Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1840-05-28

half, compels us to deny redress. We canno
therefore conStiIhtionaly reject this petition, til
all this solemn mockery is gone through with
in order to preserve the right Of petition
The right to have these ceremonial prelmina
ries of Legislation dispensed to the petitioner
is secured to them as the vital principle Of thu
right Of petition The petitioners knew, before
coming here, tHe Constitution denied us thu
pOUer to grant the redress sought. 1t is pre-
sumed, therefore, they petitioncd with no ex
pectation Of redress. And we are bound t.
conclude that, knowing their rights and ou
power in this respect, they are merely assert
ing the right Of petition, by way of a healthlu
political exercise Thus we regard this sacred
right. A right n this. secured by the consti
tuition, TO seek its destruction. right which
binds US as priests to minister at the sa6rifceC
altar, though preobiged TO save the vic
tim. Finally, alright in this, and like cases
without remedy, but yet profound and sacreC
right" n
Now, ask of those who reason 'thus, here
If they have heard the like logic at home from
any of their constituents? apprehend not
lftheir constituents fully understand this pon
in indifference, ifthey will commend this essen
halnothing SO far as their object in the partic
ular case, and the right of petition is vndica
ted for them, by their representatives here
will they importune us longer to gain this Ger
tain negative, this affirmative nothing? state
the question, and state it for the common
sense Of the People to decide, and TO believe
those that are honest will decide with US. 1t is
this
petition is presented here to abolish slavery
in the Southern States. Such petition all par.
ties, or great majority, in Congress, agree,
would seek that which Congress has no potcer
to grant. 1t is no question Of expedency or
propriety, but it is question of pocer--of .ju.
rtSdiction--and the ma jority so believe and re-
gard it. The question is then made, "Shall the
petition be receved" Now if Congress be al.
ready agreed that they have no constitutional
power to grant the petition, in what respect are
the petitioners benefited in having it received?
Suppose it be received and referred to a COM
nttee, who report therein "that Congress have
on," and which report is adopted by the SEN
tie, can the most sanguine petitioner imagine
hat he has asserted his rights with any more
success than if his petition had been rejected
Without such reference and report? Has he
obtained any more Of what he sought in this
after result than the substantial re lection of
lis petition! Those who advocate the extern
ed right ofpetiton say this mode of rejection
S what the petitioners are entitled to. 1t is
U hat haN nj dos hot hot oil
important to the preservation Of their liberties.
rs one, Mr.. President, do not believe that the
ibolitionsts who understand the question as
hus presented, are contending for any such
phantom Nor can they believe the essential
light ofpetiton consists in having their petition
oeremptorily denied by Congress for rant Of
jurisdiction after report by committee, rather
han denied on presentmen! for the same rea-
ron. | have debated a case, Mr.. President,
n which all concur that Congress has no poacer
% grant the petitioners prayer, because the ad-
1ocates of this extended Interpretation of the
light of petition assume that such popularity OF
he case makes no difference in their view of
he question.
But in my judgment the whole class OF petit
ions on this subject whether to abolish slavery
n this District, the Territories, or the States,
Ire equally Objectionable on constitutional
grounds, though: perhaps, for somewhat differ
snt reasons
Property, with the rights and incidents per-
tanning to it, originates in the arbitrary insti-
lutions Of society. Land is generally a sub
Jet ofproperty; water is seldom made so, and
air never. Domestic animals are property; wild
beasts and birds are not so regarded, Gov
ernmonts are Instituted for the protection and
regulation of life, liberty, and property, How
far life or liberty shall be protected, is stipu-
lation in the compact of Government, indicated
by considerations Of the benefits and necessi-
ties of the social system No society ever es.
tablished Government protecting life or liberty
in their utmost possible extent. Nor was a
Government ever established extending equa /
ity of rights, social orpolitical, to all members.
The whole system Of the domestic relations,
OF bond service, by indenture or other means;
the political disfranchisement of women, gen
orally better, and often more capacitated, than
the master man who controls them, are abiding
of this latter position.
In the regulation Of property, all Govern
ments resting in compact have some limits pre-
scribcd TO them There is not and probably
there never was, a Government beneath the
sun, possessed Of the right, as conceded and
acknowledged prerogative. to take or abolish
the property Of the citizen or subject at pleas
ure, and without recompense. Such a compact
would be political absurdty, nasmuch as it
implies principle destructive of primary
end and object for which Government is insti-
tuted.
In our General Government, and in many
Of our States Governments Of written and