The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 197

                                
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
im
mail-route from Lawrenceburg, in Armstrong coun-
ty, to Lawsenham, in Clarion county. Also, the
petition of Horace Leet, and 100 citizens of Potter
county, Pennsylvania, asking a reduction in the
rates of postage. Also, three petitions of citizens of
Erie county, praying an appropriation to continue
the public improvement in the harbor at Erie.
By Mr. RUSSELL: The petition and papers of
John Elwyn, praying for relief: referred to the
Committee of Claims.
By Mr. EAMSEY: The memorial of numerous
citizens of Pennsylvania,asking that such an alteration
may be made in the law requiring coasting licenses,
as may exempt from its operation all canal boats
employed in the domestic coal trade, which are de-
pendent upon the application of the external power
of animals, 01- steam, to propel them: referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. HAMLIN: The petition of Abner Tay-
lor and 20 others, merchants of Bangor, Maine, in
favor of a drawback on domestic spirits manufac-
tured from foreign molasses, and exported from the
country. Also, the petition of Jonathan Marston
and 33 others, masters, ship-owners, and others,
citizens of Maine, for an appropriation for the erec-
tion of a light-house at the entrance of Little river
harbor, in the town of Cutler: referred to the Com-
mittee on Commerce.
By Mr. McCONNELL: The memorial and ac-
companying documents of Doctor R. R. G. Lee, of
Cherokee county, Alabama, asking pay for services
as surgeon in the Florida war. Also, the memorial
of Captain Billy Casey, of Coosa county, Alabama,
praying an increase of pension. Also, the memorial
and petition of W. H. Cunningham, signed by 200
citizens, praying Congress to refund certain mon-
eys wrongfully collected by the Post Office Depart-
ment.
Mr. SLIDELL withdrew from the files the
remonstrances of the General Council of New Or-
leans, and of the Councils of the First and Third
Municipalities of New Orleans, against the exten-
sion of the port of New Orleans, with other papers;
and they were referred to the Committee on Com-
merce.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Saturday, January 27,1S44.
REPORTS AND REPORTERS.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON rose to make the motion
of which he yesterday gave notice, to amend the
rules of the House, in relation to the reporters of the
proceedings of this House. He wished so to amend
the rules as to confine the admissions to reporters
of the city papers alone. He did not see how the
matter could be adjusted otherwise.
The SPEAKER said the subject could only be
entertained by general consent. And he further
stated, that the business of the morning hour was
the report of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. BLACK wished to offer a paper for the con-
sideration of the House in connexion with the sub-
ject alluded to by the gentleman from Tennessee,
[Mr. C. Johnson.]
Objection was made.
Mr. WISE, from the minority of the Committee
on Rules, made a report; which was ordered to be
printed.
Mr. BLACK again desired permission to offer the
paper which he held in his hand; and he called upon
the Clerk to read it for the information of the House.
Objections were made to the reading.
After some irregular conversation, the House
consented to hear the paper read.
The Clerk read it accordingly, as follows:
For disseminating correct information of the pro-
ceedings of this House among the people—
Be it resolved, That a committee of five be appoint-
ed forthwith, to consider and report, as soon as prac-
ticable, of the expediency and practicability of insti-
tuting, in lieu of the present system of reporting, a
corps of reporters, to be appointed and paid by the
House, ana located therein, whose duty it shall be
to attend the House when in session, and to report
faithfully and literally every thing that is done or
attempted to be done officially therein, whether
the same be in the affirmative or negative, truly
and to the letter as it occurs; and also all decisions,
motions, points of order, or otherwise; bills, resolu-
tions, and every action of the House; of any mem-
ber thereof, in his capacity as such; and of the Com-
mitees of the Whole House; also all the conversations,
remarks, declarations, decisions, and speeches of the
Speaker, the members, or officers of the House, ad-
dressed to the House or to the Committees of the
Whole House, exactly as they are made, delivered,
or spoken.
And that said committee inquire and report of the
expediency and practicability of publishing said re-
ports by the House, or the authority thereof, from
day to day, or at longer periods of time, in newspa-
per, pamphlet, or other form, to be mailed free of
postage, to any person or persons who may subscribe
and pay in advance therefor, the sum of cents
per session.
And that said committee inquire and report of
the expediency of requiring said reporters, before
they enter upon the duties of their office, to take an
oath that they will well and, truly perform the du-
ties assigned them as reporters of the House, to the
best of their knowledge and ability; and that they
will not, during their continuance in office, report, or
write for any other newspaper, pamphlet, or other
publication; and that said committee inquire and
report how many reporters ought to be appointed;
what amount of money ought to be paid to each,
as a compensation for his services; how these reports
ought to be published—whether by means of a gov-
ernment printing press, or by contract with individ-
uals, or in what other way; and, also, as to the
proper means of distributing the same to those who
may subscribe therefor.
The SPEAKER said the subject could only be
entertained by general consent.
Objections were made; and it went over without
any action thereon.
REPORT ON THE RULES.
The SPEAKER announced the business of the
morning hour to be the report of the Committee on
Rules, on which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Weicht] had the floor.
"Mr. WRIGHT proceeded to address the House
on the subject of the 25th (the old 21st) rule, and on
the right of petition, but only an occasional word
which he uttered could for some time be heard. He
was understood to say that he wished to define his
position on the subject before the House; and he pro-
ceeded to state that he could not vote for the retention
of that rule; and then to reply to the remarks of gen-
tlemen who had preceded him in arguments against
the reception of certain petitions. He quoted, from
the congressional reports of proceedings at an earlier
period of our history, the language of Mr. Madison
and others, to show what had been the course taken
by those who must be supposed to know what
power the constitution was designed to confer.
