The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-02-21
DEBATE In THE SENATE ON THE 18TH.
THE RIGHT OF PE1ITIoy-THE DISSOLU-
TION OF THE UNION.

We present on our fourth page some account o
the Debate in the Senate on the l1th of February
on the question of receiving petition offered by
Mr.. Hale a former day. in relation to a disso
luton of the Union The petition set forth thai
the Federal Constitution, in supporting Slavery
violated the Divine law; that the experiment Of
uniting Slavery and Freedom under one Govern.
ment had failed; and closed by respectfully ask.
ing Congress to propose without delay, some
plan for the Immediate and peaceful dissolution
of the American Union
The petition was respectful in its language and
tone ThS sgners to it did not ask Congress to
s'salee III JoD hpt ta o1e-,"'e .I2R 70, rs
dissolution evidently under the impression that
such a movement was within its constitutional
powers. Is this impression correct?
Article 5th Of the Constitution provides as
follows:
Congress-, whenever two-thirds of either
House shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this Constitution or on the ap-
pication of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
several States, shall call a Convention for pro-
posing amendments, which in either case shall be
valid to all inents and purposes, as parts of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures Of
three-fOurths of the several States or by Con-
ventions in three-fourths thereof as the one or
the other mode Of ratification may be proposed
by Congress provided that no amendments
which may be made prior TO the year 1903 shall
in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses
in the ninth section Of the first article and that
no State, without its consent, shall he deprived of
its equal suffrage in the Senate"
The signers to this petition have doubtless no.
tced that in the proceedings of Legislative bodies
1t is common for a member to move to amend
bill or resolution by striking out all after the en-
acting clause, the word resolved, and inserting
asubstitutci and, observing that, by the Consti-
tuition, Congress, by majority of two-thirds in
each House, is empowered to propose amendments
#sreto they may have inferred that it could pro-
Pose to amend by submitting u substitute, con-
templating, for example, the formation of two
separate Unions.
No Senator adverted to this possibility none
seemed TO think of inquiring how far Congress
could 90 in proposing amendments All who OPP
posed the reception Of the petition assumed that
1t prayed Congress to abolish The UaiOn-a thing
so manifestly and wholly beyond its power, that
it was right to reject the paper at once. This
was the assumption made by Messrs Davis and
Webster of Massachusetts-an assumption ut
terly groundless the petition asked simply that
Congress would propose plan Of dissolution. Is
this manifestly and wholly beyond its power
1t is question with two sides-it admits of argu-
nent The language of the article respecting
amendments, quoted above raises presump-
tion at least, that Congress, by the requisite ma
jorities, Is competent TO submit such PROPOSE
ton. What, then, was the dictate of common
sense in relation to the petitions To receive it;
and, if no disposition prevailed to act upon it in
any way, to lay it upon the table but, if other
wise, to refer IL to an appropriate committee with
suitable instructions. Should the Senate decide
that IL had not the power to execute the request
of the petition, that decision would be a good
reason for denying the prayer, but no reason at
all for refusing to receive the petition.
Could we be surprised at any notions put forth
in Congress, we should be surprised at the no.
tions of several learned Senators concerning the
Right of Petition. Judge Underwood defined two
limitations, as he called them upon this right
lst, Want Of power in the body petitioned; I'd,
Exemption of the persons petitionng from the
operation Of the exercise Of power Ietitioned for
Where Congress had no right to grant the prayer
of petition, it ought not to receive it, nor ought
It to receive petition praying for action or nom
action where neither could affect the petitioners!
On one or the other of these grounds he would
refuse to receive nearly all the petitions touching
the Slavery Question. For example he would
reject one, praying the abolition Of the inter
State slave trade, in consequence Of n want Of
power to act on that subject; and another, pray
ing the abolition of slavery in the District Of
Columbia because such abolition could in no
way affect the petitioners residing out Of the Dis
trict.
These would be reasons to urge against grant
ing the prayer of a petition, but no reasons at
all for refusing 10 hear IL. To REUSE 10 hear is a
violation or abridgement Of the right of petition,
and is not demanded by the rights or dignity of
Congress- To rtfue 10 grant, after hearing is no
invasion of the right of petition is a sufficient
safeguard of the rights and dignity of Congress,
and of the provisions of the Constitution. The
examples referred to show the unreasonaheness
of any such limitation, limitations unknown to
the Constitution, and never recognised by any
Government In regard to the interstate slave
trade, Public Opinion is not settled Ii is sub
ject admitting Of apparently strong arguments
for and against MIR. Underwood doubtless denies
the power, but it would cost him an elaborate ar
gument TO demonstrate that il does not exist.
Then as to Slavery in the District Of Column
bia it's abolition, the Shareholders of the States
say. would be n blow at the stability Of their Pc
culiar institution although not citizens here
their rights they insist, would be indirectly dam
aged Ga the other hand, the People of the
North say, that as Slavery exists in this District
by act of Congress, Congress in which they are
represented. they are involved in the legislative
support Of what they believe to be wrong Be
sides, they say, the existence of Slavery here
gives an undue advantage to the supporters Of
Slavery annoys tho Representatives from the
free States, and letters their freedom. For These
and other reasons they insist upon its abolition
asserting that il would exert a most favorable in
fuenoe on their rights and interests.
Now, here are conflicting demands, conflicting
interests-but Mr. Underwood without paying
the least attention 10 them, says that petitions
concerning Slavery in the District from citizens