The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-02-20
Mr.. wIsE,s REPORT.

/ Ms. wIsE's REPORT.
Of the minority Of the Select Cos'Diines 70 10
rise the rules aud orders Of fhe House o.
Representatives..
(coNuNUEp.)
| BY the ensctmsnt Of this rule Of proceeding for
the House Of Representatives, Congress passes nc
la.s" abrdging the right Of tho people peaceably to
assemble aud to petition the Government for re-
Of grievances This prohibition 10 Congress IL
pass any such law, s Nolhug more nor less than =
prohibition of any such laws the riot acts OF Eng
land The House has prescribed lis rule Of action
upon the presentation OF all petitions The pariia
mcntary law, a. it is laid down in Jeiierson's Manu-
al is, that Regularly, motion for receiving II" "a
pettion) must be made aud seconded, and
"a question put whether il shall be received
but cry from the House Of receive Oh
even silence, dlspenses with the formal
ly OF The question Ia the House of Represents
tves the reception Of any petition, without any such
standing rule, may be objected to- and the question
"Sbail the petition be T, ceyed" must be put and
II is not received unless by vote of the majority
the House. This is the law Of proceeding, wIthou,
any standing rule The question, then, is simply
THIS II any member may object 10 the reception o
any petition; and IL this, in every Of objection
brings the House to vote upon the question OF recep
ton; and Il the House, by individual and separate
vote IN each case may and would invariably refuse
to receive each OF gwen class of petitions why MAJ
II not at once declare by standing rule once for
ALL that petitions Of that given class shall not be re
ceivedf 1t would certainly save time, and expedite
other business; and the power in either is the
same, to act specifically or generally. The House
has done il specially this very session. The first e-
gslatNe act OF the House upon petition is to receive
It. II must be received by the House. Nothing can
be done by the House, except upon motion carried
by vote either actually, tacty and implicitly ia
ken, Hence the law that regularly motion must
"A akpu In ecaivp t,n,
The House may adopt this, Its first STEP or reject it,
as II may any other step Of its proceedings il may
refuse to receive petition by the very rule or
law as that by which il has the undoubted power to
REJECT Inc prayer OF tho petition by vote final
proceedings Might not the House. in fact, adop as
standing rule OF proceeding upon all petitions that
the question OF adopting rejecting the prayers of
petitions should be tested the question Of their re-
ception'
1t cannot be said that petitioners in the case under
discussion have not hearing. They present petit
tons; may state their contents; NAV have them.
upon the question Of reception the question whe-
Their they come within the rule read at the Clerks
table but to receive them, Is to take jurisdiction Of
the subjects they involve, and, to extent binds
the House to act further upon them. But many who
contend for their reception would Immediately reject
them, or lay them on the table. Why SO, il TO re-
fuse to receive them is to impair the right of petit
ton II the right of petition binds the House to re-
ceve, why not to refer Ii to REFER why not to re-
Poi' oPo"' ~ w iePoTt uPOD why 10 report Ia
voraby upon why not 10 grant the prayers For
what at last, is the right of petition worth, may be
much more Pertinenty asked IN this sense, if their
prayers be not granted How does prompt reiec
Ton any more impair the right of petition, than a
hnai reJec'ion' And if Congress is bound to take
Inc hrs step OF Jurisdiction, why is it not equally
bound to take the lasti Indeed il is but too clear
that the very mode of reasoning adopted to compel
Congress TO take the first will be brought to bear
with tenod force TO compel it to take the last. The
entering wedge II is which makes all that is to follow
comparatively easy.
Again: The precedents all in favor of the
power OF Congress TO refuse to receive any petition
The English cases are conclusive authorities. The
Rouse oil Commons, IN numerous cases, (cited In
Hatsel, p 1907 after the Bill of Rights refused to
receive petitions; and resolved, in several cases.
standing orders not TO receive certain classes of petit
tons and the precedents in the Senate and House of
Representatives are as numerous, full, and concu-
slve to the same point. Indeed one law of both
HOUSES, from the foundation of the Government
has been, not to receive any petition indecent or in
sultng TO either House. Surely if the House m "
refuse, on grounds Of personal decetcy and dignity
tort'or they may refuse constitutional grounds Of
objection.
1t has been well said, by most distinguished de-
batter OF the Senate and one of the distinguish
ed statesmen OF modern times, (Mr. CALHOUN, of S
C,) that "ol all the rights belonging to a delibera
i've BODY, none Is more universal, more indispen-
sable to proper performance Of its functions, Than
The right TO determine at its discretion what It shall
receive, over what shall extend it, jurisdiction and
to what il shall direct its deberation and action Ii
IS the first and universal law of all such bodies and
extends not only to petitions but to reports bills
and resolutions varied only in the two latter in the
form oil the question. IL may b. compared to he
Junction IN the animal economy, with which all lv-
ing creatures are endowed of selecting through the
instinct OF taste, what to receive or TO reject on
which the preservation Of their existence depen ends
Deprive item of this functin and the poisonous as
well as the wholesome, would be ind feren,ly recev
ed INTO their system. So with deliberalive bodies ;
deprive I'm OF The essential and primary right to de-
eunne, at their pleasure, what TO receive or to &c
Ject, aud They would become the passive receptacle
inadvertently, Of all that is frivolous absurd unconst-
tutioDaI, immoral ana impious, as wells as what may
properly demand their delIberstion and action Is.
tablish ms moDstrou., this impous principle las il
would prove To be in practice and what must be the
consequence To what would we commit ourselves
IL Peution should be presented praying the aboli-
Ton oi the Constitution, (Which we are all bound by
our osths to proeci,) according to this sbomiuabe
doctrine, VI must be received So, if IT were
prayed, The abolition OF the decslogue, or Of
The Bible itself. | go farther. If the abo-
Iilon societies should be converted into a body of
atheists, and should ask the passage Of law DENYING
The existence OF the Almighty Being above us-the
Creator of all according TO this blssphemous doc
trine, We would be bound TO receive the petition to
take jurisdiction Of ul'
10 receive and TO re ct petitions declares merely
their unreasonableness; TO refuse to receive them
declares the want Of jur sdction There are many
classes OF Petons, which the people have the perfect
right peacesbly % assemble to prefer, which they
have The RICH, to present by their Representatives
and which they have The right to have stated, and
heard, and read but upon which Congress IS no,
only not bound to act, but is bound not to take the
very first step Of legislation.
Let Each House is bound, in selfrespect. not TO
receive petitions insulting to self-such as are no,
cooched IN decent and respectful language. Every
legislature, 10 every civilized country has this inhc
rent power OF selfpreservation and self protection
20 Ne"her House IS bound to receive petitions
contra oo"os "orss Such, FOR example, those pray
ing ior The establishment Of gambling houses or
bawdy houses, or such as grossly and impious,
shocking TO the common Christian sense.