PETIGRTJ PETITION. 



183 



Am. Rep. 



were captured. The siege was prolonged until Grant 

 resumed active operations against Leo's army in the 

 following March. After Sheridan's victory at Five 

 Forks, Lee saw that he must evacuate Petersburg, and 

 Gen. Grant entered it on April 3d. The surrender at 

 Ai>pptnattox followed on April 9th. Several years were 

 required to restore Petersburg to its former prosperity, 

 but its trade eventually increased beyond its former 

 limits. Its population in 1880 was 21,656. 



PETTGRU, JAMES Louis (1789-1863), the leading 

 opponent of nullification in South Carolina, was born 

 in Abbeville co., S. C., May 10, 1789. Graduating at 

 Columbia College in 1809, he was admitted to the liar 

 and became a prominent lawyer at Charleston. He 

 adhered to the Federal party, and when the opposite 

 views swept over the State and were pushed to their 

 extreme in nullification and secession he remained 

 faithful. His energy and eloquence did not avail to 

 stem the tide, but he was called by the Legislature to 

 (.ci' lily the laws of the State. After the secession of 

 the State he was engaged in this work, and completed 

 it shortly before his death at Charleston, March 9, 



PETITION, RIGHT OP. The right of petitioning 

 S V 1 XVIII '^ e & ove men ti M existing in Amer- 

 ie (p 717 '. <>an P '' 1 ' 611 ! institutions, was derived 

 p.). *' roul tne s y st m of England, where it 

 had become established as an incident 

 of the advance towards popular government, and 

 i into our colonial system, and thence into the 

 Constitution of the United States and those of the 

 States of the Union with little change. In the original 

 frame of the Constitution of the United States no 

 mention was made of the right of petition, but the 

 First Amendment provides that Congress shall make 

 no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to 

 assemble, and to petition the government for a redress 

 of grievances. Four States have substantially fol- 

 lowed the form adopted in the Constitution of the 

 United States as above given. In seven States the 

 expression redref* of griecniices is omitted and the 

 right is stated M that to petition, by address or remon- 

 strance, the government or any department thereof. 

 In one State it is to petition government on all mat- 

 ters, and in another to petition on any subject. In six 

 States the object of petition is stated as the redress of 

 grievances or other purposes. In sixteen States it is 

 as follows : "to consult for the common good, to in- 

 struct representatives, and to petition the Legislature 

 for redress of grievances. " 



The right of petition has commonly been associated 

 with that of assembling for consultation as to matters 

 of public interest, but never has been regarded as 

 limited to the case of the transmission to the govern- 

 ment of the results of popular deliberation in public 

 assemblies, but on the contrary has been treated as an 

 individual right as well as one appertaining to collect- 

 ive bodies of citizens. It will be observed that in the 

 largest number of States the provision as to the redress 

 of grievances is associated with one that secures to the 

 citizen the right to instruct his representatives, and 

 that in several of the States there is no definition of the 

 subjects to which such petitions should relate, but the 

 right is indefinitely extended by such expressions as, 

 "other purposes," or "upon all matters," or "any 

 subject. ' 



While the right to make known one's grievances to 

 the judicial branch of the government and to its ex- 

 ecutive officers is undoubtedly embraced in these con- 

 stitutional provisions, the main object they had in 

 view was to regujate the intercourse of the people with 

 their representatives in the legislative body, for while 

 the Legislature would, presumably, provide for the re- 

 dress of the citizen, as it regarded the other branches 

 of the government, the intercourse with that body was 

 required to be placed under the protection of the con- 

 stitution to which it was subject. At the present day 

 the right of petition is understood as a right of the 



citizen to make known to the legislative body his wants 

 as an individual or as a member of the community. 



Notwithstanding the fact that in representative 

 popular governments the legislative body is habitually 

 composed of the representatives of distinct geographical 

 districts, that would suggest that the communication 

 between the citizen and the Legislature should take 

 place through the representative of the particular dis- 

 trict of which such citizen is an inhabitant, still the 

 right to communicate directly with the legislative 

 body is habitually recognized, which is consistent with 

 the idea that the Legislature acts as a unit, whatever 

 may be the constitution of its parts. 



In the United States the right of petition to legis- 

 lative bodies has become so completely interwoven with 

 the habits and ideas of the people that it has seldom 

 been made the subject of discussion and criticism. Yet 

 an instance has occurred in the history of the country 

 where the right was involved in heated controversy. 

 The right of petition to Congress was brought into 

 question as involved with the anti-slavery agitation in 

 the United States. It was conceded that Congress 

 had no direct authority to control the condition of 

 slavery within the States that composed the Union. 

 Within the District of Columbia, the seat of govern- 

 ment of the' United States, embracing a very limited ter- 

 ritory derived by cession from the States of Maryland 

 and Virginia, slavery existed at the time of the cession 

 and continued to exist as a legal institution until finally 

 abolished as a consequence of the war of the rebellion. 

 It was not seriously denied that Congress had authority 

 to control the institution within that District, but the 

 position was taken that it would be a breach of public 

 faith to abolish slavery within that District while the 

 States of Maryland and Virginia, from whom it was 

 derived, still continued to maintain the institution. 

 The question of the right of Congress to interfere to 

 prohibit or limit the' slave-trade petween the States, 

 and the introduction ef slaves within the Territories of 

 the United States for the purpose of holding them in 

 slavery in such Territories, was debated from the 

 standpoint of opposite views as to the construction of 

 the Constitution of the United States. The contro- 

 versy as to the proper construction of the Constitution 

 turned upon the question whether the government of 

 the United States was to be regarded as a sovereign 

 national government, limited as to the subjects over 

 which that sovereignty might be exercised, or whether 

 it represented an aggregate of delegated powers that 

 coula not be enlarged beyond the particular subjects to 

 which it was limited. The Supreme Court of the 

 United States had adhered to the construction of these 

 powers that rested upon the conception of a national 

 sovereignty, but the adherents of slavery, the domi- 

 nant party in Congress, still held doctrines that ex- 

 cluded Congress from all action relating to slavery, 

 affecting its existence within the States, the Territories, 

 or the District of Columbia. 



The policy of the opponents of slavery centred 

 upon the limitation and final abolition of slavery within 

 the District of Columbia as a step preliminary to its 

 ultimate extinguishment throughout the United 

 States. With this end in view petitions were presented 

 to Congress seeking the exercise of its powers to this 

 end. These petitions asked that the slave-trade existing 

 in the District should be abolished, that slavery in the 

 District might be abolished, and for the adoption of a 

 variety of public measures all tending to the ultimate 

 extinguishment of slavery. 



At first these petitions were respectfully received by 

 Congress, but immediately laid upon the table without 

 reference or consideration. In 1836 this considerate 

 method of dealing with petitions of this class was 

 deemed unsatisfactory by the friends of slavery and a 

 more emphatic expression of disapprobation on the 

 part of Congress of this line of agitation demanded. 

 Mr. Calhoun in the Senate, moved the rejection of a 

 petition for the suppression of tho slave-trade and the 



