The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 82

82
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Jan. 1844.
28th Gong 1st Sess.
Abolition Petitions-*—Mr. J, A- Wright.
H. of Reps.
21st rule, which rejects certain petitions, and on
the amendment offered by Mr. Black, of Georgia,
to .recommit, with instructions to reinstate said
rule in the report:
Mr. WRIGHT rose, and said to the House, that
he came here prepared to vote on this question, and
was desirous that the vote should be taken, and that
no debate or excitement should grow out of the
same; but, contrary to his expectation, the debate
had been prolonged, excitement had been raised,
and numerous arguments set forth, to such an ex-
tent that he was inclined to say a few words in jus-
tification of the vote he should give. This rule,
which gentlemen are so anxious to have made a
part of the rules for the government Tif the House, is
m the following words, viz:
"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 re-
ceived by this House, or entertain in any way
whatever."
Would any man suppose, taking the history of
this government for the last sixty years into consid-
eration, that the House of Representatives, a branch
of the highest legislative body of this Union,
would at this day be called upon to define what pe-
titions from the people shall be received and what
shall not be received?
If this rule is as important as it is said to be, it
should exist in' some more durable shape than a
mere jjjile of this House, liable to be changed every
year or two, and when in existence, depending
upon the construction to be given it by the Speaker
of the House, upon a paper presented for considera-
tion.
The rule is wrong, whether it is regarded as a
question of expediency or one of right. It is pre-
senting to the people a wrong issue; and he would
now say to southern gentlemen, in all candor, that
it is a false issue—that the issue is not abolitionism;
for if they will present that question, they will find
tlie great mass of the people right; and they will find
the entire delegation from the West, with, I hope,
not one exception, on one side—that is, for the con-
stitution, the whole constitution,and nothing but the
constitution, and the compromises thereof.
But you are presenting to the people, by not re-
ceiving petitions, the great primary right of peti-
tion—you are denying to the American citizens the
right to be heard. You do, by the construction that
rcitain gentleman give to the constitution of the
I fnited States, say to the pfcople, that they may peace-
ably assemble and express their opinions, and that
the constitution so far guards them in this right, and
there it ceases.
You say a member of this House may rise in his
place, and state, in a brief manner, the contents of
the petition that he wishes to offer, and that
this is not injurious. I should be inclined to think
that, if the more recption of a petition is injurious,
so is the suiting the contents. You say that
the receiving of a petition is an incipient act of
legislation. Well, what will you call the act of
members rising and stating the contents of peti-
tions? I wish to know where gentlemen will stop
with these i tiles; they must go farther than tins
one to be consistent. A member must not rise and
state the contents of the petition that he wishes to
offer, and it must be made a penal offence to talk on
certain subjects. This rule is a small affair in
itself, it is true, but the principle is vitally impor-
tant; and we should be careful in making en-
croachments on popular rights; when we are about
to establish a new precedent, we should look
weil to the consequences. There is not now a
department of our government, from the smallest
county court up to the highest stations, through-
out all the ramifications of society, where the
people arc prevented from being heard by peti-
tion; and we are about engrafting a novel principle
upon our institutions, and we should look to the re-
sults that will follow. It is said, however, that the
petitioners are heard, and that the House decides
upon.their petition. I take issue here. You can-
not,'In a legislative sense, know the contents of a
petition until you receive that petition. By taking
the brief statements of the member who offers to pre-
sent a petition, you substitute his remarks for those
of the petitioners; and the people of this country
have a right to the judgments of their representatives,
as well upon the fact of what is said to be in their
petitions, as they have upon the subject-matter it-
Aelf, The rule is truly singular in deciding legisla-
tively upon a subject or subjects that, perhaps, the
pen is not yet put to paper to which the attention of
the House is to be called.
But what does the rule amount to? Does it pre-
vent petitioning on the subjects that were intended
to be prohibited by the rule? By no means. You
receive, under this rule, petitions asking for the re-
peal of the rule itself; you receivepetitions concern-
ing the independence of Hayti, and numerous other
kindred'subjects. And suppose you should say that
petitions asking for the repeal of the 21st rule should
not be received: then, as a matter of course, we
should feave petitions presented for the repeal of
the last prohibitory rule, for some name or number
would be given to it. Thus it will be seen how
perfectly foolish all such restrictions are; and that
the making of these rules is calculated to give con-
sequence to a thing that would be lost sight of, and
would not deserve or receive a passing notice, if it
was not for the importance that is given to the same
in this hall; and in this way we are placing in the
hands of those miserable fanatics a weapon, with-
out which all their efforts would be unavailing.
But, strange to say, we are told that there is high
precedent for this rule; and the first American au-
thority cited is the one referred to by the gentleman
from Alabama, [Mr. Belser;] that is, the petition
presented in the United States Senate in 1834, on
the subject of the removal of the depositee; and on
the question of receiving the petition, it was decided
in the negative. This proves nothing, as gentlemen
will see, if they look into the debates; for the dispu-
ted point in that case was not the question of the
right of receiving petitions, but the decision was
made upon the ground that the petition was an in-
sult to the Senate—that its language and matter
were offensive. Now no person contends that it is
not the duty of this House to preserve its dignity
and character, by rejecting all papers that are vulgar
and obscene. But this case proves nothing, for
another reason: that the vote was a mere party vote,
and that the question was 110 other than a party
question, growing out of the removal of the depos-
ltes; but, above all, it proves nothing, because the
American Senate represents the States of this Union,
and the House represents the people of this confed-
eracy.
