OCR Interpretation


Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, May 09, 1839, Image 1

Image and text provided by University of South Carolina; Columbia, SC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026897/1839-05-09/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

"We will cling to the pillars of the temple of our liberties,
PIERRE FS. LABORDE, Editore W. F.D R OIubi er
and if it must fall we will perish amidst the ruins."
VOLUM1E IV. Eageed Cont ROuXse, . : 9,-j 9, 1.9 O 4
TEMS.
The EDOGFIELD ADVERTISER is pub
lished every Thursday morning at Three
Dollars per annum, if paid in advance
Three Dollars and Fifty Cents if not paid
before the expiration of Six Months from
the date of Subscription-and Four Dol
lars if not paid within Twelve Months.
Subscribers out of the State are required
to pay in advance.
No subscription received for less than
one year, and no paper discontinued until
all arrearages are paid. except at the op
tion of the Publisher.
All subscription,; will be continued un
less otherwise ordered before' the expira
tion of the year.
Any person procuring five Subscribers
and becoming responsible for the' same,
shall receive the sixth copy gratis.
Advertisements conspicuously inserted at
624 cents per square, (12 lines, or less.)
for the first insertion, and 431 cs. for each
continuance Those published monthly.
or quarterly will bo charged $1 per square
for each insertion. Advertisements not
having the number of insertions marked
on them, will be continued until ordered
out,.and charged accordingly.
All communications addressed to the
Editor, post paid, will be promptly and
strictly attended to.
IW. F. DURISOE, Publisher.
Feb 7, 1,39
From the Baltimore Chronide.
ON THE APPROACH OF SPRING.
I love to see gay spring with rosy robe,
Come tripping forth like some all-beauteous
bride;
The fairest goddess of the green gay globe,
With all her daughters dancing at her side.
First comes the lovely April with her showers,
Weeping o'er March who sleeps in Winter's
tomb;
Alon her path are seen the earliest flowers,
p n Naturebids in beauty's bowers to
Then MAY, with gandy garlands for the grave
Of aged-April, comes in roses dress'd;
Delicious frmts around her fair brow wave,
And sweetest odours issue from her breast.
I love thee Spring. I love thee for thy flowers,
Thai oft ador the brow of Beauty fair;
I love thee for thy shady bowers,
Where laughing love escapes from pale des
pair.
I love'thee that thou art an emblem bright
Of beauty, ere her bosom sorrow knows;
Of youth, ere care hati dimnm'd the brilliant
liht
Of his gay heart, and fUl'd it with life's woes.
MIoLRD BsAW.
Epigram on a young lady who said she read
Waverly "Skipping the Scotch:" -
"Oh! soft is the sleep of zephyrs on roses,
And softis the blue-bell thathangs on the wall,
And soft is the down that on eiher reposes,
But, Susan.thy head is far softer than all."
Eects of Vegetables upon Animals.
The Botanical Professor, in a letter de
livered at King'sCollege. said that "horses
will not touch.cruciferous plants, but will
feed on red grasses, amidst abundance of
which goats have been known to starve;
And these latter again wilt eat and grow
fat on the water hemlock, which is rank
poison to other cattle. In like manner
pigs will feed on henbane, while they are
destroyed by common pepper; and the
horse, which avoids the-bland turnip will
grow fat on rhuharb.-armer's Mag.
"I say, yack." shouted a Szniwhfeld
drover, thd other day, to his "panl, " these
cursed sheep vont move in this veather;
lend us a bark of your dog, vill you?"
*A gentleman informs-us that he bought
a bottle of specific for curling hair, -out
westrand applied 'it to his pate. It caused
his hair to curl so tight, that it raised him
off the ground for some days.
Measuring Time.-A big boy, who dis
played a long dangling watch chain, *as
asked, "W t'rs the time, Josiah?" He
drew out- his atch very cerenmeniously.
and after exatnining it a while, referred to
another, and asked, "is this figury nine or
figury 'leven?" He was told that it was
"Ligury se'ven." '-Well then," replied Jo
siah, "ii lacks'jest about half an inch of
eight." ______
At a recent election'- forhell-man in a
town in Worcester, the niece of the late
incumbent was a candidate. Objections
being made to her because she was a wo
man, she replied, "God bless yoti, sir,
that's no reason-haven't we a wooman for
king?" The 'simplici'y and readiness-of
the reply admitted her as a candidate, and
on a show of handa, shet was unanimously
elected.-Enlglisk Pper
4 good4 Idea -In Connecticnt they
$nd a use for almost every thing. An
old lady in that State Is collecting all the
political papers she can lay her hands on
to make soap of. She says they are a
desput sight hetter than ashes-they are
pmmot as good as clear (se."
