The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 83

Jail. 1844.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
83
28th Cong 1st Sess.
Abolition Petitions—Mr. Saunders.
H. of Reps.
Mr. G. would not depart now from the established
usage. He considered the reception of the petition
and the rejection of its praj*r as the strongest course
against abolition that could be adopted. It would
unite more voices, and convey a clearer expression
of the sentiments of the Senate, than any other mode
that could be proposed, and would therefore ope-
rate as a greater discouragement to those who were
engaged in this wild and unconstitutional scheme of
abolishing slavery in the United States."
It would be difficult to find a more correct his-
tory of the times, though spoken six years ago;
and almost every prediction has been fulfilled. You
now see, since the adoption of this rule in 1840,
these miserable fanatics and enthusiasts going
through the country, setting up their notices and
placards, large as life, and in all of these announce-
ments, they are for lectures to be given on the right
of petition—the right of petition. Thus we have an
issue made wholly different from that of aboli-
tionism. And I now ask gentlemen to say whether
they insist on this false issue? Will they press the
question in this shape? I ask them to change it, and
to meet the question in some other way—either, as
Mr. Grundy says, by rejecting the prayer of the
petition, after the reception, or by some direct vote
putting the matter to rest. For one, I am deter-
mined to vote so as to give this question its true ap-
pearance. I have a sovereign contempt for these
wild, deluded, enthusiastic abolitionists; yet I cannot
vote for the rule. I want to take this weapon out
of their hands, and let them stand forth on their
own principles; and if they had not this rule, or
question of the right of petition, (connected as it is
•with their movements,) they would not be worth, in
a short time, a passing notice.
It has been asked in this debate by gentlemen,
whence comes this right' and others talk about this
being a constitutional right. I do not look upon the
right of petition as a constitutional right. It is
guarded by that wise instrument, not created by it;
no more than the freedom of the press, the liberty
of speech, or the right to worship God.
These rights man does not trace to any act of
Parliament—to any revolution. They are not to be
regarded as grants, gifts, or privileges; but they be-
long to man inherently—are things that appertain to
him as an individual, and which he has the author-
ity to exercise in the social state, where the mind is
not fettered by human legislation.
Our forefathers did not place the provision that is
in our constitution in the first constitution that was
adopted; it was inserted in the amendments, at the
suggestion of the State of Virginia herself: and gen-
tlemen pay but a pooi compliment to the wisdom of
those patriots and sages, when they assert that the
provision was incorporated because the mother coun-
try had an act against tumultuous petitioning, and
what is known as the "riot act." These things
may have had their influence; yet they were con-
scious that Anglo-Saxon blood was in their veins:
and we find this true Saxon feeling exhibiting itself
long before the adoption of a written constitution,
and tha t was in the right of the people to partici-
pate in the popular administration of the laws; and
this feeling was regarded, acknowledged, and cher-
ished, as one of the paramount, primary rights of
republican government.
I would not vote to disturb the institution of
slavery in the District of Columbia; for all men must
see that the subject of slavery heie is so intimately
connected with slavery in the States, that you can-
not strike here without disastrous consequences
there. Slavery is an evil, but an evil that ought
not to be interfered with in this District, without the
consent of the slave States themselves.
We are anxiously asked what we would do if
these petitions were received? I should be governed
by circumstances. If they were received—as that
alone would admit the right of petition—then I
would pursue that course best calculated to allay all
excitement and restore peace and harmony. I have
ever been taught to regard slavery as an evil; yet
we of the North and West have nothing to do with
slavery in the South. The remedy is in their own
hands. We have nothing to do with their rights on
this subject; and I would be the last man on earth
that would disturb them in the possession of what
the constitution unequivocally has guarantied to
them.
Those who contend that we have the power, mid
that it is right to exercise it, by prescribing to the
people what shall not be received, certainly admit
that the converse of the proposition is true, that we
should say what shall be received; and when the
time comes that we shall, by rules or otherwise,
prescribe to the sovereign States of this Union what
they shall present from their sovereignty, then, I ap-
prehend, we shall not be much troubled with the
name of State rights, State sovereignty, &c.
In regard to the constitutional right of Congress
to abolish slavery in this District, Mr. Madison,
and other distinguished men, from his day down to
the present time, have conceded that this power be-
longs to the Congress of these United States. But
I wish gentlemen to keep out of their minds the
question of slavery; and (o look at this rule as it
stands, and where we shall end if we proceed on ill
this track. Suppose we incorpoiate this principle up-
on our institutions, that whenever a subject is calcu-
lated,by anycourse that mightbe taken on the same,
to produce discussion, excitement, and, in the lan-
guage of gentlemen, "insurrection itself," and should,
by some rule like the present, attempt to prevent any-
thing from being said on the subject, or from hear-
ing the people by petitions, joint resolutions of the
Suites, or what not:—Well, the restrictive system is
kept up until the industry of the South is destroyed,
until her fair fields and sunny hills no more present
that smiling appearance that is peculiar to the "land
of the orange and vine;" the system is continued un-
til the many are robbed for the benefit of the few,
and the South presents her petitions and joint reso-
lutions, and they set forth that the system itself is
unconstitutional; then we shall hear from the North
—from the old Bay State—the language that now
comes from the South, from the Carolinas. We
shall be told by New England of vested rights, and
even of the emaciated mother weeping-over the cra-
dle of her hungering child in some manufactory, and
that the reception of those petitions are calculated to
paralyze the industry of the North; to bieak down
her interests; to ruin her society. So we must make
a rule on that subject. Thus it may be said of the
bank question, of free trade, of distribution, &c.; all
of which, in the language of some gentlemen, are
inhibited by the constitution. Thus we may go on
with these restrictive movements, and dangerous en-
croachments upon popular rights, until we shall
lose sight of those great questions which lie at the
very foundation of our republican institutions. I
do not approve of the course that is pursued by cer-
tain members on this floor, (pointing to Messrs. Ad-
ams and Giddincs;) I do not like the spirit and
temper with which they press this question. I
could not be made the instrument of presenting,
or attempting from time to time to offer peti-
tions in violation of this rule. I shall give my vote
to abolish that rule; but if this House determines to
retain it as a part of their regulations, it will be my
duty to yield, and not to wage war from day to day
against it; but, on the contrary, as one of the rep-
resentatives of a law-abiding people, to do all in my
power to allay excitement and bitter feeling.
