The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-12-28
THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

Gently defended the course adopted by the House
OF Representatives with respect TO Abolition
petitions, upon the ground that, as Congress has
no constitutional power 10 abolish slavery, II Is
not cons,itutionally bound 10 receive or enter
tain petitions urging il 10 do so. There Is GER
tany some force in this argument; but besides
other objections TO il, 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:
at does not follow, as spprehend, that this House
is at berry to refuse petition because 1t asks Con
gress to do what Congress has not po~erto do Sup
pose, as is the in many of these petitions the
petitioners put their Pr aver in the form OF pet"n
for the amen men of the Constitution, so that what
they wish may be constitutionally DONE and such Is
the prayer of the Massachusetts, resolutions, II can
be no objection to the reception Of such prtillon
tina, the object sought to be obtained is not now con-
situtiona for the very thing prayed for is an alera
ton of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself
provides that such propositions TO is amendment may
be made. Congress has always power to propose
amendments TO the Constitution: this is secured to
by the Constitution Itself and therefore cannot be
Unconstitutional to pray for it. Every body has
right pray; it is one the Liberties of an Ameri-
freeman. And say further, that if any descrP-
ton class of petitions deserves especial respect
from this House than others, it is prayers for the
amendment of the Constitution What would be-
come Of this House il every Of its members was
prscuded from the right of pettioping for an amend
ment of he Constitution YeI do not see but that
follows from tho genteman's doctrine; for if the
II ,use has pows' to receive propositions TO amend
the Constitution, might it seems to me- prohibit ev-
cry one of its members from presenting any"
If the Abolilonis,s choose to profit by these
suggestions, and by the example of The Legisla-
ture of Massachusetts, they will merely be put
TO the trouble of altering the tide Of their petit
tons. and inserting in the body of them pray
er for an amendment Of the Constitution. IN
der this disguise they may lay before Congress
as much irritating inveclive against the South
as they please. If they have right to pray ad
hbitum, for amendments Of the Constitution,
they have 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 a free county,
where the People are sovereign, has been much
exaggerated By the Abolitionists, in order to
create olum against those who are accused Of
violating IL. But the violation Of any right,
however unmportant, is a serious matter, and
the friends OF the South ought never to rest
quietly under such an impulatou, 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 Abolitlonlsts
were the aggressors and assallants; and threats
and aggression Justify some latitude Of selfde-
fence and retaliation. But neither has any
right been violated, nor any evil whatever been
occasioned, by the rejection Of Abolition petit
tions.
MIR. Adams has endeavored to persuade the
People Of the North that their Liberties are Sc
riousy 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 "ihe champion Of the right
of petition" He was received everywhere, he
says, like "a child returned after long absence
10 his fathers house y and he was told that the
reason Of the caresses lavshed upon him was
his vindcaton Of the right Of petition.
Yet the very words which Mr.. Adams de-
lights to employ in stating this charge Of VIC
laon OF the right of petition, are sufficient Il
make the absuldIty Of it apparent 10 every in
tegent and unprejudiced mind. He says tina
''the House, the Representative body, undertook
- = -.
Of the country, the right to address 10 then
their petitions, for the reparaon of thei
grievances" 1t is nearly eight years ago
since the House of Representatives, b,
vote of nearly two TO one, first adopted re
so ution to exclude Abolition petitions. Sine
then the People who are the "sovereigns of tn,
country" have had ample time 10 Judge both o
the constituionalty and expedlency of this &C
Of their representatives, to which their attention
has been invoked in every way, and they hav
continued to ratify IT, II is therefore the "sove
reigns Of the country" themselves who have in
terdicted to the Abolionists the exercise of thi
alleged right. This, to be sure, does not prov
Of itself that no such right exists under the Con
stitu'on; but il proves that, in the opinion OF
majority of the People, either no such right OF
lists or it is one Of which the exercise wou
place in imminent jeopardy the peace Of thu
country and the existence of the Union.
IL is not, therefore, the House Of Representa-
tives and the sovereians OF the country VIII
are at issue, but majority and minority of th
People. And is the actual suffering experienced
by the minority such as 10 Justify proopge,
and exaspersting contest What have the Aboli
tionisis lost by the refusal of the House 10 re
ceive their pctitions1 They can still peactabl,
assemble for the purpose Of concoctipg inham