The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1860-09-01
l)olitilol.
Mr.. BELL and the Slavery Question. 1910.
ABOLITION PETITIONS


The readers will note the difference be-
tween rejecting the prayer Of petition, and
rejecting or refusing to receive the petition
itself When. in 1870. three years after the
adoption of the Constitution. the society of
Friends. ofPcnnSyivania, forwarded pet-
ton to Congress praying its interference with
the African slave trade, the petition was re-
teired. although it contained an unconstiu-
tional request Congress being expressly
prohibited by the Constitution. for twenty
years to come, f'om modelling with the slave
trade. No question as to the reception of
this petition was made. although its refer
encc or a commitment to a committee, with
view to its being reported upon, was vehc-
inently opposed by soue Southern members
on the ground that it asked Congress to do
that which was unconstitutional. Mr..
Madison advocated its reference.
"G,n,lrinen." he said might vote for the
commitment or reference of the petition with
out any intention disappearing TIC prayer Of
IT.
On subsequent day, the debate still con-
tinmmg, Mr. Madison said:
1.-The debate has taken serious turn, and
it will te owing to tins alone, it an alarm is
created for, had the IN, moria been treated
il the usual way, 1t would have been consd.
erred as a matter OF course and report might
have been made so as to have given general
satisfaction. The petjlion
prayed IN general terms, for the interference
Of Congress, SO far as they were constitution.
ally au,horizrd but even Its prayer was in
some degree unconstitutional. il might bc
committed. as was in the case of Mr..
Churchman's petition, one part Of which
was supposed to apply for an unconstituton-
al interference by the General Government. "
From 1870 down to 1855, when the cues.
ton Of the reception Of abolition petitions was
first made in the House Of Representatives,
all petitions, couched in decoroIs and respect
full terms. were received by Congress, what
ever their subject matter might be. This
fact was stated by the late Felix Grundy, IN
speech made by him. in the Senate of the
United States, on the 2nd of March, 1886.
of which the following is an extract:
MR.. GRUMPY ON ABOLITION PETITIONS.
Therefore il there is no cons itutional
doubts existing. las to the right of Congress
to refuse 10 lcceive the petitions he would
as matter of cxpediency, vote to receive the
petitions, to be followed up with vote to
reject their prayer. But he confessed that
the Constitutional right to refuse to receive
petition was very far from being clear. The
right of petition existed before The formation
Of the Constitution. 1t was well understood
by the trainers Of that instrument and
although it only declares that Congress
shall pass no laws to prevent citizens from
pcaceably assembling and petitioning for
redress of grievances, it never could have
entered into their minds, that those to whom
the petitions were to be addressed would re-
tn, 1,,n !;
right Of petition If those to whom petitions are
addressed se'H not receiUe them, and act upon
them, The trainers Of the Constitution re-
mcmbe,cd that the parliament of Great
Britain had passed laws prohibiting citizens
from assembling consulting and pe,i,ioning
for o redress Of grievances. They iecollected
the acts, comaonly called the not acts, and
therefore they inserted the provision contain
ed in the Constitution. But it never entered
into their minds that petitions. when signed,
would not be received by those to whom they
were addressed. II was a matter of very
little consequence to citizens that they are
pe,ulttcd TO assemble and petition for a re-
dress of grievances, If after they have done
SO, their petitions are not to be received or
considered BY those who have the power to
act upon the suhjcct.matter OF the petition. -
To his mind these arguments were too strong
10 be diSrcgaIdcd and he was unwilling to
give the AbolitioniSts the benefit of them
A, present they have no foundation on which
to s'and. They are giving way to the pres
sure Of the public intelligence in the non
holding States. But if we shall enable them
to blend the right Of petition with their aboli-
ton schemes. they may RAISE u storm which
will shake The very foundation of Gov
eminent. From the year 1890 down to the
present day, all petitions have been received
by this body which were respectful and
drcorous. whatever The subject.matter of the
petition might be: and at every session. the
petition Of the Society Of Friends, clothed in
similar language with the present one, has
been received. Mr.. G. would not depart now
from the established usage. lie considered
the reception of the PETITION and the rejection
Of The prayer as the strongest course against
abolition that could be adopted"
TO the same conclusions with Mr.. Grundy
namely, that the petitions ought to be re-