Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-05-26
REMARKS OF MR.. HENDERSON
OF MISSISSIPPI,
On the Reception of ABOLITION Petitions.
In SENATE, FEBRUARY Is, 1910.


INSENATE, FEBRUARY Is, 1910.
Mr.. PAEslDENr- i rise to participate in
this debate, SO far only as the question is
supposed to involve the right of petition,
and the policy of our action here, in re-
ference to that view of the subject.
The honorable Senators, from Massa-
chusetts, (Mr. Webster,) and from New
York, (Mr. Tallmadge,) seem to regard
refusal by Congress to the presentment Of
petitions for the abolition of slavery as an
infraction of that right, whilst the honora-
BILE Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay
has, with his accustomed elo9uence, and
mitch FEASIBILITY, expressed his apprehen-
sion that the People the South, in claim
ing even their rights here with too fastid-
ious exaction, may diminish their friends
in the North, by permitting the Abolition
lists the advantage Of involving, with their
primary question, the more popular one
Of the right of petition, and that many VIII
probably make common cause on the
right of petition, aud persis: in asserting
that principle here, who would not concur
in the particular proposition on which this
right is so frequently debated.
| propose brief discussion of these two
questions. And first, as to the right Of
petition.
The following is the amendatory article
of the Constitution of the United States, in
which the right is said to be secured:
"ARr. 1. Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peacefully
to assemble, and to petit on the Govern
ment for a redress of grievances.
In respect to the right Of petition, what
does this article propose? 1t does not at
tempt to specify the measure, or the extent
of the right, or TO what subjects ii shall
appertain. It does not attempt to specify
what are the duties and obligations of Con-
gress in the reception of petitions, or the
measure of redress which Congress may,
can, or shall afford. The right secured
by this article is simply an immunity on
the part of the People from any IasO eman.
ating from Congress abridging the popular
rights 'peaceaby to assemble and petition
Government for a redress Of grievances. y
Whilst Congress abstalns from making any
such prohibitory law, are not all the obi.
cations which this article imposes up Con.
gress duly respected! 1t must be observed
that this article contains no grant of po1cer
to Congress; it does not enlarge the sphere
of its duties--it brings nothing within the
jurisdiction of Congress not otherwise
conferred by the Constitution it does not
multiply the subjects on which it is per-
mitted to give audience, indulge debate,
or grant relief. No such thing. 1t is
prohibitory and restrictive On Congress, so
far as power and jurisdiction are concern.
ed. 1t observes entire silence as to the
several subjects on which the People may
rightfully and appropriately petition the
'GoUernment" of the United States for
relief. These unquestionably must reman
precisely as If this prohibitory article on
The powers Of Congress had never been
inserted in the Constitution. What critic
rion, then, is furnished to the People for
the appropriate exercise of their right of
petition! Is not the answer obviously
found in the inquiry as TO what Goye n
ment has had the poscer to,grant redress
Suppose the grievance complained OF
be the statute of Massachusetts, recently
known as the fifteen gallon latc." VIII
any constitutional lawyer contend, or does
the most ignorant citizen believe, that the
article of the United States Constitution
above quoted has conferred a right on the
citizen to come here By petition to have
that law abolished The answer to such
a proposition would seem to me so mani
fest as to leave no room for doubt on the
subject. If such petition were presented
what should be not only the right Of Con-
gress, but its respectful duty toward a
sorerelgn State? Should we permit our
selves to receive, after, report, and debate
the propriety of our assuming to correct
the legislation of Massachusetts on this
SUBJECT May some half dozen citizens d
Massachusetts come here and claim, as oil
right, to hold the sovereignty Of that State
/ 10 obeyance before Congress for weeks
and months, and years together, on suct
a subject, which every citizen feels anC
knows we have no jurisdiction of? But i
the proposition appears Unreasonable II
| this aspect, how much greater its enormity
when, instead of the measure being pro