The native American., 1839-03-02
ner tina. State Legislatare may 40 viii resarl

this STATE or local capacity are necesssrih lsas
tied in their operation 10 Inc District OF Celun
bia, precisely as State law sconfnsd in lis ops
Grafton to the State limits. II the laws passed
BY Congress in their local Legislative capacity.
had the effect of United States laws the banks
Of this District wonld be United States banks
and the insurance companies United Statesman.
rance companies.
| The District of Columbia is, in all respects,
whether as sovereignty or as community, as
much independent of the Federal Legislature,
when acting in their Federal capacity as are
Georgia and North Carolina, or as those States
are Of each other. The Federal Legislature,
therefore, as such, possess no more power over
the subject Of slavery within the limits Of this
District, than they do that subject within the
limits Of those States. Consequently, Congress
are no more bound to receive petitions from the
citizens Of the States praying for the abolition Of
slavery in the District Of Columbia, than the Lee
gislaure OF a sovereign and independent State
would be bound to receive petitions from the
citizens of another sovereign and independent
State; or, than the Legislature of State would
be bound to receive petitions from the citizens Of
the District of Columbia, touching the domestic
interests and internal police ofsuch State. Hence
the popular fallacy with regard 10 the right Of
petition. The question is not as to the right Of
petition, but as to the destination or direction
which petitions should take. Admitting that the
citizens Of a State have right to petition their
Legislature, touching any subject of grievance.
over which the Legislature may have jurisdiction,
and that the citizens Of the United States have
also right to petition the Federal Legislature on
all subjects Of Federal character, does it follow,
therefore, that the citizens of one State have a
right to petition the Legislature Of another State,
concerning its domestic institutions and internal
police? Or, that citizens of the United States
have right to petition the Federal Legislature
on subject that is not Federal, but strictly local
| in it's character, and with which the petitioners
have no right to intermeddle! Certainly not.
And as the citizens of Vermont or Connecticut,
for example, have no more right to interfere with
the domestic institutions of the District Of Column
bia than they have with the domestic institutions
Of the State of Maryland or Of Virginia, which is
just none at all, they might, with the same pro-
priety petition the Legislatures Of those States to
abolish slavery within their limits, as to petition
the local Legislature Of this District to abolish
slavery within its limits. And as it would not.
and could not, be considered denial of the right
of petition the part Of the Legislature of either
of those States to reject such petitions, SO neither
could it be regarded as denial of such right for
Congress, the local Legislature of the District OF
Columbia, land it has been already shown that il
is only in this local capacity that Congress can
have jurisdiction over the subject at al,) to re-
ject similar petitions from citizens of those or
any other States. II matters not, therefore, wheth
Ter Congress have the power TO abolish slavery
within the District Of Columbia or not, as Con-
gress is not bound, in either case, 10 receive petit
tions from the citizens Of the States touching the
subject Of slavery within this Dis,rict-such citi
zens having'nn right to Interfere Wi this, or any
other subject Of internal police whiH the Distract
What, sir-coud II be regarded a. tcnia cfs'ie
legitimate erercise n isFr risft II csitioT On
the part of Congress 10 reject petilic, from ,iti-
zens of the States praying Congress to narrow or
widen the streets in this city, or in the city Of
Georgetown, or Of Alexandria, or to repeal The
charters of the incorporated companies within
this District, otherwise TO change, alter, or in
any way to affect the municipal institutions or in
ternal police Of The District! No man, / appre-
bend, will SO allege. And why not? For the
reason, sir, that the petitioners would have no
right or authority to intermeddle with the local
rights and interests Of an independent community
IA community as absolutely independent Of the
petitioners, in all the respects just mentioned, as
are the municipalities of Francel And as the in
stitution Of slavery in The District Of Columbia,
as well as in the slave States, is, in all respects,
and TO all mtents and purposes, local in its cha
racter, Congress are no more bound 10 entertain
petitions from citizens of the States, asking for its
abolition, thanlf such petitions related TO the mu-
nicpal institutions Of foreign country. If Con-
gress would not be bound to receive petitions in
the one case, they would not in the other; and,
consequently, if it would not be denial Of the
right Of petition to reject, in the one case, it
would not be SO in the other. repeat, then,
that whether Congress have the power 10 abolish
slavery within the District of Columbia, or not,
il cannot be regarded as denial of the right of
petition for Congress to reject petitions from ci,i-
zens of the States, praying for the exercise Of
such right, no more than it would be for them to
reject petitions from the subjects Of foreign pow
er, asking for similar action. Were the institu-
ton Of slavery, in the District of Columbia, gen
eral and national in its character, instead Of being,
as il is, strictly and essentially local and munich
pal, then would the citizens of the States, grant,
be authorized to petition the National Legisla-
ture concerning it; and the National Legislature,
recognising the right Of petition, would be bound
to receive such petitions, if couched in respectful
language. But under our existing form of CO.
vernment, and under existing circumstances, Con-
gress are not bound, and in truth have no legiii-
ma