The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 72
viii, 784 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
n
28th Cons 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. *
Abolition Petitions—Mr. A. V. Brown.
Jan. 1844.
H. of B®ps.
been signed by fifty thousand petitioners, presented
some sessions since by the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts, [Mr. Adams,] or that other one which had,
at the last session, been brought in on a great reel
and set upon the table of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts for ornament to it; or they might take
the one presented by him for the dissolution of the
Union, or that one presented at this session of Con-
gress from citizens of New York, asking to be for-
ever separated from the institution of slavery.
They might take any one or all of these petitions,
and he would appeal to the record to settle the ques-
tion whether, in any of these cases we had violated
the great constitutional right of petition; whether
we had turned the petitioners out of this hall;
whether we had driven them with scorn and con-
tempt from our doors.
What has been the proceedings on these and sim-
ilar cases? What had been the practice under the
21st rule? The petitioners in any and in all those
cases had "peaceably assembled." Had the 21st
rule prevented that? When they had assembled,
they had petitioned this House, Did the 21st rule
prevent that? They had, as the next step, sent their
petitions to their chosen and selected agent. Did we
prevent that by the 21st rule? We did not. What
was next? That agent, in every one of these cases,
had brought their petitions here within these walls.
Did the 21st rule prevent that' No. What next?
The gentleman from Massachusetts rose in his
place; all eyes were fixed upon him, and all ears
were opened to his voice. What did he do? He
presented these petitions he stated distinctly to the
House what they contained, where the petitioners
resided, what were the grievances complained of,
how they reasoned "upon the subject, and, finally,
made known to this House what was the redress
they prayed for- That was the precise process.
The record showed the fact. And now the ques-
tion was, whether we had abridged or in anywise
violated the great right of petition in this course of
proceeding? The petitioners had been heard. By
themselves? No; for they had not come here to be
heard; they had been heard by their own selected
agent, who came within these walls, presented their
petitions, and made known their prayers. Would
it, then, be pretended that we had violated their
rights, or treated them with scorn when we had
heard their own agent speaking for them, and stat-
ing what grievances they prayed to have redressed?
The question now which he wished to put to the
gentleman from New York and others who seemed
disposed to object to this 21st rule was, whether, in
fact, under that rule, we had ever violated the great
right of petition? There could be no difficulty in
understanding the subject. He could bring illus-
trations of it from every domestic circle, and from
the scenes of every-day life. A parent was bound
to hear the complaints of her offspring; but, paus-
ing and hearing them, she might promptly repel
them. Although the child might say that the pa-
rent. was precipitate, or even unkind, yet it could
never say that the parent had refused to hear its
complaints. Now, here was the great principle of
petition. Mr. B. admitted the right in its broadest
and fullest extent; and he admitted farther the duty
of this House to hear these petitioners. After these
petitioners were heard, (as they did hear them un-
der this 21st rule,) the right of the people was perfect.
The duty of the House then began, and that duty
was to dispose of the petitions promptly or slowly,
as they deemed proper.
It was a great issue, not only elsewhere but here,
whether the argument was true, so often used by
the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and now sustained by the gentle-
man from New York and the gentleman from North
Carolina, who had come forward and endorsed the
arguments used in former times upon this subject,
whether, liy this 21st rule, the great constitutional
riyht of petition was violated, as they affirmed it
was. Mr. B. denied that this right was riolated,
and he appealed to the record, relying upon the
known piaetiee of the House, (for what he had told
them with regard to the practice upon these peti-
tions was known to be true by every member of the
House.)
But by what sort of an argument was it that the
gentleman from New York maintained that the 21st
rule ought to be abandoned1 The gentleman told
them that this was the very best way in the world
to nut down abolition. His great object was to put
down abolition; and the best way to do so, he told
them, was to receive, to refer, and to report upon
these petitions The gentleman might as well tell
him that the best way to save a city was to surrender
its fortifications; or that the best way to repel an in-
vasion was to give up all the mountain passes and
strongholds where the enemy might be most readily
and effectually met and overcome. Put down the
spirit of abolitionists, defeat their object, by doing
what? By granting them four out of five of the
very things they desired. What did they ask for?
