Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-02-03


The CUE t,on before the House in which this i'm
porant subject vas merged whether they should
REJECT or retain the 2ls rule Beng favor of retain
ing the rule he proposed TO notice few OF the ob,c
lions which had been urged against it. FIRST, II
commenced mat II was violation of the Constluii, n
and an infringement of the right Of petition What
portion OF The Constitution did this rule violate The
first amendment. And what did ,hn. provide: Tia.
Congress should pass law abdging The right of Ito
people peaceabiy 10 assemble end petition for the re-
dress of grievances. Had Congress passed any such
law Did they propose to pass cny such law THIS
House was but one branch Of the Government, and
rule OF the House was not law of Congress; but It
might be said that the rule violated the right Of pe-
tion that II in opposition spirit and intention
OF the Constitution. But il be admitted BY those
who argue thus, that before the Constitution could t
violated, some legislative enactment must be passed
What vas 1t that led 10 the adoption of this ameEdman:
20 the Cons uon' II wac the attempt under the act
OF l3 Charles ., in England, TO punsh with ncarcc-
ration ts offence of violating the provisions Of that
act which materially abridged the right of petition
The great grievance there the right OF the people
10 assemble and state III ir grievances /, was this
SUBJECT, and not the reception Of pet tnns, stated hv
the gentleman from North Carolina, fslr Cngmanl
which elced the eloquence al Fox aud his opposition
was to The acts Of Parliament Of 1885, proh bit ny sed
tous meetings But the gentleman from North Gaze
Ina hr. Clingman sad that Mr.. Fox did rot speak
upon toe reception Of petitions, bfcause nobody DOUBT
ed the fact that they ongh. TO be received; but let him
tell the gentemnn, that the proposition doubt
ed Ihen that Parliament had and did constantly exer
else tie ght oil refusing 10 petitions. Tie
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.. Wntarop.l not
content with mere assertion, had attempted produce
authority 10 that point; but though assertions IN mat
ters Of law the fceble.t arguments that could b.
adduced, 1t was but too evident tina, those who pre-
coded HIM dealt CHIEFLY IN assertion, "hich certain
ly The most polite course they could pursue. The
gentleman had found single ins lance whci supported
his position; and il an OASIS in the desert sin.
gle green spot amidst sandy waste, il surpris-
ing that he should have sagely seized upon H. and de
sired It's inscription the pillars of this hall That
sentence, however, was the dctum of the author
and in opposition 10 the constant practice of Paa
ment, and contracicted by the which d.
ately preceded il, as well ) that which followed lie
won'd read those sentences. They we're as follows:
Mr.. 5 here read two sentences !rc,n Hasel, which
the reporter has not at hand 10 quote
In The first sentence he had quoted, (lt. S. saldl
the practice ol refusing petitions, Clearly acknoW
LEGGED, and, in Tie latter the declining them
was considered Us 10 hardship. In the hasy view
which hc took OF this work, he collected few other
instances OF The rejection oi pr ttions IN the British
Parliament, and he would c,,e the {, owng Here
Mr.. 5 ci;ed some fourteen h.lecn ass, in which,
The House refused 10 receive petitions This showed,
he SAID that the practice not confu 20 the period
adduced by the gentleman from massachusetts, but
tended down TO i65S-and showed, a!s' that Parl,a.
ment ives IN the constant haOit OF rejecting petitions
and that, too subjects Of taxati7nthe impor
tan ones 10 the peopleand y ch the right of ne
fore, which the gentleman proposed BY the rejection oil
this 2lst rule, not sustained by the English prac
tice. But, sad slr ), reier.sd by the gen
tlsman from New York 10 English practice 10 learn
humanity, let Us look at the reasons given by those
who were for rejecting petitions there and compare
them with the reasons given here for receiving them.
