The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 29

Jan. 1844.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
29
28th Cong 1st Sess.
Rules of the House—Mr. Bearasley.
H. of Reps.
right and wrong; and he should vote, notwithstand-
ing the "defiance" of the gentleman from Georgia, in
accordance with his own judgment.
He was opposed to the recommitment, because he
did not anticipate that it would advance at all the
question then before the House, and the question
which finally must be decided. The question must
be met, and it could as well be met without as with
a recommitment. The true and only issue involved in
the question was—were they to adopt what had usual-
ly been called the "21st rule," or were they to reject
it from the rules of the House. That was the ques-
tion, and the only question, which they were to de-
termine, either then or at some subsequent time. It
was time to settle that question, and to go on in the
ordinary and necessary business of legislation. If
it were included or excluded from the rules of the
House, let it be settled—settled one way or the
other. The whole matter could as well be decided
upon the rules already reported, and before the
House, as after they should have been recommitted
and again reported with the rule in or out. For that
reason, he was opposed to a recommitment; as, in
the proper progress of business, the whole subject
could be met precisely in the same way as it could
were the rules recommitted. If the rules were again
reported, including the 21st rule, precisely the same
question would be raised, by a motion to exclude it,
as there might now be raised to include it. Hence
he could see no use or necessity in a recommitment.
He was for now meeting and definitively settling the
whole question.
One word (said Mr. H.) as to the position in
which he apprehended many gentlemen upon that
floor were placed; certainly the one which he occu-
pied. He did not wish to be mistaken in the matter.
He was unwilling to have his vote mistaken on mere
collateral issues. He wished to vote on the main
proposition, and to vote directly. He should vote
against the rule, because he believed the right of pe-
tition was not an abstraction, but a clear, plain, and
sacred constitutional right, neither to be denied nor
infringed upon. Such being its character, it was
one which could not be controlled or affected by this
or any other legislative body without a constitu-
tional violation. It was a constitutional right, dis-
connected with the opinions of any body of men.
When the House said in advance that they would
not receive petitions upon any particular subject,
• they undertook to prejudge, and did prejudge the
matter, and to exclude individuals from privileges
which constitutionally belonged to them. It was
confounding our duty of receiving, with the right to
act after reception. He very well understood that
the action of the House upon petitions, after they
were received, was to be fully and clearly determined
by a majority. The right to petition was a distinct
question. The power of the House to reject or re-
fuse the prayer, is another and distinct proposition.
If the right of the people, to have their petitions re-
ceived is dependent upon the will of a majority, then
there was no question over which a majority, per-
haps arbitrary and tyrannical, might not exercise
that right; and the right of petition becomes then
not the right of a constitution, but a right dependent
upon the will of a majority. He was not disposed
to argue these questions. The conclusions which he
drew from them were irresistible to his mind. For
the reasons stated—or rather upon these principles,
as stated—he must vote against the 21st rule, and
in favor of receiving such petitions as were pre-
sented, and of having them referred and reported
upon. Upon such a report lie was ready to act.
One other point, and he should have said all he
desired or intended. He would have these petitions
referred to some of those who have as much feeling
as any gentlemen upon that floor. Let there be a
report in the strongest language, and under the most
sacred and solemn obligations which they owed, not
to the South, but to "the Union, the whole Union,
and nothing but the Union," with all its compro-
mises; and he stood there to sustain that report.
While gentlemen on every side, and from every sec-
tion, were speaking of their devotion to the Union
and the Constitution, he must exercise the same
right of stating his views upon that point. He was
himself in favor of the compromises of the Constitu-
tion; and so were, in his opinion, the freemen of the
North. It was framed by the wisest ond most patriotic
men the world had ever knoit'u. He asked—he was
extremely desirous—that he nnght not be mis-
taken ill these miserable collateral issues of lav-
ing on the table, recommitting, and questions of
that kind; but that they should have the privilege of
y£itin|; directly upon the high and holy obligations
which they owed to the Union and the Constitu-
tion, and then see if they did not come up to the
mark, and sustain the Union, the Constitution and
its compromises. We will stand by the Union in
the North until time shall be no more. We will
stand by that Union and Constitution, reared by the
wisdom of our fathers, and cemented by their
blood. We will stand by them at the expense of our
lives, and the desolation of our own firesides. He
asked again, that they should not be misunderstood
as to their duties and obligations to the Union.
However high and sacred were those obliga-
tions, however devoutly and ardently others
might be attached to it, he could yield to
none of them for himself or for the North. He
demanded the opportunity to settle that fact. Let
us, if it will add force to duty, here, as in
the temple of liberty, swear upon its altars, by the
blood of our fathers, and by all the momentous
and sacred responsibilities that devolve upon us, that
we will stand by this glorious Union. We ask that
we may pronounce, in a voice more certain than
empty declamation—more fixed and lasting in its
character—that we may spread upon our records
the never-to-be-disregarded obligations that we owe
to our fathers, to our country, and to ourselves,
that we will forever perpetuate the iustitutions
which have been transmitted to us. Give us the op
portunity, and then see if we do not go—not for the
North, not for the South, not for the East, or for the
West—but for "the Union, the whole Union, and
nothing but the Union."
REMARKS OF MR. BEARDSLEY,
OF NEW YORK.
In the House of Representatives, Friday, January 5,
1844.
Mr. DROMGOOLE, of Virginia, moved to re-
commit the repori made, on a former day, by the
Select Committee on Rules, and Mr. BLACK of
Georgia, moved to amend the proposition to recom-
mit, by instructing the Committee to report, as one
of the rules for the government of the House,
the twenty-first rule of the last Congress, which is
as follows.
