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

OF Columbia, touching the domestic inter-
ests and internal police of such State
Hence The popular Eallacy with regard to
the right of petition. The question is not
as TO The right of petition, but as 10 the
desfanation or direction which petitions
should take. Adnitrin. that the citizens
Of a Stale have right to petition their
Legislature, touching any subject OF griev-
ance, over which The Legislature may have
Jurisdiction; and that the citizens of the U.
States have also right to petition the
The Federal Legislature on all subjects Of
q federal character. does it follow, there
fore, that the citizens of one STATE have
right 10 petition the Legislature of another
Stale, concerning its domestic institutions
ami internal police? Or, that citizens Of
the United States have right TO petition
the Federal Legislature on subject that
is not federal, hui strictly local in its cha
racer, and with which the petitioners have
no right to iutcrmeddle? Certainly not.
And as the citizens or Vermont or Con-
necticut, for example, have no more righs
10 interfere with the domestic institutions
Of The District Of Columbia than they have
with the domestic institutions Of the State
OF Marylan or of Virginla-which is just
none at all-they might, with the same
proprie'y. petition the Legislature Of those
States 10 abolish slavery within their limits,
as to petition the local Legislature of this
Distrlct TO abolish slavery within its limits,
And as it would not, and could not, be
considered denial of the right of petition
on The part of the Legislature of either of
those StaIes 10 reject sucn petitions, SO
neither could it he regarded as denial Of
such right for Congress, The local Legisla-
lure of the District of Columbia, land il
has been already shown that it is only III
this local capacity that Congress can have
jurisdiction over The subjecr at all,) 10 re-
Jecl similar petitions from citizens Of those,
or any other States. Itmar,ers not, there.
fore, whether Congress have the powsrto
abolish slavery within the Dis,rict Of Co-
lnmbia or not, as Congress is not bound,
in either case, 10 receive petitions from the {
citizens of The States touching the subject
Of slavery within this District-such cili-
zens having no right 10 interfere with this,
or any olher subject of internal police with
in the District. What, sir; could it be re-
garded as denial Of the legitimate exer-
else of The right of petition on The part OF {.
Congress-, 10 reject petitions from citizens
OF the States praying Congress 10 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, or other-
wise to change, alter, or in any way to af-
feet the municipal institutions or internal
police Of the District? No man, appre-
hend, will so allege. Aud why not! For
the reason, sir, that The petitioners would
have no right or authority 10 iniermeddIe
with The local rights and interests of an in
dependent communily-a community as
absolutely independent of the petitioners.
the municipalities Of France? And aslhe
institution Of slavery in The District of CO.
lumbia, as well as in the slave States. is,
III all respects, and to all intenis and pur-
poses, local in its character, Congress are
no more hound to entertain petitions from
citizens of the States. asking for its aboli-
tion, than if such petitions related TO the
municipal institutions Of a foreign coun-
try. Ii Congress would not be bound 10
receive petitions in the one case, they
would not in the other. And, consequent
ly, ifis would not be denial Of the righr
OF petition 10 reject, in the one case, it
would not be su in the other. i repeat.
then, tha, whether Congress have the pow
erto abolish slavery within the District Of
Columbia, or not, it cannot be regarded as
a denial Of The right of petition for Cons
gress to rejecl the pelilions from citizens
ofthe States. praying for the exercise OF
such right, no more than it would be. for
them TO reject petitions from, the subjecz
of a foreign power, asking for similar ace, :
ton. Were the institution of slavery, in
the District Of Columbia, general and ma. !
lional in its character, instead of being, as
it is, strictly and essentially local and mu-
nicipal, then would the citizens of the
States, grant, he authorized to petition
the National Legislature concerning it,;
and the National Legislature. recognising
the rieht of petition, would bound to re-.
ceive such petitions, if couched in respects
fuI language. But under our existing form
of government, aud under existing circum-
stances, Congress are not bound, aud in
truth have no legitimate right, 10 entef-
tain petitions from individuals residing
without the limits of This District, touch
ing the abolition Of slavery, or any 3olher
subject OF local and municipal charac.
ter. affecting, merely, the ci.izens residing
within the District. -, :'f2
Such being my views, then, !. can but
regard those petitioners--residents of the
States-praying Congresstoa abolish slave-
ry in The District Of Columbia, as guilty Of
an impertinent and unwarranlahle inter-
ference with the rights, privileges, and in-
teresls OF a free aud independent commu-.
nity. And so long, sir, as entertain my
present opinions, 1 shall feel constrained