The principle upon which this rule for rejecting pet-
tons IN England was adopted, appears TO be this
that as ta1eton was extended, IN CT every part
of the kingdom, and imposed burdens all the peo
MA ika fnra
lar portion Of them /, state this grievance TO the
House. Now, how did that correspond with
The reasoning OF the petitioners here They cay, that
particular institution, not extending The whole
country, but confined 10 particular section of it, and
not imposing any burdens Whatever that il could
purpose No, but that il could answer good
purpose for them to petition about matter in which
they have no interest
The reasoning of the gentleman from Massachusetts
was, that the people OF England though bnrdened BY
taxation almost to poverty md must have their
petitions rejected; but that these aboonis,s butdcned
with nothing but their own sicky sensibi!ities must
have their petitions received and considered The
most objectionable feature that the gentleman from.
Massachusetts, found in the rule, WIS., that II attempts
prescribe what subjects The people may petition.
This the gentleman SAID. IN opposition 10 tue
Constellation, and at with parliamentary practice
Why the rule only attempted t. reject such petit ons
al the destruction o! the Cnnstiiutnn which he
would atemp, presently show; but Whist he
the subject Of parliamentary practice, e, us, said 10
let us inquire what II is.
The SPEAKER announced 10 tho gentleman tina,
the morning hour had expired: and Mr. Stlts took hs
seat
The SPEAKER communicated the following
FLORIDA INDIANS.
A message from The President o lie e. S, transmit.
ting report from the Secretary OF War, containing The
information called for by luton Of the House re-
spectlns the number Of Indians remaining Florida
which, on motion Of Mr.. LEVY, laid the table
and ordered to De prlnied
communication from the War Department,
answer To resolution of The l0h Instant containing
information relative TO the lead mines Of the United
States; which, on molten c! Mf. DODGE, was laid
the table, aud referred TO the CoIaaitee Public
Lands
DELAWARE BREAKwArER.
A communication from the War Department in AT
10 the resolution Of The ls'h INST transmitting
report from the Typographical Bureau, containing IL
formation respecting the Delaware Break"ate-.
On moton by Mr.. J. K. lNGERSOLL, lad o. the
table, and ordered 10 be printed.
message from the President of the L. S, enc!oetns
letter from the Secretary 0i State, accompanied ~
from The Spanish VI mister, the subject U! tic
schooner Amisted; which,
On motion by Mr. {. J lNGERSQLL, wca referred
to the Committee Foreign Relations, cad ofteret 10
be printed.
The bill fo The relief Of the widows aud orphans o;
the officers and mariners OF the schooner Campus yst
al sea- was taken up loo consideration.
4 debate ensueG upon The proposition q! Nr HOY
kns to amend the bill! By si cit the provision Tor
the relief Of the brothers and sisters o the deceased
neither the widow d. parent Of the deceased
existed
The debate continued by aIcssrs TilOMASSON
and WISE in opposition 10 the amendment, ndhy Nr.
RATHBCN in favor oft
The amendment negatived.
Mr. LEVY moved amendment 5 TO make the
bill applicable the Sea Gull, Of the vessels o
the xploring expedition.
Mr. WISE said the government had no official IN
formal on Of the loss OF the Sea Gnl and be recon
mended the reference of that subject TO the Naval Gem
mtee.
The subject debated by Mess:s. WISE, LEVY.
and PARMENTER.
The anne ndrnent then nega'ivcd
Mr.. BEISER moved to amend By erasInE The words
which gave 10 the surviving relatives SIX months pay
in add ton the pay the lime oil actual service oi
the deceased.
M SLiDELL opposed Ike amendment.
The debate was Further continued by Messfs
SCHENCk aud RATBuRN
Mr. HALE moved to amend the bill by striking
the enac,ing clause
THIS motion was ruled out Of order and
On motion Of Mr.. WISE, The committee and
reported progress.
Mr. D l.. SEYMOUR presented resolutions o.: the
I .latn ranfN XnrL g r. at he. 4