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

We therefore cannot conStitHtioaallg reject 1
this petition, till all this solemn mockery
is gone through with, in order to preserve I
the right Of petition. The right to have S
these ceremonial preliminaries Of legsla-
ton dispensed to the petitioners is secured
TO them as the vital principle of the right /
Of petition. The petitioners knew, before
coming here, the constitution denied us the
POlOer 10 grant the 're@resS' sought. 1t is
presumed, therefore, they petitioned with
no expectation Of redress. And we are
bound to conclude that, knowing their
rights, and our power in this respect, they
are merely asserting the right of petition,
by way Of a healthful political exercise.
Thus we regard this sacred right. A right
in this case, secured by the constitution, to
seek its destruction. A right which binds |
us as priests to minister at the sacrihcal |
altar, though pre.obliged to save the vic.
Tim. Finally, a right in this, and like
cases without remedy but yet profound
and sacred right"
Now, | ask Of those who reason thus
here, if they have heard The like logic at
home from any of their constituents ap.
prehend not. Ii their constituents fully
understand this point in difference, if they
will comprehend this essential nothing so
far as their Object is concerned in the par.
ticular case, and the right of petition is
vlndicated for them by their representa-.
tives here, will they Importune us longer
to gain this certain negative, this affirmative
nothiDgl | state the question, and | state
it for the common sense Of she People to
decide, and believe those that are honest
will decide with US. 1t is this:
A petition is presented here to abolish
slavery IN the Southern States. Such pc.
ttion, all parties, or a great majority, il
Congress, Hgree, would seek that whist
Congress has no pOcer to grant. 1t is nc
question Of expediency or proprety, but i
is a question Of polcer-of jurisdiction
and the majority so believe and regard 1t
The question is then made, 'Shall the pc
tition be receivedl J" Now if Congress be
already agreed that they have no conStitu
hoHaL pOwer to grant the petition, in VIVA
respect are the petitioners benefited il
having it received Suppose it be receiv
ed and referred to a committee, who repor
thereon "that Congress have no powe
over the subject matter Of the petition,
and which report is adopted by the Sen
ate, can the most Sanguine petitioner ina
CINE that he has asserted his rights will
any more success than if his petition haC
been rejected without such reference ant
report? Has he obtained any more o
what he sought in this latter result thar
the substantial rejection Of his petition
Those who advocate the extended right o
petition say this mode of rejection is wha
the petitioners are entitled to. 1t is wha
they mainly desire--what they deem all
important to the preservation of their lib
critics. As one, Mr.. President, do no
believe that the Abolitionists vino under
stand the question as thus presented, ar,
contending for any such phantom. No
can they believe tie essential right Of pc
ttion consists in having their petition
peremptoriy denied by Congress for lc1n
Of jurisdiction after report by committee
rather than denied on presentment for tn
same reason. have debated a case, Mr.
President, in which all concur that Con
gress has no PotOer to grant the petition
er's prayer, because Tire advocates Of tlIi
extended Interpretation Of the right Of pc
titon assume that such peculiarly of tn
case makes no difference in their view c
the question.
But in my judgment the whole class {
petitions on this subject, whether TO a5o
ish slavery in this District, the Terrtorie
or the States, arc equally Objectionable O
constitutional grounds, though, perhap
for somewhat different reasons.
Property, with the rights and inciden
pertaining TO il, originates in the arbitrar
institutions of society. Land is general
subject Of property; water is seldo
made so, and air never. Domestic an
mails are property; wild beasts and birt
arc not so regarded. Governments a
instituted for the protection and regulate
Of lite, liberty, and property. How
life or liberty shall be protected, is stip
lation in the compact of Government, i
dictated by considerations of the benef
and necessities Of the social system. I
society ever established a Governme
protecting life or liberty in their utmC
possible extent. Nor was n Governme
ever established extending equality
rights, social or political, to all IFS me-
hers. The whole system Of the domes
relations, of bond service by indenture
other means; the political disfranchi'
ment of women, generally better, and
ten more capacltated, than the mas
man, who controls them, are abiding ill
trations of this latter position.
In the regulation Of property, all &C
ernments resting in compact have sol
limits prescribed 10 them. There is n
and probably there never was, Cover
ment beneath the sun, possessed of
right, as a concealed and acknowlede
prerogative, to take or abolish the prop
ty Of the citizen or subject at pleasure, a
without recompense. Such a comp
4 would be political absurdity, inasmr
4 as it implies principle destructive OF
primary end and object for which Cove
Inent is instituted.
In our General Government, and
many of our State Governments of w
ten and fundamental constitutions of
II liical power, such an idea is expressly
pudiated. | do moi, Of course, gansay
operations Of the penal and tdring pow
of the Government, by which rights
property are seized upon, lost, or forfeit
though these, also, are restrained. b.
small of tho aooorfiot, hv EovornY,aDt