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


THE RIGHT OF PETITION
We observe that some of the friends of the
South, both in and out of Congress, have.re-
Gently defended the course adopted by the House
OF Representatives with Iespectsto Abolition
positions, upon the ground that as Congress has
~ constitutional power 70 abolish slavery i is
moi cons,iutionally bound to receive or enter,
tain petitions urging tito do So There is GER
tany some force in this argument; but besides
other objections TO it, the whole practical benefit
of it is completely destroyed by the suggestion
made by Mr. Adams, in the course of his speech
in the House, on the 22d inst. He says;
{" 1t does not follow as apprehend, that this House
Is at Ii bery 10 refuse petition because it asks Con-
gress to do what Congress has not powet do. Sup
pose as is the case in many of these petitions, the
petitioners put their prayer in the form of petition
for the amendment of the Constitution, SO that what
they wish may be consiitutonaly done, and such is
the prayer of the Massachusetts resolutlons,) 1t can
be no objection to the reception of such petition
that the object sought be obtained is not now con-
slitutionaI for the very thing prayed for is an Oera
ton of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself
provides that such propositions 70 its amendment may
amendments to the Constitution this is secured toit
by the Constitution Itself; and therefore, it cannot be
unconstitutional to pray for it, Every body has
right pray isone ofthe liberties of an Amerl-
can freeman. And say further that if any descrP-
ton or class of petitions deserves more especial respect
from this House than others, it is prayers for the
amendment of the Constitution. What would be-
come Of this House if every of its members was
prscluded from the right of petitionng for an amend
ment of the Constitution Yet do not see but that
follows from the gentleman's doctrine; for if the
House has no power to receive propositions TO amend
the Constitution, il might it seems to me, prohibit eV
DRY one of its members from presenting any"
fthe Abotionists choose to profit by these
suggestions, and by the example OF the Leglsla-
ture of Massachusetts, they will merely be put
to the trouble of altering the tile of their petit
lions. and inserting in the body of them pray
er for an amendment of the Constitution I'm
der this disguise they may lay before Congress
as much irritating fnyecuve against the South
as they please. If they have right to pray ad
Ibitatnl for amendments Of the Constitution,
they have a right, we presume, to state IN full
their reasons Tor praying for them
We have always been of opinion that the
value of the right Of petition, in free country,
where the People are sovereign, has been much
exaggerated by the Asolidonists, in order to
create odium against those who are accused of
violating il. But the violation Of any right,
however unimportant, is a serious matter, and
the friends of the South ought never to rest
quietly under such an mputation, nor yet re-
cede an inch from the stand which they have
taken. Their own rights were menaced with
violation, in the first instance, by the presenta-
ton of Abolition petitions; the AboIionists
were the aggressors and assaiants and threats
and aggression justify some latitude of seli-de-
fence and retaliation. But neither has any
right been violated, nor any evil whatever been
occasioned, by the rejection Of Abolition petit
tions.
Mr.. Adams has endeayored to persuade the
People of the North that their Liberties are Sc
riously endangered by the violation Of the right
of petition, and fancies, indeed, that he has sue
ceeded. For according to his own account, on
his late visit TO Ohio, nothing but his modesty
prevented him from being carried about on
mems shoulders as "the champion of the right
of petiuon." He was received everywhere, he
saws, like "a child returned after long absence
TO his lather's house !" and be was told that the
reason of the caresses ayished upon him wa;
his vndicaton of the right of petition.
Yet the very words which Mr.. Adams dc
lights to employ in stating this charge Of VIC
lalion OF the right of petition, are sufficient tC
make the absurdity of it apparent TO every in
telligent and unprejudced mind He says tina
'the House, the Representative body, undertook
TO interdct to their constituents, the sovereign
of The country, the right to address 10 then
their petitions, for the reparation Of thei
grievances" 1t is nearly eight years ago
since the House of Representatives, BY
vote Of nearly two to one, first adopted a re
solution to exclude Abolition petitions. Since
then the People, who are the "soyereigns OF The
country" have had ample time to judge both o
the constitu,ionslity aud expediency Of this &C
Of their representatives, to which their attention
has been invoked in every way, and they bav
continued to ralify it, 1t is therefore the sove
reigns of the country" themselves who have in
terdccd to the Aboliti lnists the exercise of thi
alleged right This, TO be sure, does not prov,
Of itself that no such right exists under the Con
sutution but it proves that in the opinion Of
majority Of the People, either no such right ex
lists, or it is one Of which the exercise woul,
place in imminent jeopardy the peace Of the
country and the existence of the Union.
II is not, therefore the House Of Representa-
tives and the sovereigns Of the country" VIII
are at issus, but majority and minority Of tn