Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-01-25


rated in his resolution.
Mr.. GARLAND said he was willing TO yield the
floor Il it was the understanding BY the Chair that h'
would be entitled TO il afterwards
The CHAIR said there could be no sucn "naer-
standing.
Mr. PROFIT asked Mr.. Garland ofEirginla, (who
was entitled the oor to yield It to ham Tor one mo
ment for the purpose of ntr oducng resolution whch
he (Mr p deemed of great Importance as Gaining 'oi
information which the countrv--thc whole country
demanded Mr. p said that If the introduction OF me
resolution gave rise TO word OF debatelf SINGLE
objection was made-ha would consider IL ms aty, IN
return f- the courtesy Of The gentleman from Virginia
"a Withdraw the resolution giving notice, however, that
upon the first opportunity the SUBJECT shou'a " Ds
before the House.
Mr. GARLAND having yielded the floor
Mr. PROFIT read the following resolution:
Rcsoired That the Secretary at war DC a''cC'ea -
inform this House. at his earliest convenience
he has or has not ordered authorized the use %
hounds in the war with the Indians III I loiua. -o'
If such order or authority has been gwen I e.:
importation of bloodhounds has been oFdetea au iio
;. oh,.o and select said bloodhounds Also, the
nuober Of b!oodhounds ordered Also, whether ~
bloodhounds have actually arrived; anu a'so " ' -
nj the bloodlounds is determined on lhp See,e'S v
War is further directed 10 state Tue name VI ' ~
:, the American army under whose iFn!heata'c cnais
o5 command the bloodhounds are to be used.
After the resolution was read objection peih. 1hauc
hv some members Mr.. ?. withdrew it.
Mr. GARLAND Of Firg mia SAID, upon Inc iuest,oh
Of human rights as being involved IN 'he supject oe
s,-s The House he had nothing to say he never
,uld consent to discuss the moral question OF human
This there because ne believed it was one with which
that House had right TO lntertere-nad no ,"f,su,
.on. that II was question which belonged exclusive.
TO the States With him there was but one
that so long as the slave States thought proper U
~, tho existence Of slavery among thci, ne Mou,
they would, defend it to the utmost extremity ny
considered that the question involved h9hef oi'e
than the mere right and exPeaiehcy =. 20 -
sI,verr and the slave trade in the Disrict u W"
1n,nbs. il involved the question, whether ,he Pco
nile have created an entire despotlsm over '"'s 20
trict-whcther the people mere were 'hcie 'et.S' w
hive no rirhts Mr. G. replied to that part OF the re-
roarL. of Nr Riddle, a few days ago, III winch tna'
an,In,,, had blended the great right o: petition with
sho ones,;on Of reception He denied that sucn was
correct noson and thought that It did not interfere
with anr rights guaranteed 10 them under the eonSl
tuton 10 refuse 20 receive their petitions; ana caeu
mon Gentlemen to point ont wherein II was lncons's
ent with that right. The gentleman IRON Vermont
Dir Shade, had, he said, conceded the whole gro"hG
that that right was al all nfnged by the reJecuoh OF
petitions praying uncons;lt icg'sa'lo' aio Ie
believed that, although the people nave fg'' 70 as
srmhe and petition Congress for redress Q. gr'eVah
res vet Congress- had the right 10 refuse 10 receive
snch as called upon them to d. an unconstitutional
Nc, Here the great constitutional principle was clear
and conclusive.
Lo,d make no law respecting an establishment OF re-
-: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
abr;dgnp tie freedom of speech or oil Inc press OF Oh
~. robt Of the people pcaceaby TO assembly ana pc
W. cad ,erc were three distinct principles IN tins
cl,n.o n. asked gentlemen If pct!tion came thcie
n,,yinr Congress- 10 establish particular rc!gioh
whether they would be bound 10 receive II, Will VIC
above clause staring them in the lace
The freedom of the prcss-ycs, ITS righteousness,
4. a., .,tptI ND Sk.
