Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-04-08

| sachuseits have secured 10 them, Dy otu i"s.'
lions, the high prerogave OF calling upon . Go',
grsss 10 abolish the guaranteed rights OF lhose
! who live not in Massachusetts, onl n o'hei POI
,;nns of The Ubion. The abolitionists have secu-
red 10 them the privilege TO petition Congress 70
interfere with slavery, or they have not II tney
| have then Congress is in duty bound 10 receive
and consider their petitions. II they nave no''
Congress has nolhe right 10 receive ana consl''ei
] them: and of course, is under no opllgalloh ~
! do So
In this question OF the reception OF abolition re-
,itions arc involved the rights OF Two parties. Inc
retnsal 10 receive is not simple denial oil poor
privilege claimed by those rctionns II is the
extension OF protection 10 constitutional immuni-
Ties wan,only and arbitrarily assailed. The re-
ccpton is NOT mere harmless compliance WIN
The wishes Of the pelilioners-il is disturbance
and an invasion of the domestic concerns OF ihose
who are not responsible TO The petitioners nor 10
Congress for the complaints made against Ihenl.
and when, in justification of the reception OF
these petitions the plea OF protection OF The sacred
privilege OF petitioning is rut in, why do nose
who offer it, forget the violence and wrong "hicn
is thereby done 10 o,hers2
Here, them is conflict OF supposed rights !;
and. as under our beautiful system OF Govern
menl there can be no such conflict between the
true rights and privileges of the different portions
of our Confederacy. The one or The other party
mus, be wrong and il becomes the bounden duy OF
freemen and statesmen 10 ascertain who IS wrong,
and 10 act accordingly. And, in the invcstiga-
tion of this matter, the enquiry at once arises,
has Congress nnder the Constitution, the power
10 receive and 10 act upon these SANDERS, wicked
complaints and mad schemes Of fanatics, against
us o,he South? The rights oil Congress are restrict
ell by lis powers. It's powers are speclled and limit
ed. And The domestic concerns ofthe people OF The
Union. are entirely under the authority and con-
troll of the people in the different parts oil H. and
Congress has not the right 10 interfere, IN any de-
gree. Our institution Of slavery is domestic
matter These political axoms will not cannot,
be denied in Virginia. by any Consequently,
The admission will be unanimous, that Congress
cannot grant The PRAYER Of The petitioners, ana DIS
turb our domestic relations; because, Congress
o,nht mol 10 do any thing which i, has not the le
cal mower To do. Bear in mind, The Shareholder
has rights which these petitioners seek 10 disturb,
and finally TO destroy. And the admission IS that
Congress cannot interfere with these rights. Con-
cress is an agent for the whole Union, with speci-
fed powers. An agent ought TO do no more than
| execute his trust Otherwise, Il representative
government is a farce. And now, the next en-
quiry is, Have the abolitonists the right 10 petit
! ton Congress for the destruction of the insu-
tion OF slavery? We ask this question of the
| slave holder himself Mo- is the loud and long
response II they had, there would be an end 10 the
enquiry; and Congress would have to consider, not
whether they had the power, but whether il would
be reasonable to grant the prayer OF the petitions
| The abOlionsls arc without the moral or legal
/ right TO request Our common agent 10 destroy
our property. Our agent is without the power
to comply with the request What, then IS The
duty of The common agent When asked 10 do
this illegal thing, he ought 10 reply, firmly, 81
CANNOT! =" This is what was done By the rule of
| Congress.
But we arc Told that the Constitution prohibits
Congress from The passing OF any Law aordsing
''thc right of the people peaceably 10 assemble,
| and petition the Government Tor REDRESS Of
rricrenccs" Docs this rule do IL Does il pre-
vent the people from peaceably assembling =
Certainly not Does il prevent the People from
rc,onns No. Did not the petitions go 10
| Congress under the rule Multitndes Of them
! The rule OF Congress merely said, we have no
power over the subject Of The petition. What
| more reasonable? what more just? In addition
10 this. common sense proclaimed, there was no
"gricrante' in the case.
| Shall we. however, be told, that the petitions
ough, 10 be received Tor the purpose OF consider
| ing the power and the propric,y OF granting them?