POLIT1AL.
REMARKS
Of Mr. Ely Moore, of Neio.York, in the
Rouse of Itepresentatwes, I'eb. 4, 1d39,
on preaentng a remomnsrance from citi
zens of ihie Jhitrict of ;olauaiu against
the reception oJ Alolition petitions, 4rc.
MR. SPEAKER: I present to the House
a remonstrance, signed oy sonie several
hundred citizens of huit Distract, aguaust
the receptioi of peiiotus run ciuzens o1
the States, prayimg for tue abolition of sla
very in the District of Columbia. Tlie
mnemor'iaiisis represent that. they iegard
Cuogresa as the local Legislature of this
Disirict, staniding LU the same relation to
the Ctizens ot the bustract tialt a State
Ltgislature uoes to the citizens ot a tate;
and that they clain the rigtt to advise or
instruct tle tuugress, as their local Legis
lature, on all sutjects relatius excLuiVtiy
1o the local iaterests and-iunicipal isu
tutiuns of the District. Anti lurther-that
tney regard the wtierference of persons re
siding without the linaits of' toe District,
by petition or otie.wise,.as intrusive and
untcarrantable; and claims the paternal
protectiut. of Congress against such inter
lerence With their rights and interests. I
concur with the viewb ol the meniorialists,
and shall proceed. to vindicate them to the
best of my atiities.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, I am justified in
the declaration that since I have had the
honor ot a seat in this body, at least one
third of our imae has been unnecessa
rily wasted, or mischievously employ
ed, i will not undertake to say which,
in debating petitions, resolutions. &c. &c.
touching the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia. In other words, if
I am correct in the views which I would
beg leave to subait to the consideration of
the House before I take uiy seat, we have,
for the last lour sessions of Congress, con
sumed a large portion of our time in dis
cussing a subject over which the Federal
Legislature, in their federol rapacity, have
no jurisdiction. If this be so, is -it not
time that we pause; nay. is it not high
time that we so change our course of ac
tion on this exeiting and vexatious subject,
as to reject, outright, all petitions. and me
morials pruaying for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia ! It is well
known to the members of this House that
all attempts to suppress discussion on this
subject have.proved utterly abottive. And
so long as n e continue to receive petitions
fron citizens of the States on the subject
of slavery, so long will our time, as here
tolore, be 6ccupied in agitatina this ques
tion. Nay it must be apparent to all, now
that abolitionism has assumed a political
character. that this perplexitg subject will
hecome, from year to year, more and more
embarrassing to the Federal Legislature,
unless there shall be found sufficient firm
ness in a majority of its members to shut
down the gate at once upon all petitions of
an abolition character. Aud, sir, permit
me to say, that I am not altogether confi
dent the American people do not attach att
undue importance to the "rieh: of peti
tion," when understood in a broad and po
litical sense-ur that sense, I mean, in
which it has ever been regarded in Eng
land. When I hear gentlemen on this
floor declaim nith so much warmth and
energy on what they are pleased to call
the " blessed, sacred and inestimableright
of the people to assemble and to petition
for redress of grievances," I am some
times inclined to belie.ve that their zeal is
not accwdring to knowledge, and that they
have not duly considered the character
and genius of our free institutions.
It is true,and to~my mind itis as strange
as it is true, that the Congress- of 1y89
dleemed proper' to propose so amendment
to the Constitution, recogjnisinig " the right
of the people peaceably to assemblc duid
petition the Government for a redress of'
grievances." The statesmen of that day,
as well as those of the present, were too
much in the habit of looking to England,
not only for precedents,'but for political
principles and practices. And from that
source did they derive their ideas concern
ing the- sanctity and importance of the
right of the people to assemb~le and petition
their Government. That the right of pe
tition' has ever been held dear and sacred
by the 'oppressed and down trodden sub
jects of Great Britain, is not to be marvel
led at. .Nothing could be'"more natural
than that.a people, whose political:fran.
