Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-01-23


he could, therefore, saw that it true that he did
qualify his remarks in relation to oa!crs coming to
claim here, TO show that he did not mean 10
apply them to either side OF the New Jersey claimants
With regard the part he took, the statement he
made TO the Editor of the Globe he would briefly say
that he met Mr. Blair, and stated to him, that IN an
editorial remark Of his, he had msstated MIR Graves
and that that gentleman requested him to make cor
rection Mr.. Blair denied that he had done so III any
editorial remark and said that If there was misstae-
ent Of the gentleman it must be in the report OF the
proceedings of the House, and. if 50, he would with
very great pleasure make any corrections that MI
might deem necessary He had no doubt but what
The report his friend referred to msSlatcment,
and so he informed the Editor but he was under IN
impression the time that it in an editorial re-
mark The Editors of the Globe had made no edlto-
rial remarks in relation TO the subject hut said tha'
if there was msstatement it must he in the report
aad that he would with great deal OF pleasure IN
set any correction that the gentleman might deem ne
ccssary. thought it due to my colleague anu 10 W.T.
Blair to make this statement.
MIR. GRAVES. / submit to my colleague Whether
did not REQUEST him to wait Mr. Blair and say to
him that had been misrepresented IN report IN the
Globe and whether he had not seen IN the columns OF
the New York New Era an article IN which was
grossly abused in consequence OF the remarks was
represented in the Globe to have made And sup
mi, 10 him Mr. G. said whether did not apply to hun
n co 10 Mr. Blair and get him to correct the erroneous
report, without subiectng me to a correspondence
Mr. BOYD. 1t is true that saw very abusive ar.
tcle in the New York Era, in relation to the remarks
attributed to nv colleague the New Jersey election
case but have not to this day read the report IN the
Globe on which my colleague says 1t was founded II
is true my colleague came to me, and requested that
would make the suggestion to the Editor OF the Gooe,
10 correct the report without subectng HIM TO cor
respondence Bnt went to Mr.. Blair, and he replied
promptly that his columns were open, and that ne
would insert any correction the gentleman might deem
necessary 1t is true that my colleague applied to me
to 90 again to Mr. Blair but it is also true that did
not do IT, felt that had done my duty IN the part
had already taken.
Mr. STANLY observed that they would have no
thing else do they cndeavored to correct the errors
and ialsehoods that appeared in that paper
The SPEAKER called UT. staniy 70 oioef' anu nc
took his seat.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, said the gentleman
from Kentucky stated correctly that he had had no
conference with him in relation to the motion tor re-
cons;der ton and that he Mr.. T., did not intend to
make that motion on the day that il made by the
gentleman from Kentucky His determination to
vote for the reconsideration took place Immediately at
forwards. Mr. T. made some further observations
which were not heard distinctly enough toreport
Mr. SLADE then proceeded IN his remarks with
purpose. he said to avoid any thing which might SAVIOR
Of harshness towards those who represent the peculiar
interests of the South In presenting petitions here, II
had always been solely his purpose to discharge his duty
to his constituents; the petitions from many oil whom
he was understood to say, he had the honor OF pre-
sentiny he thought rather too exciting lie be-
lie yed many of these petitioners were over excited IN
their general movement Tor the abolition OF slavery
in the District Of Columbia; and he believed after
they shall have accomplished that object, that they
viii have attained nothing them comparatively speak
mo Mr. s. said the proposition Of the gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr Thompson) involved IN itself an
absurditv The Constitution gives the House power TO
make rules Of proceedings for the government OF IT'S
own action; but this not such rule as was auho-
rzed bv the Constitution; that this was not rule TO
govern the future action Of the House particular
proposition, but in anticipation disposed OF II without
This action He did not think there was any power IN
the Constitution thus dispose Of any matter IN ac-
yancc of lis presentation Each House is required BY
.he Constitution keep Journal Of It's proceedings,
but this rule proposes that there shall De no proceeding
AT all One-iith Of the members have also the right TO
demand the yeas and on every subject brought be-
fore Congress yet this proposition goes to deprive the
oneth Of their privilege on certain subject, by !e-
.isatino in advance upon II, and III opposition to the
plan meaning of the Constitution lie c"ntended that
they had Just well make an order uat all bulls
should be laid on the table without being read. The
proposition, he said, amounted to an enactment that
petitions on this subject shall not be rcceved-that II
was deceptive in its claraccr-that seemed upon ITS
t,ce in one aspect to give the House the right to act
hereafter but on another dcprives it of that right lie
ARGUED 10 show that the laying the question OF recep
ton on the table, did not lag the petition on the liable,
but in point of fact put back into the pocket oil the
member who presented it--that it amounted to der
sion ha, they should not be received 1t was IN elect
the abrdrment of the right of petition.
MIR S admitted that the House might refuse TO re-
cevc petitions for certain cause-tha 1t might refuse
10 receive such asked them to violate the Constt'
ton or presented their face that which was highly
obnoxious He did not fully subscribe 10 the doctrine
TINT petitioner might demand the presentation and re-
ception Of petition for he thought the representative
had the right refuse to and the House 10 re-
ceivc such petitions as were ABSURD, Hoissuous anu
abusive in their character Abolition petitions ne saio
were not Of this characters and he asked gentlemen
whether if they threw them ont, 1t would not be an
infringement of the Constitutional would be depriv
ING class of citizens of the right of petition on sub
ice; which they considered grievance and which Con-
gress had the bower TO redress He considered the pro-
position looked far beyond the question OF slavery and
cautioned gentlemen 10 take care that IN their zeal 10
suppress petitions this subject, they did not go too
far and establish odous principles. Mr.. > showed
how this principle if once adopted, might operate TO
exclude petitions on any other subject A law might
be enacted making duty of 30 per cent on mporta
tons and their Southern brethren might load their Ia
blcs with petitions complaining that 1t was onerous
that they were on the road to ruin IN consequence
They might petition against harbors, pre-elnptons, post
routes any other subject within our legislative pow
crs Yet the principles of the proposed rule would
as well apply TO this class OF petitions as those on Tue
subject of Abolition.
lie asked gentlemen TO look deliberately TO what they
were dong, to see whether they were not preparing
lalters for their own necks. Petitions might be pre-
scented praying the exposure Of the corruptons OF TO-
rerumcnt Excitement was the only cause 1t seemed,
for the rejection Of those the subject OF Abolition
pety for those in power to resort this rule TO reject
petitions the subject of corrupons: It would be
convenient to shut the mouths OF the Representa-
ves against those abuses There would be no end TO
the dreful effects of this rule the question of right to
petition was that upon which all hinges Mr. 5. then
went into argument to show that this was fair SUBJ
ect for the legislative action of Congress lie con-
tended that that article in the Constitution winch gave
Congress the power TO excrcise exclusive Legislation
over the District, gave them power over this subject
and admitted if it not so, there could be gr.ev-
ance upon which to base those petitions The Ian
guagc excusve cgislatiun, carried upon lis face ITS
own vcriiy-t was a selevdent proposition ana couio
be made no plancr-the declaration carried home
to every mind the conviction that the power eas' ne
ead the Legislatures Of Maryland and Virginia ha a.. no
thew had to legsate for the State Of Mane-,hnt the
District had no government and no power TO iegsiate
for itself and the power must of consequence eHIs, m
CONGRESS alone MIR. s. then cited the authority OF Mt
Madison Patrick Henry and various others. in proof
r The fc, that the power of Congress the District