, re,,on be. presented praying tina, that powerful en-
srin. be tra,nlnelled and broken down, whether tne
would receive il. He believed not because tA.I nv"
rodcr the Constitution power TO interfere win me
subject, and ought not TO consider see'
Mr. G. then referred the circumstances OF the iines
which induced the placing O: that guard IN the Con-
stution against the invasion OF the rSnls Of tie poo
ole peaceably assemble and petition Tor rcoIess OF
grievances The reason why II was thus engraiteC III
sa,nt instrument was because the trainers o. u mao
go, I'M, the British Parliament had gone INTO the body
If The peop.c and restricted and limited their right TO
assemble. NJ,
MIR G. then read from page al Of the Manual,
where according parliamentary law, u IS mace heces
s-v that petitions must be subscribed 81 the petitioners
ar i not must be certified b. the member presenting
i, ,.,,t i their handwriting, or som" person without
The doors tina. hcy kn the handwriting OF the pct-
toner's that the member presenting II, aso must s.
i, contents briefly regular notion mus: Dc e''o NI1e
Nd ,La question pit whe :her il shall! be received
NJ & asked If Congress had no discretion over Inc
subject, why was all this caution in the rules necessa
rv The rule which required its contents 10 DC s'aea
would be an unmeaning one. It's oo;eoi was hr'' 70
ascertain whether the subject within the
;;s;.,on ne those they petition Why make the res
nons;b,litv rest on member OF certifying TO It's con-
tents and the identity of the handwriting, tneFe
no discretion? Ifthere was no discretion tney couo
rot reiccti IT, Then why put the question: u ire HOUSE
have rot that power, The power he believed shoG:a
be exercised with great discretion oul hal 'ey Hau w
mower @ reject lnccnt-overtio!c
Mr. G. then argued at length as to the rghts OF
the people Of the District which ne SAID would ne an,
initiated if the principles advanced on tha' moor shouu
ob,an-tha, thew had no voice in this natter; IT woua
make them as defcnccess the serfs OF Russia lie
commended that the people entitled to all the nene-
fits Of the provisions Of the Constitution when recog
nsc slaves property, to the same extent at .iey
enovcd those rights before the cession OF the Dstc'
~ MARYLAND and Virginia He argued that the people
i IN. District were entitled TO the same protection 70
:hs species of property any other KIND, undeF me
fourth article Of the amendments TO the Constitution
which SAYS hat The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, honseS, papers, and effects against
reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated
He further conended that Congress could not deprive
the people of the District Of any o. he rights which
they enjoy in general as part oil tle y. .. Si''es
ne said are recognised By the Constitution as property
and Congress had right 10 take II even tor public
without lust compensation lie would excite
The pcope Of the District to rebellion against the Gcs
Do,ism of the principle advanced that they had no rgh
% resist any action of Congress which went 10 deprive
the IN OF their property
Mr.. G.. then examined that clause of the Constitu-
Ton which gave Congress the right to exercise cxcu
svc legislation tho District OF Columbia, wh'ch ne
defined to mean that il should exercise only such pow
ers as were not prohibited in that instrument and winch
yere exclusive of the powers Of the States nc then
.xamined the question with reference TO tie slave trade
in this District contendng that the people thereof had
the power to dispose of this species of property to the
,izens of any other State and that Congress had no
more power to interfere with nterd!c this trade IN
The District than they had TO prevent it between the
citizens of Maryland and Virginia; and SAID !, would
be more dangerous Innovation OF individual rights
than that of which the Abolitonists complained. He
then examined that prohibition in the Constitution
against the African slave trade after certain PERIOD
which he said was placed there at the instance OF the
Southern States The States complaining OF the
evils of slavery then in favor OF that trade ana
would no, to that prohibition, unless the pert
d nj winch it was 10 was fixed twenty years III
The future; s2d tha, e Eastern people had two sea
men engaged in that trade 70 one Southern seaman
Mr. Garland then argued this question IN all us c"nsl
.,,;,,l haornrs aud couclnsyclv proved that lllat