Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1839-02-28

been exercised In many cases TO Q much
greater extent, and for less cogent reasons
than. exist in the case under consideration.
What then is the right to petition rs es-
tsblished by the practice Of 500 years, and
limited and defined by that practice. II is a
right 10 do certain individual acts, not in con-
junction with the House or Tribunal appeal
ed 10, but wholly independent of that Tribu.
nal. Il is a constitutional, and consequently
. legal right, like the right to sue in Court
Of Justice. They are alike remedial rights
end equally sacred in the eye Of the Constitu.
tion. ''f. -et"
The undersigned lays great stress upon
this definition Of the right to petition, that
like the right to sue, it is right in the indi,
vidual TO do certain individual acts, unaided
and uncontrolled by the Tribunal to which
his Petition is addressed, and that Il does not
and cannot interfere with the power OF that
Tribunal to regulate it's rules OF proceedings
The power of the House to regulate its own
action upon the petition, never can interfere
with the equally sacred right of the petitioner
10 regulate his own individual action. II any
Court should prevent Plaintiff from pnr-
cha ing and serving a writ, and entering his
al - In Court, the Judges would be person
ally responsible in damages for such an inter-
ference. II is a legal right, for the violation
of which the individual is entitled TO his legal
remedy. If this or any other House Of Rep
resentatives should prevent petitioner from
doing any individual act embraced in "the
right 10 petition" each member so interfering
would be personally liable to damages, for
that too is legal right, for the violation OF
which the individual would be entitled to his
appropriate legal remedy. These individual
acts consist in right in any number OF men
peaceabIy to assemble, to deliberate upon
their grievances, to draw petition in their
ow n language and sentiments, and to present
the petition and read il, or make lis contents
known, to the House appealed to. All these
nre acts of the individuals, or such individual
agents as they may employ. The House
does not participate in these acts. From the
first to the last II exercises no control over
the individual action of the petitioner. From
the first to the last there is no joni act Of the
House and the petitioner. All that the pc
titioner can do, he does alone. lie is the
sole arbiter of his own conduct On the 9TH
er hand all that the House can do it does by
itself II is the sole arbter Of its own con-
duct, but its right TO act does not commence
until the petitioner has performed all the in
dividual acts embraced in "the right 10 pe-
tition." He must put the petition in posses
sion Of the House, make II a part Of the bu-
sness OF the House and invoke the action Of
the House upon it, before the power Of the
House over it attaches. When that power
attaches, all power Of the individual ceases,
aud no exercise Of the power pf the House
can interfere with the right to petition, be-
ca0se the whole right TO petition must be ex-
ercised and enjoyed TO its full extent, before
the petition becomes proceeding Of the
House.
A party can never be interrupted in the
exercise of right If from It's very nature It
must be fully exercised before it comes to
the possession of the tribunal appealed to.
II must be borne in mind, that the right 10
petition is mere right to ask, not right to
demand, and every right to ask necessarily
implies duly in the House to hear; but a
right to ask and be heard, necessarily implies
q right to refuse, and to refuse in any mode
or form the House may dictate. Both the
power to ask and the power to refuse may be
abused, but On abuse Of power is a political
not legal injury. 1t is an abuse, and O
fraudulent. abuse, of the power to petition, t.
obtain the names of hundreds of children un
der ten years of age, aud to let them pass as
persons whose opinions arc entitled to weight
The Undersigned has been informed that this
has been done by the managers Of the aboit-
ion petitions now before this House. Ii is
an abuse of the power, but still the petitioners
possess the power. ii is u political evil, not
n legal injury. So the House may abuse its
just and necessary powers but that, too, is
a political evil, and the remedy is by the bal
lot box, and not by an action at law. Will
any lawyer contend that if my constitutional
right TO petition is violated, have not a re-
medy at.law against any one who aids in its
vioation? But will any one contend that
these petitioners before Congress possess
any legal remedy against the House or the
members who voted for the resolutions Of
December 18th? And why will he not?-
Because it does not violate the right 10 pet-
ton, or to do any individual act embraced in
that right. If there is any abuse of the pow
ers of the House in those resolutions, the
remedy is q political remedy, because the
tpiL is political.
A law Of Congress which controls the &C.
ton Of the individual out of doors, would
have interfered with the right to petition, and
therefore alb such laws were prohibited. But
"A resolution of either House, acts not upon
the proceedings or acts Of the individual, but
upon its own proceedings in the House, after
the individual has enjoyed his right, and
therefore the trainers of the Amendments to
the Constitution saw that a power in the
House to determine its own proceedings,
never could interfere with the power Of the
individual to determine his proceedings
Until the present excitement, the undersign-
ed believes that no such extended right to
petition was ever contepded for. II ia not
only right to petition, but right as now
construed to dictate to the House what dis.
position the House should make Of the petit
tion. After hearing it, the House must act,
and as /: must control its own action, it may
refuse even to receive the petition,as appears
by the following precedents.
On the 9th April, 1864, a petition was ten
dered to the House, relating to the bill for
granting to their Majesties several duties up
on the tonnage Of ships; and the question
being put, that the petition be received, it
passed in the negative.
On the 2Sth April, 1868, petition was Of
fered to the House against the bill for laying
n duty upon inland pit-coal, and the question
being put, that the petition be received, !,
passed in the negative.
Similar votes also passed on the 29th and
Both June. l69S.upon duties relating to Scotch
linens and whale fins imported.
On the 5th February, 1903, q petition from
the maltsters being offered against the bill
for continuing the duty on alt,and the ques-
ton being put, that the petition be brought
inf In