The national Republican., 1861-03-20
"ACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN
WORDS"

of New Hampshire, presented two petitions
from Isaac Jefrrie and other citizens of Penn.
sylvana and John F. Woodward and others,
praying that some plan might be devised for
the dissolution of the American Union Mr..
Webster, Of Massachusetts, was unsparing in
his denunciation Of the petitions, and suggested,
that there should have been a preamble to them,
in these words:
"'Gentlemen, members of Congress: Where
as, at the commencement of the session, you,
and each of YOU, took your solemn oaths, in
the presence Of God, and on the Holy Evangel
lists, that you would support the Constitution of
the United States, now, therefore, we pray you
to take immediate steps to break up the Union
and overthrow the Constitution as soon as you
can
Yet this petition received three votes, John
P. Hale of New Hampshire, William II. Sew
ard Of New York, and Salmon p. Chase OF
Ohio The two last are Cabinet officers. See
Senate Journal, lst Session, 3lst Congress,
page l29.'
Having the curiosity to know whether these
gentlemen actually did vote for this petition,
we took occasion to examine the record. The
States and Union says Yet this petition re.
ccircd three votes" &c. We examined the
journal, and find that it has made several er.
rors. In the first place, it refers to page l29
of the Journal-the record makes it page
l39; and, instead Of being on February lst, it
was February llth-a most astonishing coin.
cdence Of errors.
We looked further, and found, that instead
of the votes being given for this petition, the
question was, Shall this petition be received?"
,t IL Oh tp
dicate that the question was, Shall the Union
be dissolved ?" These gentlemen voted for
the right Of petition. To explain their votes,
we quote from the remarks of the gentle.
men referred to, which we find in the Congres.
sional Globe:
Mr.. Hale said
"The Senator from Kentucky, Mr.. Under
wood,) yesterday, advanced doctrine which
he advanced year ago which / was sorry to
hear repeated by him, for | was sorry that
mind so discriminating as his should entertain
an erroneous opinion so long. That is If pc.
titon asks for action which has no reference to
my person or property, l have no right to pre-.
sent it. Sir, that would exclude nii.etenths of
all the petitions presented here. Why, the
greater number Of petitioners here, asking for
the abolition of corporal punishment in the
navy, according to this argument, would be ex-
cluded, for they would have no right to petition
if they had not received the lash on their backs.
SO in regard to the petitions for the abolition
of the grog Enthusiastically would have a right
to petition except those subject to that disci
plne If you take the two restrictions laid
down by the Senators from Kentucky and Geor.
ga, and have committee to silt these peti
TONS you would exclude ninety-nins hundredths
of the petitions presented here, because, in the
first place, every Senator who presents peti
ton must believe in the right of Congress to
grant the prayer, and in the next place, if he
has no direct interest in the subject of the pc
tition, he has no right to present it. And thus
the right Of petition would be narrowed down
and whitfield awayt to mere nothing.
Globe, February s, 1860, Isl Session 3lst Con.
gress, p. 800.
Mr.. Chase said:
"In most things, Mr.. President. it will give
me pleasure to follow the example Of gentle
men from whom | am now compelled to differ.
But in this matter, think it safer and better
to follow the example which has been set be.
fore me by the Legislature Of my State. That
example is in favor of receiving this petition,
and denying its prayer. With the people Of
Ohio, the right of petition is sacred, and sacred
IL shall vote, therefore, for the reception of
this petition and | shall also, on every occa
sion, by my vote and BY my action, prove that
| am, US Ohio is, for the Union, and against
dissolution. Cong. Globe February II, 1850,
lSt Session, 3lSt Congress, p. 800.
To show exactly what Mr.. Stewards opinion
was on this question, we quote Mr.. Stewards
motion. He said:
~ desire to offer an amendment to the mo.
ton. | will read it. | move that after the
word receive the following be inserted 'and
that the petition be referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary, with instructions to report,
without unreasonable delay, that the Senate has
tain the question: Cong. Globe, February
8, 1850, lSt Session, 3lst Congress, p. 1922.
Before the fnal vote on the reception of the
petition, the following debate took place be-
tween Mr.. Foote and Mr.. Seward:
"'Mr. Foote. Will the Senator vote for the re.
cevng of petition, which he designated, in
Our hearing the other day, as a petition from
madmen?
"Mr. Seward, have never yet seen the peti
ton of any human being that | would not re.
ceioe-never. | do not believe ever shall
for it is not enough to justify me in refusing to
hear human being who may apply to me,
that | have not the power TO grant what he
asks. Now. the Constitution imposes no re.
striction and no modification upon the right OF
petition. Petitions offered by madmen are
harmless, and the way to render them the most
harmless is to hear them, and give them civil
answer. 1t is civil answer that turns away
wrath.
"A Voice. A soft answer
"Mr. Seward. Yes, soft answer. / believe,
sir, if there had never been any petitions on
the subject Of aiave,y rejected by Congress,
there never would have been any petitions pre-
scented to Congress for tie dissolution Of Tie
Union. believe that so long as we suffer
those who are Iisunionists to maintain before
the people false issue on the right Of petition
SO long willw have the right Of petition abused
and perverted for such purposes And il ia for