"No petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper,
praying the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave-
trade between the States or Territories of the United
States in which it now exists, shall be received by
the House, or entertained in any way whatever."
Mr. BEARDSLEY observed that he had had the
honor of being appointed a member of the select com-
mittee which had been raisedafew days since to report
to the House such rules as they supposed best cal-
culated for the promotion of the public welfare, and
for the transaction of business in this hall. That
committee, with one or two exceptions, and those
individually, he supposed, had sufficient reason for
being absent; but about every member of that com-
mittee—
Mr. DROMGOOLE (a member of the committee)
interposed, and said he rose to a question of order, or
of decorum. Did the gentleman from New York
allude to the absence of the members of that com-
mittee?
Mr. BEARDSLEY repeated his last remark, and
inquired if the gentleman called him to order.
Mr. DROMGOOLE said, if the gentleman insisted
upon the point of order, he (Mr. D.) did call lum to
order; and he would inquire of the Chair if it was
in order for the gentleman to make allusion to the
proceedings of the committee?
The SPEAKER was understood to say that it was
not in accoidance with parliamentary usage to allude
to the proceedings of a committee.
Mr. BEARDSLEY resumed. He had not spoken,
nor intended to speak, of anything which bad oc-
curred in the committee; nor had he intended' any
reflection upon gentlemen wiio might be supposed to
fall within the remark he had made. He meant
merely to affirm that the committee had taken upon
themselves the duty enjoined by the House. They
had labored for several weeks persr-vermgly, anx-
iously desirous to perfect the rules in the best mode
for tlie transaction of the business of the House,
and to preserve all the rights of the country. Now,
the honorable member from Georgia [Air. Black]
had thought proper, in terms, to challenge the com-
mittee. 'Why, what the gentleman meant by chal-
lenging the committee was more than he knew; and
more, he presumed, than any member of the House
knew.
Mr. BLACK interposed, remarking that he had
given no challenge; and, after some conversation
between the two gentlemen, (Mr. B. yielding the
floor for explanation,) proceeded to state that he had
said that, upon this question of abolition—upon this
question of reporting back a set of rules emascu-
lated of the 21st rule, he "defied" the committee, he
defied the majority of this House, or the majority
of any other house in the country. He was sent
here to defy any set of men who would open the
legislation of the country, by emasculating the rules,
to the abolitionists of the North, of the South, of
the East, or of the West—he cared not whence they
came—and permit them (Mr. B. waa understood to
say) to insult him personally, or to traduce the char-
acter of his constituents. Such men he was pre-
pared to defy; his constituents had sent him here to
defy them, and he did defy them.
Mr, BEARDSLEY resumed. He was mistaken
in the the term which had been made use of by the
gentlemen; it was "defied,'''' not "challenged," .as he
had first stated: but he might apply the same re-
mark to the term which the gentleman now de-
clared he had used. He did not know what it
meant. The committee had intended nothing wrong
to the gentleman, to his constituents, or to their
property. For the gentleman to come here to drfy
the committee, to defy the House, or to defy the
country—it was inexplicable to him. He saw no
occasion for such outbreaks of passion, or high
tones of defiance. And he begged the House, upon
a subject as solemn as this, (for this had indeed be-
come, in this country, a subject of most solemn
consequence, and it should be discussed with that
spirit of liberality which became every man on this
floor,) not to be betrayed into undue excitement or
warmth of feeling. He felt it to be a subject of sol-
emn and important consequence; and, although his
convictions were firm and decided upon the matter,
yet he would express them in a manner respectful
to the House and to other members, and so as to
avoid injuring their feelings.
It had been said (continued Mr. B.) by the" hon-
orable member, in effect, that the committee had
done wrong in reporting a set of rules which did
net include the one which prohibited the reception
of what were usually called abolition petitions.
That objection to the report existed also in other
parts of' the House; and it was fit it should be de-
cided. With the gentleman who had moved the in-
struction now under consideration, he agreed that
there was no better mode of meeting this question
than on the instruction he had proposed. It called
for a direct vote. It was a fair mode of ascertain-'
ing the judgment of the House—of meeting and
disposing of the question whether they should
have a rule which shut out of doors petitions
of the character to which the rule referred. It
had been Mr. B.'s fortune to be several years
a member of the House. He had uniformly
voted to receive petitions of this character. At an
early period of the time he had been here, he had
voted (as was the practice, and as then, upon the
whole, it was his own impression of the propriety
of the matter) to refer these petitions to commit-
tees—sometimes to the Committee for the District of
Columbia, and at other times to select committees.
At that period very little, and he eojjjd not say from
memory that any question had been made whether
they should be referred or not. At a subsequent
period, the question had been made whether they
should be referred, and his own opinion having been
made up finally and definitively upon all these peti-
tions, and against their prayer, he had been ready
to act upon the subject at any time, and had there-
fore repeatedly ^ oted to place them upon the table
after they had been received by the House. He re-
garded this as a summary method of disposing of
them. He had voted in accordance with what was
said to be the Southern view ,of the question, but
what seemed to him the constitutional and American
view He had made no distinction, in this respect,
between the North and the South; holding that what
wns wise and just towards one scction w&s ©equally
so towards the other. He had believed then, as he
believed now, that it was inexpedient to grant the
prayer of any of the petitions that had been present-
ed here on this subject. But upon the great and
solemn question whether tliey should receive these
petitions, Mr. B.'s opinion was that they were
bound by the Constitution of the United States—
that they were bound in common right, as freemen
and as honest men—that they were under all the
obligations which could rest upon members of this
body in any case, to receive these petitions, it