chises had, been wrenched from them ty
the iron band of despotic power, should
esteein it a b'orn to be gr'aiausly permit
ted to assemble, and. make known their
wrongs, and to petition, to- supplicate for
retiress. .It was the only .avenue to the
throne which tyranny had left them; the
only mode to obtain, or rather to solicit,
redress, which the sovereign had vouch
safed to thorn The grievances complain
ed of by British subjects-I speak partic
ularly in reference to by-gone times-were
mostly general in their efl'ecls, and politi
cal in their character, and originated with
the Government. Ahd the only general
or political remedy, if remedy it could be
called, which the subjects were permitted
to apply, wvas to assemble and petition the
Crowna relative thereto. [Hence, ever as
sociated with the " righit of petition," 'is
the idea of an expression of the pusbte sent
iment or of the public will. But with
what propriety this identical ielea has been
tratnsferred to the Ameuican Constitution,
I confess I am at a loss to determine.
In England. especially in the reign of
King John, of " Magna Charta" memonry.
andl of the first tl~ree Henrys, the people
loulmand ntenestl clamored for the right
of petition, because their voice could only
reach the throne through the medium of
supplication-ol petition It'was the 0m
nipotency of the prince on the one hand,
and the impotercy of the subject oi the
other. Under such circumstances, it was
not only natural but poliic for the subject
sovereign in the abject language of suppli
cation-of petition. BUL, sir, does it be
come American freetmen, the sovereign
people-in whom all power resides-to ap
proach their representatives-their agenL
-their -ervauts--the creatures o' their
own iakig-with the abject, servile Ian
guage of petition, prayer, supplication !
No, sir, No! Thank Good! it is the peculiar
p ovinc, the proud privilege of the Ameri
can people, to speak to tiose in power on
all subjects of gencral political moment, in
the potent and authoritaiive language of
instruction-of dictation. And who %ill
alirin that the right to instruct, to dictate,
4-(-!* not supersede the poor privilege to
petition ! V hat, sir, shall it Ie deemed a
privilege for the creator to supplicate the
creature ? The moster to petition the ser
vant ! Why, sir, this would be inverting
the order of things with a witness. I hold
that it is not befitting the American people
to address the language of prayer-of pe
tition-of supplication-to any power save
that of Almighty power. Wren freemen
pray, let them supplicate the only power
superior to their-own-the God of the Uni
verse !
But, sir, it is not my intention to dwell
longer, at this time, on ibis subject. On
some future day I may enter fully into a
discussion of this question. It shall now
lie m) object to prove-admiitiug the right
of petition, as I now do, in all its length
amd breadth-that the citizens of the
States have no right to petition Congress
to ah..lish slavery in i be District of Colum
bia. Let no man charge me with a desire
to strangle the right of petition in order to
make out my case. I hold that I am not
obnoxious to the charge. I am the last
man that would.attempt, by word or deed,
directly or indirecily, to embarras or a
bridge the legitimate exercise of any valu
able right. Nor, sir. would I bring any
important privilege into disrepute or con
:empt by the abuse uif it. And [contend
that it is as much an abuse of this privilege
for the citizens of the States, and espe
cially the non-slaveholding States, to peti
tion the American Congress to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, as it
would be for such citizens .to petition the
Parliament of Great Britain, or the
French Chamber of Deputies, for a like
purpose; or as it would be for the citizens
of Maine to petition the Legislature of
Virginia to abolish slavery s ithin the lim
its of that State. No man, in the posses
sion of his wits, having the least acqunain
lance with the character of our Govern
nient, will assert that it would be a denial
of the right of petition, fir the Legishature
of Virginia to reject petitions from the cit
izens of the State of Maine praying for
the abo!ition of slavery. And if it would
not tie a denial if the right of petition in
this case, how can it be denial of that right
for the Legislature of this District to re
ject petitions of like import from citizens
of the States? Would it not lie equally
ptoper for the citizens of the District of
Columbia, to petition the Legislature of
Massachusetts., to pass laws for the relief
and melioration of the condition of the la
borers enployed in the manufactories of
that State, as for the citizens of Massachu
setts to petition Congress to abolish slave
ry in the District of Coluibia? If a re
je.ction of petition, would not be a denial
of the right of petition in the one case. how
could it be si in the other? For I con
tend. and shall show most conclusively.
ibat the citizens of the District of Colum
oia lheve the same righi to interfere in the
internal police of Massachusetts, that the
cit izenus of Massachuset ts have to interfere
in the internal police of the District of Co
lumbia.
