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


| principal cause, II not the most powcrtu
cause of the present troubles that this mod
OF constantly rejecting their petitions, ant
refusing to hear their agents, would lnfallibl.
end IN universal rebellion; and not unnatu
rally, as those seem TO give up the right o
govc rnment " hO refuse To hear The complaint,
If the suhject."-( American Archives, vol.
p. 1892
But the author Of the argument, apparent
y distrusing the authority Of his precedent
rom the Journal of the British House OF Com
mons, has endeavorcd I, strengthen them b.
a rece mt decision in tie Senate OF the Unite'
States still more unfortunate for him, il pos
slblc, than those drawn from beyond the seas
The Senate Of the United States, it seems
on the 18th Of March, 1894, on the motion o
Nr. Clay, refused to receive what the argn
mcni calls petition or rc'nonstrance OF th'
citizens of York, Pennsylvania, approving th'
act Of the President in removing the depo
SITES, presented by The presiding officer o
that body. The yeas and nays were callc'
by Mr.. Preston, and the reception of the pa
per was refused by vote Of "a to 20.
But this refusal To receive rested upon sc
veral grounds, none ofwhIch abridged in iht
slightest degree the right Of petition; but al
Of which, on the contrary, marked the high
est respect for it. The paper was not pc
ti,ion, though it may properly be termed I
remonstrance. Ii was n series OF resolutions
approving the removal of the dcposites, ant
protesting against the recharter of the Banl
IF the United States, certified TO have beer
adopted at meeting Of citizens o: YORK
Pennsy ylvania. II was presented by the Nict
President in a mutilated condition one o.
the resolutions, grossly insulting to member
OF the Senate, having been previously struck
out by authority of the Senators from Penn
sylvania. Another Of tho resolutions, iinput-
ing corruption 10 the majority Of the Senate
had not been struck out; but one Of the
Senators from Pennsy ylvania said that il ought
to have been, and would have been, If he had
noticed IT before the presentation.
MIR. Preston who called for the yeas and
nays on the question of reception, said that
the memorial, in its inutilated state, was not
that which had been transmitted from the
meeting. and could not be received as their
voice. Mr.. Webster rend a protest against
the paper, signed by 53 persons who had
be en- present at the meeting, and a letter
stating that the pretended resolutions had
not been adopted at the meeting, but rejected
by a majority of at least three to one.
The following are some of the observations
Of MIR. Clay, on making the motion not TO re-
csire the paper:
from South Carolina that the paper had lost
its identity. That it is not memorial COM
ing from any portion of the people OF York
county; that II was not such paper as they
had transmitted for the purpose of being
transmitted to the Senate /; and therefore
that it could not be- received, unless it was
a limited that while n paper was IN tra',s'in
nay, what was worse, while in the hands OF
the officers of this House, paper might be
changed in its character, and made n new
and altered instrument altogether. From
the conclusion to which the honorable Sena.
tor from South Carolina had come, it was
perfectly evident that if they who made il
had right To make an erasurr, they had al
so the right of insertion. .Vo,c, u they coutd
10 eittr Of these things, Then. he wo,dd ask.
rhat Ind become of The right of petition III
sarrtd AMI inriotoJie right. and one that ought
10 be pr'scrred and maintained inrioiatc, as IL
had been IN all timrs heretofore 2"
Again: ale would move the Senate that
the petition be not received, and he made the
motion on all the grounds which had been
stated. lie made II, in the first place, be-
cause the memorial had lost its identity /:
because It was not genuine document (;
because it had been altered because It was
not the sane paper that had been transmit
ted To the Senate. And he made it also on
the slme ground that had been taken by the
gentleman from Nlississippi; that it was
couched in language which ought not 10 be
addressed to That body, and was unbeconing
those vi no employed it, and ough. not to be
received"
And thus this precedent, instead Of coun-
'"nancing the doctrine OF an arbitrary right
Dl refusal by the Senate to receive petitions,
IS the most conclusive of authorities to the
For here the vote on both sides
was in favor of the right of petition both
agreeing ;hat disrcspcctiul language was a
sufficient reason for refusing to receive bu,
one side, from reverence for the right Of pc
tl,icn, being of opinion that the presiding
officer Of the Senate might authorize the
striking ont from a petition the offensive part
and the Senate would be bound to receive
the rest while the other side, from the same
reverence, held that there was no power in
the Senate or its President to alter a petition
Dr memorial but that it must be received
"
all. Ii is needless to add, that in all the re-
cent questions in the Senate upon the recep-
tion OF the abolition petitions, Mr.. Cay's
opinion has always been for receiving them.
There is one point of view in which this
recurrence to prccedents in the British House
IF Commons as authority for refusal by either
House of Congress TO receiue petitions, is so
important that it calls not only for your pro
found attention, but for that of the whole
people of the Union.
1t appears from these preccdcnts that there
Is one subject of great and general interest.
upon which it is The habitual though not
practice of The House of Commons
to refuse TO receive pctitions-and that sub.
ject is tordiiOn.
IL appears also, that this standing order of
the House of Commons, repeatedly rcsortcd
I, by the refusal to receive the petitions of
the colonies against the acts for taxing them,
was one of the original causes Of the Ameri-
can Revolution.
But it appears farther, that even IN the
House Of Commons this practice is confined
to the single subject Of taxation, and to that
only upon tax bills in the process of enact.
ment. The remarks OF IIatsell upon the
practice, after citing all the prccedcnts con.
cernlny it, are lnll of admonilion to ns.
We learn (s,ys hey from an examination OF
all these instances, that this practice has been
confined, as it ought TO be most strictly, to
the refusing to receive such petitions only
as object ayaInSt n tax which lmposinu far