Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-05-09

nipo,ency Of the prince on the one hand,
and the impolency Of The subject OH the
other. Under such circumstances, it was
not only natural but polite for the subject
sovereign in the abject language Of supplI-
calion-ot petition. But, sir, does it be-
come American freemen, the sovereign
peopte-in rkom all poUer resides-to APP
proach their represenlatives-thelr agents
their -ervants-the creatures ol their
own making-with the atjecl, serviie Ian
guage OF petition, prayer, supplicatlon
No, sir, No! Thank God! 1t is the peculiar
province, the proud privilege of the Ameri-
can people, 10 speak to those III power OH
all subjects of general political moment, in
lhe polent aud authoritative language Of
inStruction-of dtctdtiOn. Aud who will
affirm that the right 10 instruct, to dictate,
does mol supersede the poor privilege TO
petition! What, sir, shall il be deemed
privilege for The creator to suppiicate The
creature? The mostsr to petition the SER
rant! Why, sir, this would be inverling
the order Of things with witness. hold
That it is not behtting the American people
10 address the language of prayer-of pc
tition-of supplication-to any power save
that Of Almighty power. When lreemen
pray, let them supplicate the only power
superior to ,heir'own-the God of the Uni
verse
But, sir, it is not my intention to dwell
longer, at this time, on this subject. On
some future day | may enter fully into
discussion of this question. 1t shall now
he my object to prove-admiting The right
of petition, as now do, in all lis length
ahd breadth-that the citizens of The
States have no right to petition Congress
to abolish slavery in ihe District of Colum
bia. Let nn man charge me with desire
to stranse the right of petition in order 10
make out my case. | hold that am not
obnoxious to the charge. | am the last
mau that would attempt, by word or deed,
directly or indirectly, TO embarraS or a
bridge the Legitimate exercise of any valu-
able right. Nor, sir. would bring any
important privilege into disrepule or con-
empt by the abuse of it. And | contend
that il is as much an abuse of This privilege
for the citizens of the States, and espe-
cially the -slaveholding States, to petit
tion the American Congress to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, as it
would he for such citizens 10 petition the
Parliament Of Great Britain, or the
French Chamber of Deputies, for like
purpose; Or as it would be for the citizens
Of Maine to petition The Legislature of
Virginia 10 abolish slavery within the lin.
its of that State. No man, in the posses
sion Of his wits, having the least acquan.
tance with The character Of our Govern
ment, will assert that it would be denial
Of the right Of petition, for The Legislature
of Virginia to reject petitions from the Gil
izeus of the State of Maine praying Tor
the abolition Of slavery. And if it would
mol he denial of the right Of petition in
this case, how can it be denial Of that right
for the Legislature Of this District TO re-
Ject petitions OF like import from citizens
of the States? Would it not he equally
proper for the citizens of the District of
Columbia, to petition the Legislature Of
Massachusetts, to pass laws for the relief
and melioration of the condition Of the la
borers employed in the manufactures Of
thai Stale, as for the citizens of MasSachu
sets to petition Congress to abolish slave
ry in the District of Columbia? If a re-
jection of petitions would mol he denial
of the right Of petition in the one case. how
could il be so in the other! For / con-
tend. and shall show most conrIusively,
that The citizens of The District of Coum-
ola Eave The same right TO interfere in the
internal police Of Massachusetts, that the
ci,izrns Of Massachusetts have to interfere
in the internal police of the District of CO.
lumbia.
II will be perceived by the House, from
what have stated, that regard Congress
Us the local Legislature of This District
standing in the same relation. in one re-
spect, to the citizens Of the District, as do
the State Legislatures to the citizens of the
States. Entertaining this opinion, then,
l contend that The rejection by Congress-
Of petitions, coming from citizens Of any Of
the States. praying for The abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia, is no
more denia! of the right of petition than
it would he for the Legislature Of Mary
land, Of Arkansas to reject petitions com
ing from citizens Of Vermont or Rhode
island, praying for the abolition of slave
ry. 1t will be conceded by alI-at leas,
by all protesting the Democratic faith
that "eyery free citizen must be repre-.
sented;" aud that the power Of the repre-
sentative is derived from the will of the re-
presented. Ttis elementary principle of
the American Constitution forms the basis
of all legislation. This, being so, il fol-
lows, that tho free citizens of this District
must be represented" Previous to the
cessiou of the 'ien miles square," by The
States of Maryland and Virginia, the citi-
zens of these States residing within she
present limits Of this District were repre-
sen;ed by The respective Legislatures of
these States. And as neither Virginia
.,nr Mainland had the nouer On Enr 70 IL.