It will be perceived by the House, from
what I have stated, that I regard Congress
as the local Legtslature of this District ;
standing in the satne relation. in one re
spect, to the citizens of the District, as do
the State Legislatures to the citizetns of the
States. Enterwtining this opinmioni, then,
I contend that the rejection by Congtress
of petitions, comling from citizens of any of
the States, praying for the abolitioni of
slavery in the District of -Columbia, is no
more a denial of the right of. petition than
it would lie for the Legislature of Mary
land,or of Arkansas to reject, petitions com
ing from 'citizens of Vermont or Rhode
island, praying for the abolition of slave
ry. It will; be conceded by all--at least
by all professing the Democratic faith
that *-.every -free .citizen must be repre
sentedt" andi ti at'the power of the repre
sentative is derived from the will of the re
presented. This elemeinary principle of
the A meridan Constitution forms the-'basis
of all legislarion, This- being so, it .fol
lows, that the free citizens of this Di'itrict
a'must he represented." Previous to the
cession of the "ten' miles square," by the
States of Maryland and Virginia, the citi
zens of .these States residing within thte
present limits of this District were repre
sented by the respective Legislatures of
these States. And as neither Virginia
nor Maryland bad the power so far to dis
franchise their citizens as to deprive them
of "the rightto be represented." that right,
of course, remains unimpaired. The Statesi
muaking the "cession" conuld delegate no
power to Congress which they thetmselves
did not possess; consequently, Congress
can exercise no piower by virtue of ihe
"acts of cession," which.it would not have
been competent for thosre States to have
omercised. The citizens of the District. of
Columbia, therefore, like all other free
citizens, are entitled to be repreaented.
And as they are not represenied by the
dtates whict made the "cession," they
must, necessarily, he represented by Coo
gress, to whoU the 'cession" was made.
But what must be regarded as derisive on
this point, is the fact that Congress may
tar the citizens of the District of Colui
bia, just as a btaLe Legislature many tax
the citizens of a State. Sir, the charac
ter and genius of our free government pro
elude, repudiate, aud abhor the idea of
taxation without rrpresentutton. Sir, the
Congress of the U. S. are the represenia
lives Ut the citizens of the District of Co
lunmbia.
Congress, as a legislative body, exer
ercise two species 00 legislative power
over this Dbsirict ; the one Federal, the
other nunispal. Tie first linited as
to its object, but co-exttnsive with the U
mni. ThIe inst, unilmated as in objects,
but inoperative beyond the territorial li
its ol this District. The relaison ii * hich
Congress, standts to the citizens of the
liistrict, thecilure, is two fuld. First, as
the representatives of the whole Union;
and second, as the local Legislatue of the
District. In the latter capacIty, LUngress
stand precisely in th. saane relautun to the
citizens of the District, as the Siate Leg
islatures do to the citizens of the States;
-and consequently are as much bound,
in all their acts, qecting meretg 1his Dis
trict, to obey the will of the people resi
ding within the hinits of the District, as
are State Legislatures to obey the will of
the citizens ol the States. Wiihuut the
couseut-of the people of the District, Cun
giess have no right to abolish slavery
wituIn its linits. Congress, as the Fede
ral Legislature, acting in their felerative
capacity, have no more right to abolbsh
slavery in the District of Columbia thau
the) have to abolish slavery in the State
of South Carolina. It Congress possess
the power at all. they can only exercise
it as the local Legislature of the Districi,
and in pursuance of the' will on ihe citi
zens residing within The limits of the Lis
trict. To atfirm tle contrary, to assert
that the municipal institutions. tihe dionei
tie or local rights and interests of tie citi
zeus of tle District of Columbia are sub
jeci to the arbitrary will and control of the
citizens of retnole, dsltinci, and indepen
dent States or communities, or, which is
in ellect the same, of Congress, is to assert
that the people of the district do not pos
Sets lhe-ltgbi ot self government, and that
the power ofCongresa over them is pIlenary
and absolute. Who will avow this open
ly? 'ho will say, in direct terms, that
Congress, or the citizens of iremote States,
through their immedIinte Representatives
in Cougiess, may rightfully and constitu
tionally interfere wilh and control the whole
internal police of the District, in Defiance
of the wishes and regardless of the retmon
srances of the citizens? M ho, I ask. will
openly confess himself the advocate oif
doctrines and principles no alien to the
character and genius of our Government,
so lraught with tyranny and despotism,
and so utterly repugnant to the great prin
ciple upon which our institutions are
fiunded-the right of the people to be re
presenteil, or in other words, the right of
#ie people to self-eovernment? Let him
who would strike at the rights of a coml
munity remember that the blow would he
equally dangerous to liberty as if aimed
at the rights of individuals. I shall he
told, of course, that by the 16th article of
'he 8th sectioa of the constitution of the
United States, Congress have "exclusive
jurisdiction over the ten mile-4 square."