The Clerk also, at his request, read the language
of Mr. Grundy on the subject of the right of peti-
tion.
Mr. WRIGIXT then resumed his argument. Gen-
tlemen talked about the right of petition being a
grant. He contended that it was a right which be-
longed to man, as a man. It could be traced to no
act of Parliament; it was guarded by the constitu-
tion, but not granted by it. It existed in common
with the freedom of speech. He believed the amend-
ment of the constitution, in relation to this right,
was introduced at the instance of Viiginia; it came
from the Old Dominion, though it was merely placed
there, as he had said, by way of guard; for it
was not considered necessary to be made a grant, but
believed to be a primary right which was possessed
and enjoyed by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors. They
felt that they had a right to use their own language
to participate in all the privileges belonging to free-
men. There was not a department of the govern-
ment, through all its different ramifications, with the
exception of this House, where a rule like this ever
existed. And if this House had the right to say
what petition might or might not be introduced, they
had assuredly the right to dictate to the States of
this Union. He asked those gentlemen, whose mot-
to was "theUnion,"how they would like to see State
sovereignty dictated to in this manner? How many
times had the question been asked, during this dis-
cussion, what should be done with these pe-
titions? His answer was, that he would be gov-
erned by circumstances. Though he regarded
slavery as an evil, yet he looked upon the proceed-
ings of those miserable abolitionsts as far worse.
When he witnessed such scenes of excitement as
had been witnessed within that House, he would
be for taking the course best calculated to allay that
excitement; he would alloy the petitions to be re-
ceived and disposed of in the most summary manner.
He would not object to their reception, for that
■would only increase the ardor of the petitioners.
Had there not been areportqponthe subject of the
Sabbath mailsj.they.wojilcl doubtless iwtsre had their
table loaded with petitions upon that'subjcct. Where
would they have been able to stop? Hisanterests
and his feelings were with the South; yet fie would
be. willing to change the rule which prohibits alto-
gether the reception of petitions of this nature;
and, as a matter of policy, permit them fo be re-
ceived, with a view to being summarily disposed of.
So intimate was the connexion between the question
of the abolition of slavery withiij the District of
Columbia, and the abolition of .slavery throughout
the States, that he would be disposed to give no
vote which would have a tendency to interfere with
the subject at all. He was not to be led into the quee
tion, at this time, as to whether slavery was;right or
wrong. A great change in public sentiment had
taken place upon this subject within" the last
fifty years. The movement of the human mind
was onward. A different state of things existed in
this hall fifty years ago; and, if they were disposed
to be true to themselves, true to their institutions,
true to those who should come after them, and to
enable the government to go on prosperously, they
would avoid the encroachments which would neces-
sarilyf ollow from too severe restrictions upon pop-
ular rights.
Mr. STILES said, of all the dangers wliich threat-
ened the Union, not one could be found more speedy
in its operation, more sure in its consequences, or
fatal in its results, than foreign interference with the
democratic institutions of the South. Other divis-
ions between citizens of this wide-spread country,
were but the honest differences of opinion, arising
from diversity of interests, education and habits; and
it was a wholesome difference, because it was found-
ed in reason, and had for its object the preservation
of the liberties of the country. Very different were
such divisions from those which were created by
the deluded fanatics who acted upon the principle
that the end justifies the means, which end was
the desolation of the fairest region of the earth—
the destruction of the most perfect system of
social and political happiness. This danger
was not only great, but increasing. The spirit
of abolition had advanced, and was advancing- It
increased by opposition; it triumphed by defeat. A
few years ago, the excitement occasioned by the
few fanatics who had then enlisted in the cause of
abolition, was but insignificant. It was deemed by
the enlightened and reflecting citizen as an ignis. fa-
tuus, which would expire with the exhaustion of
the gas by which it was produced; or, if grasped
by foreign hands, either by accident or design, tnat
there was no combustible matter in its reach, and it
would be extinguished by the first breath which
swept over it. But time had proved this to be erro-
neous. The spark which a few inflammable mate-
rials had breathed into ignition, had increased
into a flame, which had spread itself throughout
the whole country; stopped by neither partiotism
nor party, it was already causing principle to melt
with fervent heat; and if permitted to extend, as it
bad done heretofore, he found it would involve this
country m one great conflagration.
The question before the House, in which this im-
portant subject was merged, was whether they should
reject or retain the 21st rule. Being in favor of re-
taining the rule, he proposed to notice a few of the
objections which had been urged against it. First,
it was contended that it was a violation of the con-
stitution, and an infringement of the right of pe-
tition. What portion of the constitution did this
rule violate? The first amendment; .and what did
that provide? That Congress should pass no law
abridging the right of the people peaceably to as-
semble and petition for the redress of grievances.
Had Congress passed any such law? Did they
propose to pass any such law? This House was but
one branch of the government, and a rule of the
House was not a law of Congress; but it might be
said that the rule violated the right of petition; that
it was in opposition to the spirit and intention of the
constitution. But it must be admitted by those who
argue thus, that, before the constitution coutft be
violated, some legislative enactment must be passed.
What was it that led to the adoption of this amend-
ment to the constitution? It was thfe attempt, under
the act of 13 Charles 2, in England, to punish, with in-
carceration, the offence of violating the provisions of
that act, which materially abridged the right of peti-
tion. The great grievance there, was the right of the
people to assemble and state their grievances. It was
this subject, and not the reception of petitions,
as stated by the gentleman from North Carolina^