might have added
that this was the main cause of the American
revolution. Every one of the prccedentS
cited by him as authorities for the refusal By
the British House Of Commons to receive
petitions was upon bills for imposing dulles.
There was a precedent much more To The
poInt VI tHis ConttONtTsy lHdn hII tHesC, W HCD
The author Of the argument has not thought
proper to cite, but 10 which now call your
attention TO show what is the worth or al
thority Of precedcnts in the British House of
Commons, TO justify refusal to receire pc
titions by an American legislative assembly.
in the journal of the House of Commons
Of Thursday, Goth January, l7775, is found the
cn'ry:-
"Sr George Saville offered 10 present n
petition Of William Bollon, Benjamin Frank.
lin, and Arthur Lee, Esqs stating themselves
to have been authorized by the persons who
signed one OF tho papers presented to the
House by Lord North, upon Thursday last,
by his Najesiy's command, intituled Petition
Of sundyy persons on Jehnirof themselves and
the inhabitants gf serern Qf his .Nyesiys col
onies IN .4mericd,' to procure the said papers
to be presented 10 his Majesty, and praying
that they may be heard at the bar Of this
House ~ support thereof.
"And the question being put that the said
petition bc brought up,
"The House diviGed-ycas GS, noes 2lS.
$50 it passed in the negative"
The paper intituled Petition of sundry per
sons, &c. was tho petition Of the first Con.
grcss Of the 2Gth of October, IVA, 10 the
Kng-wbich by his command Lord North
had presented TO the House Of Commons.
Here is n precedent far more instructive
than the whole cluster OF those from April
1864 TO 1872, so shortly after the famous