Well, sir, how are we to understand thi,
exclusive legislative power? Why, qir, in
the first place, it was evidently the inten
lion of the fraimers of the Constitution to
excludle from the territory embracing the
seal of the Federal Legislature the juris
diction of the States, which should rede
such territory, as well as all oniher State
authority And, in the decond place, that
Congress, as the local Legislarure ofsuach
District, shoold assume the jurisdiction
and exercise thne leai-lative powers sur
rendered up by tihe States which made
the "cession;" and Congress. in purstiance
of this right of "exclusive jbnrisdiction,'
exercise the same legislative functions
over the Districtof Columbia, when act
ing in their local capacity, that the State
Legislatures do over the Siates. When
Congress therefore act in pursuance of
their exclustve legislative power over the
"tea miles square," they abandon their
national functions, and asstume the func
tions of a local or State Legislature; and
all the laws passed by Congress when act
ing in this local capacity. are limited in
their operation .to the territory comprising
the "ten miles square;"just as the la ws en
acted by a State Legislature, are inoper
ative beyond the limits of such State. In
other words, laws passed by Congress in
their local legislative capacity,- are no
more obligatory beyond the bounds of. this.
District, than are laws passed by -the Leg
islature of Maryland, for example,bmtdiag
beyond the limils of Maryland. In this
opinion I am fully sustained by a decision
of the Supreme Court oftheUnited States.
The Conrt decided that the tickets in a
lottery authorized by a law of Congress
within the District of Coltumbiia, could not
he vended in the State of Virginia. in con
traventtion of the laws oaf that State. (Co
heans versus Virginia.)
The general or tational powers which
Congress exercises puer, and which arei
binding upon, the States, were delegated
byj the States; and the powA of "exclu
stve legislation," which Congress exercises
over the District of Colombia, and which
are efetise only wcithin the District. were
derised front the States of Maryland and
\ irgitia, by virtue of certain acts in %% hich
they ceded to Congress this District. Had
Congress been-invested with no other
power than that of '-eclusive jurisdiction*
over the ten miles squ:,re," % ould t here be
any queton with regard to the extent of
their power? Or would it have been al
ledged in that case that all laws passed by
Congress were esseutially national in their
character, anti operative without, as well
as n ithin. the limits of the District! I
presume not, sir; because the. power of ez
clusive legislation which Congress exer
cise over the District of Columbia can be
of no gret-erextent than ifsuch power hjai
beet the on/y one confi-rred. Congress
cannot exercise exclusive legislative pow
er over the States, because of the reserva
tion of power to the States, or to the peo
ple thereof. Even over the '-en miles
square" the power of Congress is limited
by the actsof "eession." With what pro
priety, then, can it be contended that be
cause a law is passed by Congres-i, it is
rherefore, a law of the United States, and
Lf universal obligation? No, sir; when
ever Congress legislate in virtue of their
local and exelusive jurisdiction over the
1itarict of Columbia. they act as a local
or municipal Legislature, and the acts
psased by them, in that capacity, art lim.
ited in their operation to the territory of
he District. A law of Congress, to have
he ellect of a law of tihe United States,
tiust be passed in execution of sotne of
he federal powers, or, in other words,
n pursuance of delegated power. But
ill laws of Congress pased in virtue of
he power to exercise exclusive legisla
ion ovEr the District of Columbia, are lo
al or municipal in their character. and
-annot operate ,extra-territorially, or be
od the limits of the District. True,
here are certain laws passed by Congress
whltich have a local reference to this Die
Aric, and %% hich proceed from the Dele
rated powers %% ith which Congress hre in
vested. Acts appropriaiing moneys for
he Erection of public buildings. &c., are
)f this description. These acts, although
ocal in their immediate operation, have
eference to national objects, are passed
u virtue of the general legislative pow
.rs, and are general or national in their
.haracter.
