IS! 



PETITION. 



emancipation of the slaves within the I>L-ni. t upon th-- 

 ground thai Congress had no jurisdiction .MT tin- 

 subject, but this motion was not carried. Respect for 

 governmental forms, inseparable from free institutions. 

 still continued to moderate the counsels of the majority 

 of Congress, although in entire sympathy with the 

 object* pursued by the friends of slavery. 



The next step taken to defeat the objects of the pe- 

 titioners was a resolution of the House of Representa- 

 tives that all petitions relating to slavery in the Dis- 



tween the institutions of tin- several StatCH in the 

 manner indicated in tin- foregoing recitals, are in viola 

 tion of the Constitution, de.-tructivc of tin- funtl:i 

 mental principle on which the Union rests, and beyotnl 

 the jurisdiction !' Congress. It finally declares that 

 any petition, memorial, proposition, or paper touching 

 or relating in any way. to any extent whatever, to 

 slavery or the abolition thereof, should on the presenta- 

 tion thereof, without any further action thereon, be 

 laid upon the table without being debated, printed, or 

 referred. L - 1 



The subsequent action upon petitions of 

 this class went a step further, declaring that such pe- 

 titions should not be received or entertained in any 

 way whatever. 



It is noticeable that the action of Congress that has 

 referred to proceeded step by step to unsettle and 



trict of Columbia should be referred to a select com- 

 mittee who should be instructed to report that Con- 

 gress had no constitutional authority to interfere in 

 toy way with the institution of slavery in any of the 

 States, and that it ought not so to interfere in the Dis- 

 trict, l*r.ui*c it would be a violation of the public ., , 



faith, unwise, impolitic, ntid dangerous to the Union. deny the right of petition to the national legislature as 



and whose duty it should be to furnish the reasons for it regarded the subject of slavery in the United States, 



such conclusions. The select committee was appointed and exhibits a hesitation in Inking the extreme ground 



and reported that all petitions, memorials, propositions, tint was ultimately reached upon that subject. At 



or papers relating in any way to the subject of slave ry. first it seemed sufficient to lay all petitions on that 

 or the abolition of slavery, should, without either being j subject upon the table, thus recognizing the right of 



printed or referred, be laid upon the table. This re- their presentation and the duty of their reception, but 

 port and resolution were adopted by an overwhelming ! giving expression to the disapprobation of Congress 



vote. The following year, 1837, this resolution was of the measures propounded by such petitions. The 



v \rv&* A 11 v ivriBisn "ijk, J *-*i i J <JJ jj vii 10 ^0viub*\sii " uo 



in substance re-enacted by the House of Representa- 

 tives. The next Congress affirmed and strengthened 

 the position thus assumed, the House of Representa- 

 tives resolving that all petitions, memorials, and 

 papers touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, 

 selling, or transferring of slaves in any State, District, 

 or Territory of the United States should be laid upon 

 the table without being debated, printed, read, or re- 

 ferred, and that no further action whatever should be 

 had thereon. 



This action of the House of Representatives was re- 

 garded as needing explanation, and accordingly at a 

 later period an explanatory resolution was adopted by 

 the House of Representatives. The necessity for some 

 explanation of the position assumed by the House was 

 obvious. The people of the United States had been 

 accustomed to regard the right of petition as an inci- 

 dfiit of representative popular government that was 

 essential to its maintenance, and any aggression upon 



thatright. when brought fully to the 

 ing, would tend to the injury o 



n 



nlarunderstand- 

 e cause in the 



next step was that they should not be printed or re- 

 ferred, but at once be laid upon the table, still leaving 

 the duty of receiving them admitted, but providing that 

 they should neither be brought into consideration nor 

 disseminated by printing. A further step was that 

 they should not be read, thus closing the ears of < ''in- 

 gress, as a legislative body, to matters deemed of great 

 public importance by large bodies of the people whom 

 that body had assumed to represent. It only remained 

 to declare that such petitions should not be received to 

 complete the denial of a fundamental tenet of liberty, 

 and that step was at last taken. 



The history of the events thus briefly stated is of 

 interest not only in characterizing the nature and ten- 

 dencies of the institution of slavery in its effect upon 

 the principles of liberal government, but as exposing 

 dangers that may at any time threaten the right ot 

 petition when material interests are sufficiently str.niL' 

 and opposed to the principles of social order. That 

 right is in effect the right of communication between 

 the sovereign people of a representative popular gov- 



interest of which it was undertaken. The slave policy eminent and the persons selected by them to embody 

 could only be maintained by co-operation on the part j their convictions and desires in public laws, and cannot 

 of representatives whose constituencies had no direct j be denied without subverting the proper relations be- 

 interest in the institution of slavery, and, in the event tween the public authority and the agents for its exer- 

 that the choice had to be made between that institution cise. Assume a state of things in which the majority 

 and the dismemberment or crippling of the national of the people of a popular government concur in a 

 government, would adhere to tnc Union although the certain line of policy, or of opinion as to the cffcet of 

 destruction of slavery might be the consequence. Such certain laws, and the immediate representatives of that 

 considerations imposed upon the majority in Congre.-s majority refuse to give attention to the representations 

 the necessity of placing their action in the most favor- of the minority, and a case is presented that contra- 

 able light. diets the principles upon which not only popular repic 

 The explanatory resolutions denied the jurisdiction sentation in government depends but the very security 

 of Congress over the institution in the States and of popular liberty. Should the representatives of the 



affirmed that the petition., introduced for the aliolition 

 of slavery in the District and against the removal of 

 slaves from one State to another were part of a plan 

 set on foot to affect the institution of slavery in the 

 several States, and thus indirectly to destroy the insti- 

 tution within those States ; that Congress cannot right- 

 fully do that indircc'ly which it cannot do directly; 

 that the agitation of tne subject of slavery in the Dis- 

 trict or the Territories, with a view of disturbing or 

 overthrowing that institution in the several States, was 

 against the spirit and meaning of the Constitution and 

 a breach of public faith that the Constitution rests on 

 the principle of equality among the States, and Con 

 gress had no right to discriminate for or against their 

 respective institutions with the view of abolishing the 

 one or promoting the other. These recitals were 



people misapprehend or intentionally disregard the 

 sentiments or interests of the majority of _the people 

 tl.i'.v represent, to affirm that such majority may be 

 excluded from present ing such sentiments and int 

 drrcetly and formally to the body assuming to repre- 

 sent it, is to contradict the plainest dictates of common 

 sense. It is equally unreasonable that a minority of 

 the people should be excluded from formal communi- 

 cation to the representative body, for rational govern- 

 ment implies a comparison of opposite and divergent 

 opinions, and to shut out any respectable body of opin- 

 ion is to destroy the balance of the system. It may K: 

 said that the right of petition has lost much of its 

 importance since the policy of frequent elections of 

 representatives has been adopted, and that the elective 

 a<-t covers all that was intended to be secured under the 



followed DV a resolution declaring that all attempts n right of petition. Such a suggestion is in harmony 

 the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the I ' rid with the existing tendency to replace rational methods 

 of Columbia or the Territories, or to discriminate be , by technical devices, and is not strengthened by what 



