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

pedient Tor sfnotncrihI ufnh'c. IL " J'slI
fable, after q aproposition has been thorough,
debated, and the minority manifest dispo
rition To prevent the decision By speaking
against time hut the application of il to .
new, uncoDsidered proposition, is total sup
preston of the freedom of speech, and takes
from, the assembly where il is practiscd, al
pretension of being a deliberative body.
All the resolutions were voted for by many
members, who. il discussion had been nj
lowed, would have voted against them.
voted against them all, and, imme ediaiey siie
the last of them had passed, asked leave Il
offer, rs my Justification, the following rcso
luton; RESOLVED, That the powers of Con
gress being conferred by The constitution %
the United States, no resolution Of this Hons,
can add to or deduct from them" But th,
House adjourned without receiving nv re-
solution. The next morning | asked q sus
pension Of the rules for leave to offer tho
same resolution. which vas refused by a vot,
of rs 10 l24. But on the l4th Of January, a
day set apart for the reception Of resolutions
when needed not q suspension OF the rules
10 enable me-to offr the resolution, did Of
fer il, and It was adopted without word OF
opposition from any quarter; and there II
stands on the journal of the House, a record
ed demonstration Of the miilily of all the
preambnlatory resolutions of the l2th OF
December.
All the members Of the House from the
s!avc-holdng states, with two or three ex.
ceptions, voted for the gag resoluton--and
those exceptions were Of members who were
for refusing 10 rec,ioe all abolition ant-slavcry
petitions. The members from the slave
holding states would have voted unanimously
against receiring any such petitions hut th''
Northern confcderatcs could not be brought
to" toe the mark" at that stage. Their dis.
tinctinn wns, that the constitutional and
sacred duty Of the House was TO rectire the
petitions, but that the House was under no
sort of obligation TO read or consider them
The acutcncss of this distinction affords
good measure. both moral and intellectual, of
the principle which associated with il rrso
lnlion that Congress has no right to tlo in
directly that which ii cannot do directly.
The resolution that all petitions, memorials.
resolutions or other papers relating in any
manner 10 slavery ar lis abolition, shall be
lald on the table without being read, printed,
debated, or acted upon by the House. has
been adopted nj fnur successive sessions ot
Congress. II has during that time indirechy
abridged the right ot petition, aud suppressed
the freedom of speech in the House, and the /
freedom Of the press throughout the Union,
upon all subjects relating to slavery or It's
abolition. This resolution has always been
adopted without dclIbcratIOn, by the applca
ton Of the previous question no argument
has ever been allowed against it I; no reason
has ever been gwen for il, unless the syl. II
loglstic prcambular rcsolu;ons of the l2tb of
December are Ia be considered as reasons.
No discussion ot them was then allowed. ard
tla' Is my principal reason for thus freely Il
commenting mon them IN this letter to YOU.
But the night of petition. thus nnccremonI-
ou>ly though indirectly abridged bv IN"
House of representatives of the United
Staies, has also become subject of discus
SION in some of the state Legislatures. and
nj popular meetings. Its extent
and lis limitations have thus become contro- !
verted points. The gag resolutions have .
been poulcdIy condemned in resolutions OF |
more than one state Legislature, aud ofmany |
popular meetings. Mul,iudcs of petitions .
IN the il"usc to rescind them have been pre-.
scented io the House aud laid on the table :;
many OF them nre among those which you
have entrusted TO me. aud will be found on
the lists Of The National lnlelligcncer, To,
which now refer yon. In some instances
efforts have been made to Justify the gag,
and reasons have been given elsewhere for
the measure, which it has never been thought
worth while In assign in the House liself
among these II has been said that in this re.
publican democracy tho people have the right
To command, and therefore have no occasion
10 petition. The reply to this is, that the
power to command is in the whole people or
n majority of them and can be exercised only
in forms recognized or prescribed by law
while the right of petition is an individual
right intended 10 be secured to every por. .
ton of the people in their capacity MS subjects
to The law. That this right is not only need.
Ell, but indispensable, in the estimation of the
people, is signally proved by the fact, that
the convention OF 1857 having omitted an
express recognition ON this right, il became
one of the most formidable objections agains,
the adoption of that instrument, and the very
first amendment to it, which was adopted,
supplied that omission.
Ii has been also said that the constitution
only prohibits Congress from enacing a n,c
10 abridge the right Of the people to assemble
md petition for u redress of grievances; that
its object is ouly TO secure the enjoyment and
free exercise of an individual right but that
"HtH tI' IIpHt UctH tNtTCi>cu. HDu tnc
petition has been presented, the right of 'bc
petitioner ceases /; aud, that the constitution
having given to each house Of Congress the
power to determine the rules Of its procced- |
pgs. it may. by virtue Of that power, receive \
or reject oil petitions at its pleasure.
The ingenuity of this argument cannot
disguise the revolving features of character.
lis vital principle is, that although the con-
'tItution has most anxlously guarded the
light of the people TO petition against viola
ion by hp, requiring the concurrent action .
" both houses Of Congress, and the qualified
assent of the President of the United States,
yet each house Of Congress by its mere rules
If proceedings, has the arbitrary power, at liz .
pleasure, to reduce this right Of petition TO a
dead letter, by refusing even to receive it.
Now, tits an universal maxim, not only of
reason and common sense, bot of law, that |
the existence Of a right carries necessarily .
with It every thing indispensable To its ex
ercise and enjoyment. The right of petition
wonld be cruel and insulting mockery, if
IL did not carry with it the righ, Of being
heard. and the duty of the petitoned party TO
boar aud cohsidcr-w hich is denied by the
refusal to receive.
The author OF the argument to which now
refer, appears conscious of its weakness !;
for, while hc insists that the righ, of the pc.
tiioper ceases from the moment that his
petition is presented. and that the House may
refuse even 10 receive il. he explicitly admits