Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-05-26


petition of some score Of bacchanalians
from the shore Of the Mississippi
| As would act, and as / believe the
Senate would act in such case, so. in
my judgment, they ought 10 act in this.
This, Mr.. President, is emphaiically a.
lquestion of jurisdiction, and the rejection
tof such petition as now presented does not
assail or invade the right of petition. The
whole scope and extent of the political
RIGHT of petition is the right TO ask re-
dress from that Government or tribunal
having the power to grant relief.
Common sense, as well as legal and con-
stitutlonal rules prescribe this as an es.
sential principle and necessary limitation
to the right of petition. If a citizen -ofthe
United States was DESTROYS TO obtain a
patent right of protection to mechanic
invention, to be used in the kingdom Of
Great Britain, would he, as q matter Of
common sense and propriety, petition that
Government or this for the protection If
a citizen of the United States, of the Cath
ollc faith, desired some spiritual indul
gence from the church, would he petition
1
al Governments If were desired by the
citizens of New York to have some new
regulation in respect 10 their public mar
kets; or on the subject of iamplightingthe
streets of that c;ty:is there any amongthem
who, through ignorance, or 10 pretending
to assert the right of petition, would come
here for redress of such grievances? Do
any citizens of our country, seeking to re-
cover debts owing to them bv other Cit.
zens, ever assert their right of petition SO
unadvlsedly as to ask the judgment of
Congress TO award them redress? All must
accord negative response TO these propo-
snlonS, and the reason must as obviously
occur to all: namely, in seeking either ia
vor or redress, the petitioner perceiYes and
facts upon the necessity to present his soli-
citations where the power is vested TO
grant what is asked for.
| readily admit that, in a complex sys-
tenn of Government, there may be evils for
the redress of which intelligent citizens
might mistake the tribunal or authority TO
which they should apply. Nay. further.
that the departments OF tribunals them
selves might honestly mistake their own
power, and wrongfully grant or withhold
relief. But the difficulty of distinguish
ing the appropriate tribunal, having power
to grant relief, does not change the princi-
pies of the question. And this rule is
particularly true of the Government of the
United States, which is of limited iurisdic-
ton. 1t is not for the Government to
palter with pretentions to jurisdiction,
when 1t is asceEtained MT to be within its
; granted powers. There should beIno af.
fected courtesy to those who would be.
siege this Senate into the assertion Of I'M
authorized power, at the expense Of pros
tratlng the sovereigniies who send US
here-and particularly on a question, the
right to legisate on which has been so Of
ten disclaimed on all SIDES, and in which
opinion all here concur.
But further, TO illustrate this question Of
; jurisdiction in contradstinction TO the right
, of petition, it may be observed that all our
! citizens practically understand the dupli-
, cate form Of their Government, and read
lily distinguish the general and exclusive
powers that appertain to their State Gov
eminent from those which belong to the
United States Government. Every citizen
knows that the great body Of the laws that
E prescribe his rights and duties as member
of society, and the rules and regulations
, that control his light and title to property,
emanate from bis own State Legislature :;
and 1t seldom occurs land perhaps has
never occurred) that a petition is presen.
ted here which SO mistakes its proper d.
rection as to ask relief of this Government
IN matters respecting which the petition
er's State Government alone possessed the
power to grant relief. Aud it is perhaps
still more remarkable that neither ignor-
I ance nor impertinence has ever perpetra.
ted petition by citizens of State to their
t own State Legislature, asking the abolition
/ OF any law or institution in another State.
, Every citizen of the slaveholding States,
if inquired of why slavery does not exist
e in Massachusetts, will answer, because it
IS prescribed or abolished by the Govern.
ment and laws of that State. And every
D citizen of the .slaveholding States, i
!. inquired of why slavery does exist in Mis-.
r sissipp, viii as readily answer, the insti.
n tuition is established and permitted by the
y Government of Mississippi. Up to this
y fpoint, and to this extent, all must under.
!. stand the matter alike. Now, suppose the
!. citizens of the South should commences,
d by petitions, to importune Congress to
r establish slavery throughout the States Of
> New England. Has Rev England a
. Senator here whose constituents could be
e induced to believe Congress had the pow.
Il er to grant such petitions And has New
: England Senator here, or a citizen at
!, home, who would net feel himself insulted.
$ and the righis and sovereignty of his
o State wantonly outraged, by incessant i'm
/. portunitles here of this character? Would
e they defend tie monstrous presumption
= OF such opportunities, and demand your
E respectful Difference to their claims, on the
ground that such was the right of petitions
\ Ii such be the right, let US note its bearings
n in case which might aptly arise on TIE
D same article ofthe Constitution from.which
it is said, this ertent of the right of petition
, is de1uced.
f Congress shall make no law respecting
= an establishment of religion" &c. A pes
tltion is presented BY the Baptist .associa.
ton of North Carolina, praying Congress
+ TO establish their creed and faith as the
J national religion, and abolish all others
/ A Senator having such. petition in CHARGE.
5 states It's import, and proposes its present.