The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-01-08
THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

serious matter, however uinlDg the immediat
consequences may seem TO be, for the obviou
reason, that one infrac,ion leads TO another.
is above all important TO the South, under pres
ent circumstances, that she should not be justl,
charg~able even with a disposition to commi
such infractions. The weak should be par,icu
larry careful not to be in the wrong. The slave
holding States have but eighty eight representa-
tives in Congress the free States one hundre,
and thirty five; and il is only By considering
Delaware as siave-bolding State that the rep
reservations in the Senate can be said to be bal
anced The slave-holding States have on,
hundred and fourteen Presidential electors: tn,
free States, one hundred and sixty -one, or
majority Of Jorfy-seren. These are importan
facts TO bear in mind, however trite for public
opinion, the will of the majority, is the final ,r
bunal on questions of the respective constitu
tional rights of the General aud State Govern
ments, from which there is no resort except ,c
notification or disunon.
The South, therefore, must endcavor to keeT
that tribunal in good humor, or a, least give i,
no just cause of irritation, if she wishes to con.
tinue in.the Union. She has been told, within
few days, on the floor of Congress, that her
best security consists in the good feelings Of
the people of the North. Her best policy, at all
events, is rigid adherence to the Constitution,
so as to furnish others with no pretext for vio-
lating it.
Yet, she is accused Of violating the Const-
tuition in most important particular, aud of
contemporary disregarding one of the dearest,
rights of the People Of the North; and not merely
accused, but convicted, upon the testimony of
those who pretend to be eminently her friends.
The rule OF the House of Representatives ex-
GLIDING abolition petitions is defended upon the
ground that Congress has right TO refuse to re-
ceive petitions which pray, in effect for violation
Of the Constitution. But the rule in question ex !.
cludes petitions for the abolition Of slavery in
the District of Columbia Now, Mr.. Van Bu-
rem and many others-perhaps a majority of
Congress and Of the People believe enormously,
we think that Congress has constitulionally the
power to abolish slavery in the District There
Tore, If the rule cannot be defended on other
grounds, Congress has been guilty of violation
OF the right Of petition. Besides this, i, is sug-
gested. that petitions for. the amendment Of the
Constitution are always constitutional, and
nothing is more easy than for abolitonsts to
present the most Objectionable and il fammalory
addresses in that shape, and persevere in their
opportunities until Congress shall be compelled
10 adopt some summary and erciting mode Of
getting rid Of them. The South, therefore, by
the defence TO which we allude, is not only
placed IN the wrong as il respects the past, but
efieciually deprived Of security as to the future,
and compelled to rely on the good feelings OF
abolitonists, from whom she certainly has not
hitherto experienced much charity.
It's important, we think, that The South should
be extricaled from this position, which is humil-
iating at least, if not dangerous. II is danger
Gus. we think, because il is humiliating. We
believe that the abolilionists would be stimulated
rather than appeased and queted, by triumph,
which would teac h them not TO despair in future
struggles.
We will resur again, therefore, to the provi
sion of the Constitution which is said to have
been violated. 1t is, that Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment Of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OF
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right Of The people peaceabiy "a
assemble, and TO petition the Government 70,
a redress Of grievances"
1t is very clear to US, that this provision of the
Constitution is copied from one of similar ma.
ture introduced into the Constitution of Eng.
land at time when the People of that country
were struggling to acquire petition Of the sove
regniy due to them. 1t had been the practice
Of their Government to dispense peaceabie as
ssmblages of the people by armed force, ant
imprison or otherwise punish those engaged in
such meetings, upon the pretence that ,bei
plans or objects were seditious or reasonable. :
The right Of the People pesceaby to assemble
for the purpose Of celebrating on national af
fairs or grievances, is, under any form of gov
eminent, an all important right In this coun
try, Congress can pass no lar abrdging the
right: and neither House OF Congress could, i
it would, abridge the RICH, by the adoption of :
rule which would operate only within the pre-
cincts Of the House adopting il. That tn,
trainers OF the Constitution had this rgh
Of peaceably assembling in view, is evident
we think, from the phraseology Of the arli
Gle. The distinctive parricpIe or is used
throughout, except with respect TO the righ
Of petition alone, which is coupled with the
right "peaceaby to assemble" and not as
serted distinctly and separately, as the Others
are. II is obvious, too, that the RICH, to petition
considered separately, is valuable only in pro-
portion as the Government is stronger than the
People. Under despotc government il is all
important, as The only channel through which
the People can make known their grievances
under representative government, approaching
TO a democracy, where the People are the