Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-07-24
VOL. XXXIV. ARSO I


.'rhe various. communications between
the several branches of the Legislature, ;.
which have been described in the last three
chapters, lead to the consideration of petit
tions, by which the people are brought into
communication with the Parliament. The
right OF petitioning the Crown and Parlia-
Inent for redress of grievances is acknowl- o
edged as a fundamental principle of the
Constitution, and has been uninterrupted
ly- exercised from very, early times Be-
fore the Constitution of Parliament had
assumed its present form, and while its ju-
dicial and legislative functions were ILL
defined, petitions were presented to the
Crown and to the great councils of the
realm for the redress of those grievances
which were beyond the jurisdiction of the
common law. There are petitions in the
Tower of the date of Edward /, before
which time it is conjectured that the par
ties aggreved came personally before the
council or preferred their complaints in
the country before inquests composed of
officers of the Crown"
1t is quite significant fact, Mr.. Speak
er, that in the debates OF the First Con-
gress in 1889, upon the proposed amend
ments, to the Constitution, and in rela-
tion to this very subject of the
right of petition, some of the lead
ing members questioned its incorporation
into the organic law of the land as wholly
ton, for the reason. as they claimed, that it
existed in all free Governments inherently
as of common right and as freely to be en-
ljoyed by everybody as the atmosphere they
breathed. Mr.. Sedgwick, in reply TO re-
mark that it should be Incorporated upon
! the priRciple that it was right which be-
longed to the people, said that
sIf the committee were governed by that
general principle, they might have gone
into very lengthy enumeration of rights;
they might have declared that a man should
have right to wear his hat if he pleased,
that he might get up when he pleased, and
go to bed when he thought proper; but he
would ask the gentleman whether he
thought it necessary to enter into these
trifies in a declaration of rights under
Government where none OF them were in
tended to be infringed.n-2 Lloyd's Debates,
1917.
Isuppose our friends on the other side of
the House, and especially those coming
| from New England districts, will hardly
sneer at Mr.. Justice Story as an authority
upon Constitutional law. In the second
volume of his Commentaries on the Cohsti-
tuition, pages 676, 677, in speaking of the
clause securing to the people the right of
petition, he says: r+l
s.This would seem unnecessary to be eX-
/ pressly provided for in a Republican Gov
| ernment, since it results from the very ma
ture of its structure and institutions. 1t is
impossible that it could be practically de-
4 MED, until the spirit of liberty wholly dis
appeared, and the people had become so
| servile and debased as to be unfit to exer-
else any of the privileges of freemen."
Sir, this is certainly not very fiattering
picture of a people who would tamely sub
NIT to the deprivation of this right. How
4 long the American people, to whatever po-
litical party they may at present belong,
are going quietly to submit to these ac
| cumulating wrongs, and to these persistent
and continued infractions of the Constitu-
ton, time and circumstances can only de-
| terlnine.
Mr.. Speaker, 1 repeat the question: do
gentlemen who now propose to deny to
white American citizens the right of petit
ton by sustaining the motion to reject this
memorial forget the history ofthis question
lin this House, at least so far as the North
ern States are concerned? Have they for
gotten the remarkable controversy in this
4 Hall growing out of the position of John
\ Quincy Adams, who was the great
progenitor of their party in relation,
at least, to some of its earlier and
4 less Objectionable principles, upon the
i right of even negro slaves to petit
tion the Congress of the United States {?
And that, too, at time when there was
no general or widespread tanaticism eith-
} er upon the subject of the negro generally
{ or of negro slavery in particular; at time,
sir, long anterior to the apotheosis of the
negro as the great idol for white men to
PROSTATE themselves before in worshipful
!. alteration as the highest of political divin-
tiles? Has all this been forgotten, sir, or
is it only disregarded? =
Mr.. Speaker, upon how fiimsy and un-
tenable a ground is put the objection to the
reception of this petition! 1t is said by
honorable gentlemen that this petition
, ought not to be received, because, as they
assert there is no such body as the Legisla-
ture of the State of Arkansas. What CO.
d gent reasoning, what logical and irresisti-
) BILE argument Do learned and honorable
gentlemen suppose this question is to be
argued and disposed of here like question
of title before one of the judicial tribunals
of the country? 1t is wholly Indifferent
, by what name these memorialists call
themselves, or what character they assume.
, official or private, SO long as neither name
, nor character imply an indignity or disre-
spect to this House. 1t is wholly indiffer-
ent whether they are negroes and call
, | themselves white men, or are white men
and call themselves negroes; whether they
: are Christians and call themselves heather
or are heather and call themselves Chris
: tian; whether, as fact, they are civilized
or savage, bond or free, so long as they are
amenable to the laws of the country in
which they are domiciled they are entitled
to the great right of petition before the law
, making power which governs and controls
; them. Such has been this right, as recog-
nized in England for nearly two centuries
Sir, L consider it as one of the most re-
! markable characteristics of the remarkable
, times in which we live that the denial o
this right of petition, of prayer, of sup.
plication, acknowledged everywhere il
every constitutional Government upon tht
!. face of the globe, has been reserved to b'
exhibited in the great parliamentary body
!, OF nation claiming to be the freest OIL
earth, sitting under a written Constitution
= which expressly guarantees it to every
: human being over which it claims author
= ity.
But it is claimed that Arkansas is not
u State within the Union, and therefore thi
petition ought to be rejected. Sir, L hav,
: had neither time nor opportunity to pre-
pare my views upon this great and allah
. sorbing question. ] shall, however, Of
s some other occasion claim to submit them
Z and have no doubt such occasion will oc
u cur hereafter, for no man who understand
]. or appreciates the temper of the politica
II majority of this Congress can for singl
moment believe that the military bill nov
81 pending upon your table is intended to b
/ finality of the wrongs and oppression
y against the people of the South. Sir,
FL charge the facts to be that, in relation t
5. this idea of the extinction of States by sc
cession, the whole monstrous theory is a
n after thought of Radical republicanisI
ie since the death of President Lincoln, adopt
N ed for the purposes of reveng
e upon his successor and the souther
IN people. and seized upon for part
ir ACKNOWLEDGMENT. We heard of no such SUI
10 10 cidai theory during the war. On the cor
vi trary, sir, who does not know that trol
y President Lincoln down to the most insie
ne nificant exponent of the principles of th
OF party the clear and distinct position ws
IL assumed that all the States which had pass
IN ed ordinances of secession were still in th
III IT,
ne should be able, by the final arbitrament
Dn the sword. to IorciblY separate themselYe