I undertake to say that there is not an American
precedent for this rule in the annals of our legisla-
tion.
[Here Mr. Bblser, of Alabama, asked permis-
sion to make a remark.]
Mr. Wright yielded the floor.
[Mr. Belser stated that the case presented to the
Senate, as he was informed, was on the presenta-
tion of the petition; the question of reception was
raised, and that was laid on the table.]
Mr. Wright proceeded. He had intended to
allude to this very question. The difference in the
course pursued by the Senate and House is, that in
the Senate a petition goes to the Clerk's desk, and
is under the control of the Senate, and the question
of reception is waived; in this House, die American
citizen has the extreme pleasure of walking out
of these walls, with his paper or petition, knowing
that the contents of the same are not legislatively
understood by the House; but, by an arbitrary and
tyrannical rule, made before he committed his
thoughts to paper, he is refused a hearing: judg-
ment is pronounced long prior to the date of his
offence.
It will be recollected that, by the constitution ef the
United States, adopted in 1787, Congress is express-
ly prohibited from interfering with the slave-trade,
which might be carried on by the citizens of the dif-
erent States for the space of twenty-one years; yet in
1790, three years after the adoption of the constitu-
tion, the Society of Friends of Pennsylvania for-
warded their petition to Congress, prlying their in-
terference upon that subject. The petition was re-
ceived, although in direct opposition to the constitu-
tion, and a motion was made to refer it to a com-
mittee. This was opposed; and a proposition to lay
on the table was made. Mr. Madison, from Vir-
ginia, a slave State, and who is justly called the
father of the constitution, used the following lan-
guage, to which I respectfully call the attention of
eentlemen who are looking so anxiously for pre-
cedents:
"Mr. Madison thought the question before the
committee was no otherwise important than as
gentlemen made it so by their serious opposition.
Had they permitted the commitment of the memo-
rial as a matter of course, no notice would have
, been taken of it out of doors; it could never have
. been blown up into a decision of the question re- M
specting the discouragement of the African slave- j
trade, nor alarm the o^ers with an apprehension - ij
that the general government was about to abolish ;;
• slavery in all the States. Such things are not con- "*
templated by any gentleman; but they excite alarm >
by their extended objections to committing the me-
morials. Gentlemen may vote for the commitment
of the petition without any intention of supporting j
the prayer of it."
Thus spoke James Madison three years after the
adoption of the federal constitution; and on a sub-
sequent day, the debate still continuing, he used the
following language on the same subject:
"The debate has taken a serious turn; and it will
be owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for,
had the memorial been treated in the usual way, it
would have been considered as a matter of course,
and a report might have been made so as to have
given general satisfaction. * * * * * The pe-
tition prayed, in general terms, for the interference
of Congress, so far as they were constitutionally
authorized; but even if its prayer was in some de-
gree unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was
in the case of Mr. Churchman's petition, one part
of which was supposed to apply for an unconstitu-
tional interference by the general government."
And it must not be forgotten that this language
was used on the question of commitment. Not one
word is said in any of the debates on that occasion
as to the question of reception. The question of
rejecting petitions was left for this day; and gentle-
men will see, if they look at the vote taken on com-
mitment, that it was about six to one, Mr. Madison
voting in the affirmative; and this is as good au-
thority to me as an ex parte decision of the House of
Commons or Lords of England, made without de-
bate, and nothing to show, in all the cases cited that
I iiave examined, that the question of reception was
ever raised.
But I would call the attention of gentlemen to the
arguments of another distinguished member of Con-
gress, who was from a slave State; one whom I al-
ways admired, and whose public life I have watch-
ed from my earliest days. He is no more. I al-
lude to the remarks of Felix Grundy, from Tennes-
see, in the Senate of the United States, March 3d,
1836, on this question:
"Therefore, if there were no constitutional doubts
existing, he would, as a matter of expediency, vote
to receive the petitions, to be followed up with a
vote to reject their prayer. But he confessed that
the constitutional right to refuse to receive a peti-
tion was very far from being clear. The right of
petition existed before the formation of the consti-
tution. It was well understood by the framers of
that instrument; and although it only declares that
Congress shall pass no law to prevent citizens from
peaceably assembling and petitioning for a redress of
grievances, it never could have entered into their
minds, that those to whom the petitions were ad-
dressed would refuse to receive them. Of what
value is the right of petition, if those to whom peti-
tions are addressed will not receive them, and act
upon them? The framers of the constitution re-
membered that the Parliament of Great Britain had
passed laws prohibiting citizens from assembling,
consulting, and petitioning for a redress of grievan-
ces. They recollected the acts commonly called
the riot acts, and therefore they inserted the provi-
sion contained the constitution. But it never en-
tered into their minds that petitions, when signed,
would not be received by those to whom they were
addressed. It was a matter of very little conse-
quence to citizens that they are permitted to assem-
ble and petition for a redress of grievances, if, after
they have done so, their petitions are not to be re-
ceived or considered by those who have the power
to act upon the subject-matter of the petition. To
his mind these arguments were too strong to be dis-
regarded; and he was unwilling to give the aboli-
tionists the benefit of them. At present, they have
no foundation on which to stand. They are giving
way to the pressure of the public intelligence in the
non-slaveholding States. But if we shall enable
them to blend the right of petition with their aboli-
tion schemes, they may raise a storm which will
shake the very foundation of this government. From
the year 1790 down to the present day, all petitions
have been received by this body which werq^ re-
spectful and decorous, whatever the subject-matter
of the petition might be; and at every session, the
petition of the Society of Friends, clothed in similar
, language with the present one, has baen received.