Congress can exercise no power by vir
ne of the 16th article of the 8th section of
h- Constitution over the District of Co
umbia, that it would not have been coin
)etent for Marylaud and Virginia to have
-xercised prior to making the cession.
rhe "exclusive powers of legislation,"
herefore, possessed by Congress over the
ten miles square," are oilfthe kii which
vere never delegated.to the General Gov
rnment, but reserved to the States. To
ay that the power of exclusive legislation
onferred upon Congress by the 16th arti
:le of the 6th sectiou of the Constitution,
mibraced any of the reneral powers con
ained in any of the fifteen preceding arti
:les of the 8th section would be to charge
lie framers of the Constitution with grant
ng a repetition of* powers by distinct nrii
-les. This is not to he presumed. Neither
, it to be presitmed that the framers of
he Constitution, conferred upon Congress
,'ederal powers concurrent ivith existing
sitae powers. No, sir: the framer. of the
kinericati Constitution, as wise and patri
stic men, cotferred no powers upon Con
,ress that were calculated to beget strife
mnd contention. and instead of promoting.
nar the harmony % hich ever oght toisub
ist between the National and State Gov
vrnments. And equnlly wise and cau
ious were they in combining the federal
mnd local or State powers in such manner
is that Congress, in discharging the double
utictions of Federal and State Legisla
ure, should not confoutnd, nor produce a
ollision between these powers or fline
ions. Thtts Congress, I repeat, as the
3eneral or Federal Le;:islature, exercise
he geueral pun ers delegated by theStates;
iad as a local or State Legislature, exer
-ise, from time to tinme, the reserved & un
lelegied poweqg pertatining to the States.
[n the formner capacity, Conmgtess may de
lare w ar, or make peace, &coin money
and regulate the value thereof,'' &c.,
at cannot legislate with regard to the lo
-al wants and ierests of this District.
LBut in the lart-r capacity, Congress may
ucorporute comipanies, build bridges. open
treets-in a wold, suply the wants and.
neer the exigencies of the District, pre
risely int the same meanner that a State
Legtsla'ure may do with regard to a State.
And the laws passed by Congress in this
State or local capacity, are necessatrily
imited in their operationi to the District of
Jolumbia, precisely as a St ate law is eon
ined in. its ope.garion to the State limits.
~f the laws passed by Congress in their lo
~aI legislative capacity had the effeict of
he United'States laws, the- Banks of this
[listrict would he ,United. States Banks;
tmd the .Insuraice Companies U, Suates
lnsurance Comp Ianies.
The District of Columbia is, in all re
ipects, whether as a sovereignty or as a
-ommnunity, as much independent 'of 'the
Eederal Legislature, when acting tn their
rederal capacity, as are Georgia and-North
Carolina, or as those Staten are of each
>t her. The Federal Legislature,- there
Fore. as such, possess no more power over
thmi subject of slavery wvithin the limits ofI
this District, than they doover that subject
within the limits of those States.' Conse
q~uentlty, Congress are no utore bound to
receive petitions from the citizens of the
States, praying for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia, than the Le
gislature of a sovereign and. independent
State would be bound tnoreceive petitions
rrom the citizens of another soverelan and
independent State; or, than the Legisla
ture of' a State would be bound to receive
petition. from the citizens of th- District
of Columbia, touching the domestic inter
ests and internal police of such State.
Hence the popular fallacy with regard to
the right of petilion. The question is not
as to the right of petition, but as to the
dAstination or direction which petitions
should inke. Adniitiii. that the citizens
of a -tate have a right to petition their
Legislature, touching any subject of griev
ance, over which the Legisiature may havo
j'.risdiction; and that the citizens of the U.
States have also a right to petition the
the Federal Legislature on all subjects of
a rederal character. does it follow, there
fore, that the citizens of one State have a
right to petition the Legislature of another
State, concerniitg its domestic institutions
anti internal police? Or, that citizens of
the United Slates have a right to petition
the Federal Le!islature on a subject that
is not federal, but strictly local in its cha
racier, and with which the petitioners have
uo right to intermeddle ? Certainly not.