I would say, in ali sincerity, to those who appear
to be so anxious to effect the emancipation of slave-
ry—who look at causes rather Mian effects that will
flow from the course they are pursuing—that this
question should be surrendered to the influence of
time, of truth, and the progress of civilization. Man
has been left by his Creator to learn from'experienee.
Time, as an element, enters into almost everything
that is valuable. Christianity itself, with all its light
and Divine origin, has been left by its author to
work its way by moral means and moral force; and
now, at the end of the eighteenth century, un-
restricted by law and unshackled by governmental
establishments, it presents itself in its most beautiful
form. Civil liberty has been struggling in all ages;
and after the lapse of a thousand years and more it
has obtained an unquestionable ascendency. From
all this we might learn a valuable lesson—that the in-
fluence of truth, acting on the human heart, will have
its way; that the question of slavery, and all other
questions of this chaiacter, should be left to be gov-
erned by the American mind; that the two hundred
millions of freemen who are to inhabit this nation a
century hence, should exercise their judgment upon
it, and let it stand or fall by the retrograde or advan-
cing march of free principles.
I hope that gentlemen see this question as under-
stood by the people; that it is not regarded as one of
abolitionism, but one of petition. And it becomes
the duty of this House to change the issue, ft is
now regarded by the great mass of the people of the
free States as a blow struck at what they consider
the right of every citizen in this country—the right
to be heard.
Let this government move on its own appropriate
sphere, and notaEteiri'pt by restriction and encroach-
ment to fetter the Amfificmt ftiind, or trammel the
principle of free inquiry, 'th&t the mind of this
people will rise up to a point thai frilf expand, in-
vigorate, and cultivate their whole flueiital powers.
And in this great movement of the ad vrtiiCCn'ient of
man, "the virtue of earth and the holiness Of hea-
ven" are pledged in his support. Then will the
day come when the mind of man shall govern man,
and the nations of the earth be glad.
SPEECH OF MR. SAUNDERS,
of north carolina,
In the House .of Representatives, January 19 and 23,
1844—On the motion of Mr. Buck of Georgia
to amend the motion of Mr. Dromgooix of Vir-
ginia to recommit the report of the Select Com-
mittee on the Rules, by instructing them to report
to the House the following rule, viz:
"No petition, memorial, resolution, of 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
this House, or entertained in any way whatever."
Mr. SAUNDERS rose and spoke to the following
effect:
It is my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to vindicate the
21st rule, and ta answer such of the recent promi-
nent objections as have been urged against it.
Whilst I have manifested some anxiety to obtain
the floor at an earlier day, I had not desired, at the
outset, any discussion on the subject whatever.
Hence my votes to lay on the table, and for the
previous question. Not that I felt unwilling to meet
the opponents of the rule in debate, but that I sup-
posed discussion on the subject would do no good
here, and might produce mischief elsewhere. In
saying this, I beg to be understood as not complain-
ing of my colleague, [Mr. Clingman,] who ad-
dressed the House some days since; because, from
his situation—his unfortunate situation, as l con-
sider it, (separated from the delegation of his own
State, and the entire delegation of the South)—ex-
planation on his part was both proper and becom-
ing. But he will pardon me for saying, however
well satisfied be may be with his own course, and
however much he may feel flattered by the mannt r
in which his remarks may have been received in
certain parts of the House and of the country, I
doubt if they will prove equally satisfactory to the
section of the country from whence we come.
But, sir, I am admonished, by the limits of my
hour, to proceed at once to the points which have
been made in the debate. It is said, ill the first
place, as I understand the objections, that the rule
violates the right of petition; that it is wrong in
itself, having been productive of no good, but much
mischief; and that it should be revoked, in obedience
to the public sentiment at the North, in order to
save those friends and allies who have stood so
manfully by us in support of the rule. These, I
believe, cover the whole ground of objection, and
these I hope to meet and answer in a satisfactory
way.
First: It is said the rule violates the sacred and
constitutional right of petition. It has been distinct-
ly asked, and I repeat the question, What is it gen-
tlemen mean by the right of petition? We desire
some precise and definite answer—not the vague
and general answer which has been given, that(it
means the same thing in regard to abolition petitions
that it does in regard to all other petitions. This,
with due submission, is no answer at all. We de-
sire to know where the right begins, and where it
ends. If it be, as is contended, a constitutional
right, which the House is bound to respect, then
most certainly it is susceptible of some precise de-
finition. If gentlemen mean merely to say that the
people have the right peaceably to assemble, and to
petition Congress for a redress of grievances, then
it was not necessary to travel back to Magna Charta
to establish what none will question. And I go
further, and admit not merely the right of the peo
pie thus to assemble and petition for a redress oi
grievances, whether real or imaginary; but that, they
have a right to expect from their representatives an
answer to their petitions. But if I am to under-
stand these advocates of the right of petition as
denying to Congress the right of deciding as to the
manner and mode of giving this answer, as well as
the time when, then I am prepared to contest the
existence of any such right. The constitution de-
clares: "Congress shall make no law abridging the