Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1839-03-07
From the Providence Journal.
TIE RIGHT OF PETITION.

| The refusal of the General Assembly o.
Rhode Island to condemn the Atberton r'so-
lutions has caused not a little surprise ,ud
modification amongst the Wings, whcreve,
il has been heard. The Wings Of other
States have uniformly regarded these resolu-
tons not only ns exceedingly odiou,, but ~
directly and palpably unconstitutional. Such
is the opinion Of the House Of Representa-
tves Of New York as expressed by their
resolutions, such the unanimous expression
of opinion by the Wing Convention of Mas
sachusetts. We regretted the course taken
by our General Assembly, the more because
it looked like an abandonment Of our repre-
scntatves in Congress, whose stand upon
the subject has done credit TO themselves
and to the State which they represent. They
stood up, as we trust the Representatives Of
Rhode Island ever will, the uncompromising
advocates Of the freedom ofspccch and tho
right Of petition and in that stand they will
be sustained by the people. We have no
hesitation IN declaring that the course Of our
representatives in this respect, will meet with
the appreciation Of three quarters Of the free.
men Of Rhode Island.
| 1t will be remembered by those who paid
any attention to The controversy in the Gene.
raj Assembly, that the two parties differed as
to the question whether abolition petitions
were read in the House, under the Atherton
Resolutions. The friends Of the resolutions
contcndcd that they were rcad, that is, that
their contents were made known; the oppo-
nents Of the resolutions, on the other hand,
contended that they were not read, and all
admitted TINT if the resolutions were not
rend Tor their contents made known the
right of petition was most outrsceously yio.
lated.
| For our own part we did not consider that
the mere form Of reading or making known
the contents Of petition, when the power
appealed to had solernDly bound itself TO take
no action upon it, was Of any value. Still,
as the question was regarded as one Of vital
importance, we wished to ascertain from the
bes, authority the fncts in the cnse, and ss.
cordingly wrote a note to the Hon. Robert
B. Cranston requesting him TO inform U.S.
The following is the reply we have received.
We should have published il before, but il
arrived during our absence from the city. md
was not opened until we returned.
u. s. House Of Representatives.. ,
WAsHINGroN, Feb. %, 1889. (
Dear Sir-I have yours of the 10Th Instant.
requesting me 10 sinte whether abolition De.
tltions ore allowed 10 be read in the House
of Reprcsc natives.
by The standing rules Of the House mcm.
Der presenting petition, may make IN bref
verbal statement of its contents" he is not
permitted Ia read IL, nor will the House allow
!, 10 be read at the table, If 1t relates to sls-
very.
The prd, fice under the .qihtyfon r,soiuiisns
is rR.cisrLY THE SAME as Il sras under the
Patton resolutions and they declared in %
many nrorts ihnt abolition ptiifions SHOULD
NOT BE READ.
This. IN my view, is a mockery Of the right
of petition. and worse than IL would be to
close the door, and r.. fuse 10 receive them at
NIL. ] am your, truly.
X. Is. CRhNSTON.