And as the citizens or Vermont or Con
necticut, for example, have no more righs
to interfere with the domestic institutions
of the District of Columbia than they have
with the domestic institutions of the State
of' Maryland or or Virginia-which is just
none at all-they might, with the same
propriey. petition the Legislature of those
Sta tes to abolish slavery within their limits,
as to petition the local Legislature of this
District to abolish slavery within its linits,.
And as it would not, and could 'not, be
considered a denial of the right of petition
on the part of the Legislature of either of
those States to reject such petitions, so
neither could it he regarded as a denial. of
such right for Congress, the local Legisla
lure of the District of Columbia, (and is
ha. been already shown that it is ohjy ii
this local capacity that Congress can havt
jurisdiction over the subject at all,) to re
ject similar petitions from citizens of thoie
or any other States. It matters not, there,;
fore, whether Congress have the pow'r In
abolish slavery within the District of 0o
Limbia or not, as Congreas is not boutidd,
in either case, to receive petitions from .ti
citizens of the States touching the subjcc,
of slavery within this District-such citi
zens ha% tag no right to interfere with thi,
or any other su'bject of interial police with
in the District. What, sir, could it be ree
garded as a denial of the legitimate exer
cise of the right of petition on the part of -
Congress, to reject petitions from citized
of the States praying Congress*to narrow
or widen the streets in this city, or iri the
city of Georgetown, or of Alexandria, -or
to repeal the charters of the incorporatei.
conipanies within this District, or. other*.
wise to chauge, aler, or in any way to sf
fect the municipal institutions or interail
police of the District? No man, I appre
he:.d, will so allege. And why not? For
the reason, sir, that the petiioners Would
have no right or authority to intermeddle
with thi local rights and tnterest& of an in
depeuierj, communily-a community a,
alisolutely independe':t of the petitioneFs,
in all the respects just mentioned, as.are
the municipalities of France? And ast'ha
institution of slnvery in the District of Co
lumbia, as well as in the slave States is,
in all respects, and to all intents and par
poses, local in its character, Congress are
no more hoid to entertain petitions froM
citizens of the States, asking for -its aboli
tion, thau if such petitions related to the
municipal institutions of a foreign. coun
try. If Congress would not be bound to
receive petitions in the' one case,~they
would not in the other.' And, consequent;
ly, if it would not be a de'nial of thie right
of petition to reject. in the-one case, it
would not be so in the other.. 1repeat,
then, that whether Congress have the.ow
er' to abolish slavery within the District of
Columbia, or not, it eatinot be regarded as.
a denial of the right of, petition for ;Coda.e
gress to reject the petitions from.7eitizenu
of the St ates, praying for the exujise'of
such right, no more than.it would, befoi
them to reject petitions'from, the ,subjgeR
of a foreign power, askiing'forsimil:a<
tion. Were the institution of slavry,'i.
the District of Columbia, general and~nae
tional itt its character, instead ofbeing, as
it is, strictly and.essentially local anid i'
tnicipal, then would the citizens of the
States, .1 grantt, he authorized tO petitioR
the National Legislature. onceining i,
and the Na.ional Legislature.recog'ntsin#
the right of petition,-woldbtound to t
ceive such petitions,-if coitiche4-id'espect
ful language.: But under our existitigforp
of government, and unde~rexistidi~ circunid
stances, Congress are ntot'"botid,~ad in
truth have no: legitimate right,, to entet, -
tain petitions from indivials. residing
withouttbe limits of this Distriet, tondel~
ing the abolition of slavery, or 'any,.oiin
subject of a local and. mudiiialiehar'a'c
ter. affecting, mierely, the citizens riiidi'
within the District~
Sucih being my-views, the'n, -lan bui
regard those petitionrs-residents ofd'he
States-prayin Congress to ahish.lave
ry in the District of Colu'nbia,,as gailtyof
an impertinent and nowiatrrst able inter
ference wtth the rights, privileges,.and in
terests of a free and indepentdent coma
nity. And so long,,.sir, as 1 entaiinm7
present opinions, I shall feel tonstraine~
to reprobate any action on the.par:e
Congress bich may he calenlatedtogivo
countenantce und. encourapenient; to* such
mischievous and .audacious interference.
Sii-, by-receiving these'petitions, we tact?-'
ly yield our assestth' ats.otaggresso
on the rights of thoe whom"ltia our pecut
liar duty and province tj defiud aud pro-.
-tect.
(To be Cocluddinaort

xml | txt