The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1844-01-08


grievance 10 exist in the country, which would
not find some representative in Congress able
and willing to bring it to the notice of that
body, more etfectually than il could be done by
petitions from without.
We will not, however, at present, insist on
this construction OF the Constitution, but
will suppose the meaning Of the clause in
question 10 be the same as if it had been
written Congress shall pass no law abridg
ing the right of the People TO petition the
Government for redress of grevances."-
Even with this reading, an obvious argument in
defence of the rule excluding abolition petitions
is, that il is not alaw Of Congress- and, therefore,
does not violate the letter of the Constitution.
But let us admit that rule, of either House,
might violate the spirit of the Constitution, so
far as it respects the right of petition, without
violating the letter.
The question then arises, what would be an
abridgment of the right of petition? Has the
right any limits, and, if so, what are they? The
Hon Mr.. Beardsley, in his speech in The House
on Friday, gave US his notions OF its limits
whic h we quote
ain brief, then, hold it to be the constitutional
right Of every citizen to petition Congress, and
hold it to be our duty to receive their petitions
less they diHespecvui in their terms-in which
we are not bound 10 listen, any more than gentle
man is bound to hold converse with one who ad-
dresses him In vile and abusive language-and ssssss
the petition asks only for objects ,ohck it could be ancon
stit,tionsl for us to grant ,these two limitations
is impera i've duty to receive all petitions
addressed to US. When they have been received we
can treat them as we think proper"
The House, it seems, may refuse to received
petition which is dsrespeclful in its TERMS
But how is il TO be ascertained that the terms
are disrespectful, unless the petition is received
and read ? And who, then, is to be the judge
Of what is disre spectful? The House may also
refuse TO receive petition which tasks only
for objects which it would be unconstitutional
to grant" But suppose the petition should con-
tain conclusive arguments 10 show that what
small majority Of the House may believe 10 be
unconstitutional, is not 50?
We must protest against these arbitrary limi
taions of Mr.. Beardsley. They are not in the
bond. The Constitution does indeed impose, or
authorize the imposition of re-, lraint upon the
right of the People 10 assemble they must as
semble "peaceably." But it imposes no restrc
ton whatever on the style or tenor Of petitions
If the right, as claimed, exists, it is full and I'M
restricted: so far from being limited, the Con-
sliluiion positively and expressly says that il
shall not be abridged.
The Constitution does not even limit the
m
gress abtidge the right of petition by enacting
law that no oral petitions should be made, under
penalties? And if such law would violate
the spirit and letter Of the Constitution, would
not rule of either House excluding oral petit |
tons do the same?
Can either House. constitutionaV adopt q
rule limiting the time of receiving petitions TO
time 10 half an hour day, 10 an hour week,
an hour month i? If it were overrun with pc
titoDs OF a certain character, evidently made for
the purpose of imporluning II and disturbing lis
deliberations, though still respectful in style,
could itnot refuse to receive them, in order that
honest and bona .fde petitioners might have
time to be heard 2
1t is evident that both Houses of Congress
must have some power and discretion as 10 the
reception of petitions, and they derive this pow
er from the right expressly granted TO each
House ''to determine the rules of its proceed |
ings"-from that section of The Constitution
which empowers each House 10 do something
more than merely exclude petition or petition
ers, viz expel member and representative of
the People.
The right ofpetion, as claimed on behalf the
Abollionists, and the right of each House TO de-
termine the rules Of its proceedings, must, there
fore, necessarily come in conflict If such right of
petition exists, then both rights of the People
for Congress are but the representatives end ser
wants Of the People, and the right Of determin-
ing their rules is given 10 them in order that
they may better be able TO transact the Peoples
business. And if these rights come into con-
hct which is 10 give way?--the People them
selves, or Abolhionists pretending 10 speak for
the People But we contend that no such right
as that claimed was ever contemplated by the
trainers Of the Constitution, or This conflict
would have been foreseen and provided for.
That these Abolition petitions have in view
violation of the Constitution, or the destruc-
ton OF the Compromise upon which the Union
was formed, is, we think, an exc llent reason
for excluding them, but does not give the right
TO do so. The tight Of each House to adopt its
rules OF proceeding, the absolute necessity OF
that right, and the absolute terms in which it is
granted, authorize Congress TO keep its delbe-
ratlons free from intrusion or disturbance from
without. The right TO exclude annoying petit
tons might even be inferred from the right to
punish disorderly member, or, with tue con
currence OF two-thrds, e1pel member For