The Madisonian., 1840-02-01

1
In this clause of the Constitution there are
three great principles protected against any
invasion by the Government The freedom
ofreligious opinion, Of speech, and of tis press.
In order to illustrate my position, let rs sup
pose any portion Of our citizens mad enough
to assemble and petition for the establishment
Of a particular religion, or to suppress the
freedom Of speech or Of the press can there
be found in this clause of the Constitution any
mperious obligation on Congress to receive
or consider such petitions ;--peti,ions seek
ing to subvert and destroy the fundamental
principles Of the Constitution ilscltl Clearly
not. And il would have been madness in the
trainers Of the Constitution TO have imposed
such an obligation. Why should the Consti-
receiving and considering petitions seeking 70
subyert its proudest and most ssiutary princi-
plcsl would feign believe that no gentle
man here would advocate the reception Of
such petitions, seeking, as they would, the &C
ton OF this House upon subjects closed to it,
and wisely SO, by the Constitution ITSELF
These considerations demonstrate most con-
clusively the fact, that this clause of the Con-
stitution only does what it was intended to do;
prohibits the interference of this Government
with the right Of the people to make and pre-
sent their petitions, leaving Congress in pos
session Of all its proper parliamentary powers,
and 10 the performance of all its proper duties
upon its responsibility to the people, who will
guard this right with becoming jealousy and
caution.
But there is another illustration which will
make assurance doubly sure. The circum-
stances under which laws are enacted fire.
quently afford the best key to their interpreta-
tion. What we're the circumstances under
which this provision OF the Constitution was
made In view Of the fact, that in the mo-
narchial governments Of Europe, the assem-
bling OF the people to petition for redress of
grievances were prevented by the infection Of
severe penalties and that in England-that
England which then boasted Of being the only
free government on earth-assembiages be-
yOnd twenty and ten, were successfully pro-
hibitcd by law. The trainers OF the Consti,u-
ton approaching the great value Of this fun
damental and saIutary principle Of liberty,
wisely determined to secure the people of the
United States against its invasion by law
Thus, sir, | hatter myself, that upon every
principle Of reasonable Interpretation, have
demonstrated that this clause OF the Const-
tuition does not impose upon Congress the
obligation of receiving or considering every
class petition which may be presented. In
the case before US, the people petitioning have
exercised their constitutional right-they have
pctitioned and they have presented their petit
tions. The question, then, is, what is the
power and what is the duty Of Congress in
disposing Of them 1t seems to me too clear
for argument, that Congress should have some
discretion over this question of the reception
Of petitions, as well in regard to its own pro-
lection from imposition and Insult, as TO its
constitutional powers and the business of the
country. Strip this House OF this sautary
power, and to what insult may it not be sub
jected; and what subjects may not madness
and folly compel it to consider! Thousands
and thousands Of petitions may be thrown into
this House, demanding its action upon the
most frivolous and contemplate subjects, and
couched in the most vulgar and insulting Ian
guage. Shall this House have no protection
against imposition and insult like thisl What
gentleman will say it shall not should like
to see who it is? This discretion over the
question is necessary attribute of parliament.
ary power, and cannot be taken away without
destroying the independence and efficiency Of
the body itself. This discretion, it is true, sir,
should be a sound one, and not capricious or
whimsical and should be soundly exercised,
always controlled by the constitutional powers
Of Congress, and the expediency Of the OBJ
Jects OF the petitioners. This, sir, is neces-
sary TO the body itself; and is not at war with
the right of petition it only protects this body
against the abuses Of this right. The gentle
man from Vermont himself conceded this
principle when he said that Congress was not
bound to receive petitions which sought its
action upon objects not within its consttu-
tional powers and thus comedies the whole
ground upon which base my argument.
But why argue this proposition, so clear and
so plain within itself? when the very PROPOSE
ton 10 receive and consider petitions when
they are presented, necessarily comedies the
power of the House to receipe or not, as it
may deem most expedient. lfnot, why sub
NIT the motion! Why 60 through the idle
ceremony Of proposing to the House to re-
ceive that which il has no constitutional power
no discretion whatever to refuscl There
can be no reason for it whatever. But if
there is lingering doubt behind, let us recur
to the "JManua" regulating the presentation
and reception Of petitions, and which has been
adopted as the parliamentary code Of this
House, and fatter myself il will be Instant
ly removed. 1t will be found on page l45,
Sec. xix. title "PETITIoNs." In the first
place, it provides that petitions must be sub
scrlbed by the petitioners, unless they are al
tending" Why certainly, sir, to guard
against imposition by forgery and aliens. If
the petitioner cannot subscribe his name, he
must be arerred By a member. Why to pre-
vent imposition.
Again:
Before any petition or memorial addressed 10 The
Senate shall be receiUed and read The table ,oheiher