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

tions passed within lew years after the Ia
nous Declaration Of Rights in lGGS, in which
the right TO petition is recognized as the un-
donbtcd right Of every subject.
Very recently D petition or remonstrance
Of the citizens OF York, Penn. approving The
act Of the President in removing the deposites,
was presented 10 the Senate OF the Uniteo
States and having been read, Mr.. Clay oo:
jected to its reception, and on the question
shall il be received, il was determined III the
negative. Yeas 20, Nays "a. =,
non motion Of Mr.. Preston, the yeas ana
nays being desired by one fifth OF the men'-
bers, those who voted in the affirmative,
were IT.
Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grnndy, Hen
bricks, Hill, Kane, King, Of Alabama. King,
of Georgia, Lyon, M'Kean, Mangum, Morris,
Robinson, Shipley, Talmadge, Upton, White,
Wilkins, Wright-@.
Those who voted in the negative, are
Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ew-
ing, Frelinghuy sen, Kent, Leigh, Moore,
Naudain, Poindexter; Porter, Prentiss, Pres
ton, Robbins, ,Silsbee, Smith, Southard, ,Spraguc,
Swift, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster-H. =.
II was formerly common practice OF this
House, to hear objections from creditors TO
even the reception of petitions for the insol-
vent acts. and their reception was often re-
fused. Neither the English Commons, nor
the Senate Of the United States, nor this
House of Representatives, ever deemed that
the right to petition extended necessarily to
even the reception Of the petition. The Pc
titions were read, and If the House were
against any action upon them, they refused
to receive them. II may be prudent to ex-
anime our own practice, before we condemn
the much less doubtful practice ofthe Nation
al House OF Representatives.
The undersigned then contends, that there
must be point where the right to petition
ends, and the power Of the House commenc-
es; that the Constitution could not intend
that the one right should conflict with the
other; that by an express grant, II has con-
ferred the sole power upon the House the
moment the petition becomes part OF the
proceedings of the House that this proceed
ing is legislative proceeding, in which nc
one can participate but members OF tho
House, duly elected by the people, and rep
rescnting the whole people that even re-
solution Of the House or a law Of Congress
giving to the petitioner any voice in the pro-
ceedings of the House, would be unconslitu-
ional and void, because all the power Is
delegated to the members, and they possess
no power TO delegate any portion OF 1t to 9TH
er individuals that this power in petitioner
to demand any other action Of the House,
than hearing his petition, is not embraced in
Z" the right to petition" because that is right
to individual action, and not right to con-
trol legislative action; that the extent OF this
right, not being defined in the Constitution,
bat wholly by usage, mus, be ascertalned by
usage and that the usage Of every legislative
body in the civilized world is against the
right as now asserted.
The undersigned would remind the House,
that he simply asserts the COnstitufiondiify Of
the resolutions Of Dec. 1898. With their
policy or prudential character we have moth
ing to do. 1t would be highly indecorous in
one legislative body to pass judgment upon
the policy or expcdlency of the action of an
other. Neither can we say, with any regard
to truth or propriety, that these resolutions
have a tendency to impair the right to petit
ion. They are either within the constitu-
tional power of the House or they are not
| If they are, no exercise Of the Constitutional
power of the House, can tend to impair the
Constitutional right Of the petitioner. There
is line that separates the one right from the
other. IF the House has passed that line, i,
has invaded the right OF the petitioner,and its
resolution is unconstitutional. If it has not
no exercise Of power within that line, cor
tend to invade the rights on the other side
any more than the occupation and cultivation
Of one of two adjoining land owners up tc
the dividing line, can tend to iDjure the rights
of the other adjoining owner.
H The undersigned has endeavored to obtain
from those who differ from him, their view s
of the location or position of this dividing line,
but without success. IF the right to petition
is not complete upon the presentation and
reading Of The petition, if all power and con-
troll OF the petitioner over it, is not terminated
the moment the action Of the House COM
mences, when does it terminate? The reso-
luton of Dee. 1888, declares that all papers
on the table or which may be presented dur.
ing the present session, upon the subject Of
slavery, shall lie upon the table, without any
action, debate or reference thereof.
1t should be borne in mind, that there is a
material difference between petitions relating
to private, and petitions relating to public af-
fairs. With the facts of all private petitions,
the members urc usually unacquainted, and O
reference to a committee is the ordinary
mode Of finvestiga them. The final action
Of the House is also upon the petition, by q
vote, granting or rejecting it.
Il The case is entirely differen. in relation to
petitions upon subjects of public nature
The members are presumed to know all the
facts in regard to slavery in the District oi
Columbia, quite as well as the petitioners
The facts that slavery is there tolerated by
law, that slavery is an evil, and that Congress
possess the Constitutional power to remove
it, need not be established by committee
The action of the House is different from its
action upon private petitions. No vote OF
direct action is ever had upon the petitions
themselves. In fact, the petitions are little
more than suggestions Of the petitioners, OF
reasons for or against a particular law. II
those suggestions convince any one or more
Of the members, bill is introduced and the
whole action OF the House is upon the BILL
The petitions are never thought of or noticed,
after the introduction OF bill. On the con-
trary, if the members think the reasons OF
the petitioners Of insufficient weight, no bill
is introduced, and the petitions breathe their
last, upon the table or in the hands Of COM
mlttce. This is tantamount to a rejection of
the petitions. Our own practice is the same.
Disposing of the subject 10 which the petit
ions relate, is disposng Of every petition me-
morlal or paper now before US, or which may
be presented during the present session.
We have before us numerous petitions upon
license laws. is it not constitutional to re.
solve that we will not act upon that subject
at the present session : Would not such a
III aaol,,,;,, .nJ eTo.,.ali,,