The mountain sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1844-1853, 1850-02-21
Remarks of General Cas-.

and Pennsylra,lia, asking. a.pearesgie
dissolution of the Union. e. -
Mr.. President, no man who attends the
discussions IN the Senate can fail to ne.-
ceiye the Predlsposition which prevails
here to push principles to their extremes,
If we do not find a massive wall wbare
they must stop, we follow them indefinite.
ly with as much metaphysical zeal as anv
of the disciples OF the ancient schools Of
logic. The provision respecting the righ,
OF petition is contained in one of the amen.
ded articles of the constitution, which pro.
vldes that Congress shall pass no law TO
prevent the people from assembling peace.
ably and petitioning for redress OF griev.
ances. L do not deny that the right thus
secured is an important one, bur do no,
rate 1t by any means as high as the hon.
orable Senator from Ohio Mr.. Chasel
appears to do. Thanks to the wisdom Of
our forefathers, and to the spirit of our in
stitutions. the people of this country have
a much more efficient remedy than the
right of petition for any abuse of the gov
ernment, whether apprehended or existing
the right of action; the right to send you
home, and all of us home, and TO put 9TH
er and better men in our places, that their
wishes may be accomplished. The gov
ernment is theirs, and the ballot box is a
far better security for its faithful admins
tration than this humble right of petition
In England, whence the measure is deriv-
ed, 1t is the best means the people have
for redress of grievances; and poor one
it is, too, there, as the experience of every
day demonstrates. With a heredilary
Executive, hereditary House of Lords,
and a House of Commons originally elec'.
ted for the life of the sovereign, the right
to petition is about all that is left to the
people. Why sir, if we were utterly TO
refuse to receive petitions in this country,
it would produce no other effect than to
rouse public Indignation and to hurl US
from our places. No Legislature in this
broad land will ever place any improper
limitation upon the exercise of this right
But sir, the rare limitations which control
it necessarily arise out of the nature of
things. You would not receive petition
couched in insolent, or obscene, or bias
phemous language. Would you receive
one asking Congress 10 declare that there
was no God, and te pass law prohibiting
the people of the United States from as
sembling for the purpose of religious wor-
ship? Would you refer such a petition,
as the Senator from New York T Mr.. Sew.
ard proposes to refer this, with grave in
structions to report the proofs of the exist
ence of God, and TO add their feeble eV-
idence to the testimony on the subject,
which is found equally in the Book OF Ma
ture and in the Book of Revelation, and
which is with US and around US, from the
cradle to the grave! Then. sir, IF there are
Limitations to the duty of receiving, if not
to the right of presenting petitions, what
are they! They should be decent in their
language,a land the action they ask for shonld
be within the sphere of our constitutional
power. This principle the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr.. Davis in my opin-
ion, laid down the other day with equal
truth, and force. If understand his vote
however, 1t happened to him as to most Of
US too often in life, that his doctrine was
better than his practice. think, on ties;
vote on that occasion, he was among those
In favor of the introduction of a petition
asking what we could not grant The
constitutional object of the right of petition
is declared to be the redress of grievances.
Instead of a valuable right, an application
| Il
duce 1t TO farce, and is calculated to bring
the right itself into contempt. If we have
no powers to grant the prayer of petition,
why should such a petition be received!
and our time thus profitlessly spent might
be devoted to useful and national purposes.
| am not speaking sir, of doubtful ques-
tion-of petitions for measures of doubtful
validity, and about which reasonable men
may differ and do differ. These should
be respectfully received and considered
But | speak of applications for the exer-
else of powers which we have clearly and
undeniably no right to --asume-like this
for the dissolution of the Union, or for the
annihilation OF a State of this great confed-
eracy.
1t has been said, sir-and il has been
said in reproach-that if we ought not to
receive petitions asking us to do an un-
constitutional act, we ought not to receive
petitions or remonstrances against such an
act.
do not so understand our own duties
or the rights of the people. There is q
great difference between proposition TO
do what we have no right to do, and re-
monstrance against dong it, when there is
reason TO apprehend ii may be done. The
one asks US 10 violate cur oaths, and the
constitution, the other to recollect the obli-
cations of both.
The petition asks us to dissolve the T.
mon. L shall vote for rejecting it; and if
there were any other mode by which our
indignation at such wicked and foolish