ANY member of Congress, whose mind was not
made upon the subject, ought to go tor The recep-
on But does Virginia mean 10 go for any
man who is for The power. or whose mind IS not
/ maze UDf i Dc uldlfI IsiS U-SH Sbti'ihNieH IA
! Congress, and discussed there over and over
again. and there ought not 10 be Il shadow Of
doubt resting upon The opinions OF The representa-
| tive OF slave holders on this subject
| /, IS true We are told, that, by giving the reins
/ 10 fanatlcism, ii will be more easily curbrd-
| This has been iricd-bu, the flame grew higher
and broader These petitions were received and
the three able reports of Messrs Patton, Pnckney
and Anterior could propitiate none OF the preJu-
~ .:,i, ~,
| The nuisance increased. To abate II, the rule o
| Congress was established
| The rule Eot now being in existence, we are
told The petitions have decreased in numbers, I'M
! Ill they arc not now heard OF. This Is 4 mistake
Tor, the CRY is Still they come II they have dimi-
/ nished al all il is because Abnlilionism has been
made drunk, by the incense offered up, in adua-
ton 10 it, by The destruction OF The rule OF Con-
gress; and, when This effect shall! be over, il will
| return with more diretul thirst Than ever: Tor
| when was fanatcism ever characterised by gene
rosily or magnanimy} Besides, the past action
of Congress proves, that argument cannot sails
| iy ii.
| The rule Of Congress on the subject having
been repealed, The effort OF Mr. Bots now is, to
turn The attention Of he country from the con-
sheraton OF his adyccacy of the right OF the>c
petitions 10 disturb us with their petitions, to tie
fac; that the rule was repealed By the last House
| cl Representatives, in which The Democrats had
majority Bu, By whose votes was The rule
| principally repealed All of the Southern De-
| mocrais, and some of The Northern Democrats
voted for lie rule All The Northern Wings, and
some Of the Southern Wings, voted 10 repeal The
rule Which party then, is most 10 he trusted
And the course Of Mr.. Bots, and those asso-
ciacd with him in this business, al The South
has had the effect anticipated. If Southern
men will moi stand by their rights, how can they,
EXPECT Northern men 10 do liz The Richmond
Wing once with us, on this question, has gone
over 10 the enemy. Sill many Northern Demo
Gratis stand by the Democrats Of the South, in
vindica,ion of their rights. The eighteen mem.
bers Of Congress who voted against the rcsolu-
tions, declaring, che rule established in the Con-
,tuton as The basis of representation and direct
taxation, suting from a spiri! of concession
| and compromise essential TO the formation and
| preservation oi the Union Of The States, ought
TO be held sacred By the friends Of the Union"
were all Wings.
Were the question, which CT the two parties
could best be trusted b. The Sonlh7 there could be
no hesitation The question, however, is who is
most entitled 10 public confidence on this subject
Mr.. Bolts or Mr.. Scddon7 This is The issue
This we are called on 10 decide. Mr. Bolts says
he goes for the great RICH, OF petonng. So do
We. We GO farther We 90 for the grea. right
Of instruction. The subjects OF monarchy, or
despoiism, 1umJly petition the government for
their rights. We have taken step onward, in
the progress OF human rights. We can COM
mand, and force obedience The government
must obey the people: |, is their servant The
lreemen OF our land do not pride themselves upon
The right 10 petition. They occupy more elevated
ground. When they want their rights observed
they use their authority and command When
they want some little exclusive privileges, they
petition. But the attitude Of petitioners is not
that which suits The freemen OF cur land, contend
ing FOR great rights and constitutional immnn-
ties-and he who would 50 represent il, is without
the spirit and the holiness Of American freedom,
and would degrade the people, By making them
suppiea;e where they ought 10 speak trumpet-
tongued, and with authority
PLOUGHMAN.