Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1856-08-06

| Government. 1t is right Which could not have
/ been infringed without extinguishing the vita
spirit of our institutions. If any had been so bolt
i as to attempt to violate it, it woud have been
4 conclusive argument to say to them the constitu
ton has given you no power over the right o.
petition, and you dare not touch it."
Again, on pages 6S3-4, he says:
"The next argument advanced by the gentle.
man, (Mr. Calhoun0 is, that we are not bound
to receive this petition, because, to grant its
prayer would be unconstitutional. In this ar
gument shall not touch the question, whether
i Congress possess the power to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia or not. Suppose
they do not, can, the gentleman maintain the
position that we are authorized by the constitu-
ton to refuse to receive a petition from the
people, because we may deem the object of il
Unconstitutional Whence is any such restric-
ton of the right of petition derived? Who gave
it to us?, Is it to be found IN the constitution
The people are not constitutional lawyers; but
they feel oppression, and know when they are
aggrieved. They present their complaints to
us in the form of o petition. ask by what au-
thority can we refuse to receive it 2 They have
right to spread their wants and their wishes
before US, and to ask for redress. We are bound
respectfully to consider their request; and the
best answer which we can give them is, that
they have not conferred upon us thepower, un-
der the constitution of the United States, to
grant them the relief which they desired. On
any other principle we may first decide that we
have no power over a particular subject, and
then refuse to hear the petitions of the people
in relation to it. We would thus place the con-
stitutional right of our constituents to petition
at the mercy of our own discretion"
And on the 9th of March the vote was taken
see page 779. T.'. .I. ''-a
''The question was, shall the petition be re-
ceived2 and it was decided in the Affirmative
yeas SO, nays 10, as follows: -,
"Yeas-Messrs. Benton, Broom, BUCHANAN,
Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing, of Il
linois, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendrick, Hill,
Hubbard Kent, King of Ala, King of Ca,
Knight, Linn McKeaI, Norris Naudain, Niles,
Prentiss, Robins Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley,
Southland, Swift, Tallmadge Upton, Tomlnson,
Wall, Webster Wright-36. isfA iat-a.
"Nays-,:Messrs Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert,
Leigh, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Walker,
White.-10.
After this vote was taken, A,. Buchanan,gave
way to his feelings of pleasure at the triumph
he had achieved over Mr.. Calhoun, as follows =
(page 1907 to. i .l. fii2a
"Sir, said Mr.. B., rejoice at the result of the
vote which this day has been recorded. 1t will
forever secure to the citizens of this country the
sacred right of petition. the question has now
been finally settled by q decisive vote of the
Senate The memorial which present from
portion of the highly respectable Society of
Friends, has been received by triumphant ma
jority. Another happy consequence ofthis vote
| is, that abolition is forever separated from the
right of petition. The abolitionists will now
never be able to connect their cause with the
violation of right so Justly dear to the people.
They must now stand alone. This is the very
position in which every friend ofthe Union both
to the North, and to the South, ought to desire
to see them placed" I
From which we learn. that Mr.. Buchanan
PRESENTED, SPOKE and VOTED for the reception
of petition to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia; and not content with the reception,
''REJoICED AT THE RESULT OF THE VOTE
Third charge: Mr.. Fillmore is an abolition
ist, because of his votes when the resolutions OF
Joshua r. Giddngs were under consideration
in the House of Representatives, in reference to
the '.Case of the Creole;" and on Mr.. Bolts res
olution censuring Mr. Giddings for offering
| those resolutions. ...rt..- -,
Let us turn to the "House Journal, 9th Con-
gress, second session. and see how the charge is
sustained This, like the others, will be found
to be "a gun that shoots at both ends.' "These
resolutions, [Mr. Gidding's,] being. read, the
previous question was moved by Mr.. Ward,
when motion was made by Mr. Everett, that
the resolutions do lie on the table, which
motion was decided in the negative-yeas So,
| nays t25-'Mr. Fillmore and company" says the
Enquirer, "voting in the negative" Who COM
posed the company of abolitioaistsa John NJ.
Botts q will only give the names ola few south
ern Wings and Democrats HENRY A. WISE! J!
Thomas W. Gilmer, William L. Goggin, George
w. Hopkins, Edmund W. Hubbard, r. NJ. I.
Hunter A. II. III. Stuart, Geo. W. Summers,
Matthew Coles, William A. Harris, Richard W.
Barton, Sam1 l.. Hays, Lewis Steenrod-all
from the State of Virginia. 1t is unnecessary to
follow the list further and show that Garrett
Davis, William 0. Butler, Andrew Kennedy,
and q host of others were in company with Mr..
Fillmore. li
ga call of the House was then moved by Mr..
Everett, and was refused, when the previous
question was demanded, Iand put, viz: Shall
the main question be now putP and passed IN
the afirmative-yeas 122, nays 61-Millard
Fillmore, Meredith P Gentry, OF. Tenn, John
P. Kennedy, of Maryland. John Pope, of KY,
Kenneth Rayner of n c., Edward Stanley, of
N. O., Joseph r. Underwood, of KY, voting in
the negative.
Sand the main question was stated viz:
That the House do agree to the resolutions
whereupon Mr.. Giddings withdrew his said res
olutions." For these votes, Mr. Fillmore is to
be branded asan abolitionist 20 shame, where
is thy blush !" The Enquirer, that fair dealing
sheet, is referred to pages 567, 56s, 569 and $40
of the House Journal.
On page $40 of the same Journal, Mr. Bolts
resolution censuring Mr.. Giddings will be found,
and the proceedings thereon. If Mr. Fillmore
did vote against censuring member OF the
House, l am unable to see by what mode of rea-
soning the Enquirer comes to the conclusion that
he is not to be trusted on the slavery question
Mr.. Giddings had offered his Creole resolu-
tions because it was his privilege, and he con-
ceived it, doubtless, to be his duty to do SO, as
the representative of constituency who required
it at his hands. When the House censured him,
it interfered with that privilege, and encroach-
ed upon the rights of that constituency. Mr..
Fillmore was doubtless actuated by such con-
siderations, even though he disapproved of the
sentiments contained in the resolutions OF MIR.
Giddings In voting against MIR: Bolts resolu-
ton he did not vote for the abolition OF slavery
in the District, or the suppression OF the inter-
slave trade or the interference with the sub
ject in any manner whatever.
Let us examine the record:
Mr.. Bolts resolution is as follows, leaving out
the preamble:
"Resolved, That this House holds the conduct
of the said member as altogether unwarranted
and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe
condemnation of the people Of this country, and
of this body in particular"
And on the question, shall the rules be sus-
pendeli there appeared 1913, nays, 6s.
OF those voting in the negative, are John P.
Kennedy, of Md. Joseph R. Underwood, Millard
Fillmore. and HENRY A. WISE Two-thirds
not voting in the affirmative, the rules were not
suspended. Mr. Wise did not regard the matter
of sufficient importance to suspend the rules of