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


and willing 10 bring il TO the notice Of that
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 il il had been
| written" Congress shall pass no law sbrdg
| ing the right Of the People to petition the
Government for redress Of grievances."-
Even with this reading, an obvious argument in
defence Of the rule excluding abolition petitions
u.s. tina, il is not aaw Of Congress, and, therefore,
does not violate the letter of the Constitution.
But let us admit, that q rule, Of either House,
might violate the spirit Of the Constitution, so
far as il respects the right of petition, without
violating the letter.
The question then arises, what would be an
abridgment Of the right Of peli,on7 Has the
right any limits, and, if so, what rhey2 The
Hon MIR. Beardsley, ip his speech in the House
on Friday, gave US his notions OF its limits
which we quote
"In brief, then, hold il to be the constitutional
right Of every citizen to petition Congress, and
hold il to be duty to receive their petitions,
less they diuespeetuI in their ermsin which
we are not bound to listen, any than gentle-
man is bound TO hold converse with one who ad.
dresses him in vile and abusive anguage-and umsss
he petition asks only for objects whieh psuld be
'ituonsi for us to grant. With these two limitations
only, it impera i've duty to ceive all petitions
addressed to u.s. When they have been received, we
can treat them we think proper"
The House, il seems. may refuse to receive
petition which is disrespectful in its terms
But how is il 10 be ascertained that the terms
are disrespectlul, unless the petition is received
and read 2 And who, then, is to be the Judge
Of what is disrespectful? The House may also
refuse to receive petition which ''asks only
for objects which it would be unconstitutional
to grant" But suppose the petition should con-
tain 0oncusive arguments to show that what
small majority Of the House may believe to be
unconstitutional, is not 50?
We must protest against these arbitrary limi-
tations of Mr.. Beardsley. They are not in the
bond. The Constitution does indeed impose, or
authorize the imposition Of restraint upon the
right Of the People to assemble they must as
semble "peaceably." But il imposes no res,ric-
ton whatever on the style or tenor Of petitions
II the right, as claimed, exists, it is full and un
restricted: SO far from being limited, the Con-
s'itu'ion positively and expressly says that it
shall not be abridged.
The Constitution does not even limit the
right to written petitions. Would not Con-
gress abidge the right Of petition by enaciing
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, constuiionally, adopt
rule limiting the time Of receiving petitions TO
one hour every day2 II so, could ii limit the
time TO half an hour day, 10 an hour a week,
or an hour monlh7 II il were overrun with pc
ttions OF certain character, evidently made for
the purpose of importuning il and disturbing its
deliberations, though still respectful in style,
could itnot refuse to receive them, in order that
honest and bona .Jfde petitioners might have
time to be heard2
Ii is evident that both Houses Of Congress
must have some power and discretion as to 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 TO do something
more than merely exclude petition or petition
ers, viz. expel a member and representative Of
the People.
THE right ofpe,iton as claimed on behalf Of the
Abotionists, 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 are rights of the People,
for Congress are but the representatives end ser
wants of the People, and the right Of detemin-
ing their rules is given to them in order that
they may better be able TO transact the Peoples
business. And if these rights come into con.
hict, which is TO give way2-the People them
selves, or Aboltionisls pretending 10 speak for
the People Blu, 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 dcstruc-
ton Of the Compromise upon which the Union
was 'o'meus 49, We uliHh an exc Hent reason
for excluding them, but does no, give the right
to do so. The right of each House to adop, its
rules OF proceeding, the absolute necessity OF
that right and the absolute terms in which il !.
granted authorize Congress to keep its delibe-
rations free from intrusion or disturbance from
without. The right to exclude annoying petit
tons might even be inferred from the right to
sk
cuuence Of two-thirds, e1pel a member. For
certainly an importunate, disorderly or ncen-
diary petitioner, has less right in Congress than