The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1843-12-29

Feople. And is the actual suffering experiences
by the minority such as 10 justify prolonged
and exasperating contest2 What have the Adolf
tionists lost by the refusal of the House TO re-
ceive their petitons2 They can still peaceaby
assemble for the purpose OF connecting milan
matory addresses in the shape of petitions; the
press is open TO them; they can even address
their petitions in the shape OF printed circulars
to individual representatives in Congress, which
will be transmitted post free, and be laid on the
desks of the members: and they have represen-
tatives in Congress, ready 10 avail themselves
Of every opportunity to promulgate their doc
lrines and perform their bidding in that body.
There is no suffering, therefore, no privation,
sufficient TO justify the continued agitation OF
an exciting constitutional question, which there
is no tribunal to decide, other than that which
has already repeatedly and deliberately decided.
But, we repeat, that there has neither been
any actual suffering or privation inflicted, nor
any right violated The words of the Consti-
tuition are: Z" Congress shall make no law re-
speeding an establishment OF religion, or prohib-
Ting the free exercise thereof, or ahridging the
freedom OF speech, Of the press or the right
of the People peaceably TO assemble, and 10 pc
tition the Government for redress of griev-
ances."
Now, resolution or rule of either House is
not law of Congress, and cannot have the effect
of one: it can operate only within the precincts
of the Hall in which it is adopted. Each
House must necessarily have the means of pre-
serving itself in peaceable existence, and in the
discharge of its constitutional functions: it
therefore has the right expressly granted " to
determine the rules of its proceedings" 1t has
a right to determine the course which it shall
adopt with regard to petitions, after the People
have peaceaby assembled and made them and
this is all that the House of Representatives has
pretended 10 do.
1t would be absolutely necessary for Congress
TO adopt rules g abridging" the rights claimed.
1t would be an abrdgment of it to designate or
limit any time for the presentation of petitions.
II would be an abridgment Of it 10 insist that
petitions should be in writing, and not oral. If
such right exists, therefore, the Constitution
must necessarily be violated in regulating the
exercise of it,.
But it is urged that, if Congress refuse TO re-
ceiVe petitions there would be no useIn making
Them and the right would be rendered value
less. This is not so, in point of fact, for petit
tons may be addressed to The members individ-
ually. But at any rate, the argument would
prove too much, for it would prove that Con
gress oaght not only TO receive, but read, debate
and decide upon all petitions presented TO them,
no matter what might be their number, length,
| or character.
Mr. Adams seems to think that all these petit
tons ought to be reported upon by the commit
tees, though he does not exactly insist on it as a
right In regard TO the absurd fanatcal petit
ton recently presented, he said ''the petitioners
were perhaps mistaken, perhaps requiring some
counter argument, some expostulation, some
report of a committee at least" To charge
Congress with the task Of enlightening
all the ignorance, dispelling all the halucl-
nations, or expostuating with all the peryersily
which prevails in the country, would be to as
sign to it the duties of schoolmasjers, or mad
doctors, and not Of Legislators. One mailman
would have as much right to present himself tc
be cured as another Il is enough, we think
for Congress to have TO deal with the infrm
noodles and pervelse minds to be found some
times within the walls Of the Capitol. One Of
them, indeed, Is quite sufficient to keep one
House well employed