To have their petitions received. Well, said the
gentleman from New York, "Oh, yes, let us receive
them; that is the way to put them down." What was
the next thing they asked for? To have their petitions
referred to the committees of the House. The gen-
tleman from New York and the gentleman from
North Carolina also said, "Oh, yes, let us put down
these abolitionists by sending their petitions to a
committee to be examined and reported upon."
They asked more—that they should debate these
petitions. And gentlemen professing to be opposed
to abolition (and Mr. B. doubted not sincerely pro-
fessing) still tried to persuade the House that the
best way was to yield every inch of ground, and
refuse nothing but the solitary principle of relief for
which they finally prayed. Now, it was impossible
for Mr. B., as a southern man, or as a statesman
who had watched the progress of this abolition ques-
tion, to believe that this could be safely done
[Mr. Beaedslev (Mr. Brown yielding for expla-
nation) inquired if the gentleman said that lie (Mr.
Beardslev) advised debate upon the subject. Sure-
ly he had never taken this position. His course
was well known. It was in favor of taking the final
vote upon the whole matter; and gentlemen well
knew what that would be.]
Mr. Brown resumed. But did not the gentle-
man perceive that, if they referred these petitions,
they must report upon them; and, if they reported,
they must debate the subject' If they began, on
what principle would they avoid carrying out the
regular jprocess, involving reference, report, and de-
bate? But why would gentlemen agree to refer
these petitions at all' They all said they were as
much opposed to abolition as any one; and yet they
proposed to refer the petitions to a committee which
should collect facts, examine laws, and consider the
subject, and see if some plan could not be devised
for carrying out the views of the petitioners. If
this was not the object, (hey could have no object at
all. Why, then, would they refer, why repoit
upon, why debate these petitions, if they did not
mean finally to grant their prayer?
[Mr. Clisgmam (Mr. B. yielding for explanation)
said the gentleman had misunderstood him (Mr. C )
if he had understood him as being in favor of deba-
ting these petitions. He was averse to it. He was
willing to see this rule debated, and to see the re-
port of a committee debated; but he thought it be-
neath the dignity of the House to debate any peti-
tion. They had enough to do to debate bills, reso-
lutions, and reports fiom committees. After refer-
ence, if a committee reported for or against the
prayer, if any gentleman chose, he might then, with
propriety, discuss the matter.]
Mr. Brown continued. He was glad the gentle-
man from North Carolina had had an opportunity
for explanation. But did not the gentleman see that
the only way to get along with this subject with
safety to the South, with safety to the gentleman's
own State, with safety to the portions of North
Carolina bordering on the rivers of that State where
the heaviest sla\e population was to be found, was
not to go beyond the great question of the right of
petition, but there to stop? to take no jurisdiction,
by reference, by report, or debate, over the subject'
There was comparatively safe ground; and, from the
explanation of the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. B. indulged strongly the hope that, when they
came finally to act upon the subject, he [Mr. C.]
would not be found going beyond that. Mr. B. ad-
,mitted, notwithstanding their rule was so plain, and
notwithstanding their practice under it had been so
plain, that there might be extensive misrepre-
sentations and misconstructions of the rule in the
country. Now, he asked of the gentleman from New
York and of thegcntlcman from North Carolina, why
they did not stop at that point? Why they did not
propose, in the report of this committee, to clear up,
to elucidate this subject, and make it manifest in its
true light to all the people of the country, and re-
move all doubts and difficulties, by going on, accord-
ing to their views, to perfect the great right of peti-
tion' What was requisite for that' Why, simply
to declare that the petitions should be received; that
would pevfcct the great right of petition in a manner
safe to the Noith, and which would be safe to the
South in a great degree, and it would have saved
the democracy of the North from the suspicion of
their enemies of a disposition to form alliances with,
or to propitiate at least, the fell spirit of abolitionism.
Why did not the gentlemen pause at the point of
reception, and go no further, if their object was to
clear up the misconception on the public mind?
It might seem strange to the gentlemen to whom
Mr. B. had referred—to the gentleman from New
York, to the gentleman from North Carolina, as
well as others—that he had laid so much stress upon
not referring, not reporting, and not debating these
petitions. Why, it was evident, if these petitions
were received "and laid upon the Speaker's table,
that there, under the rule, they would lie forever.
No great harm or mischief perhaps would grow out
of this practice. But the very moment they referred
them to a committee, that moment they took juris-
diction over them—jurisdiction in such a way as to
alarm the whole country. He was opposed to an
action which might result in such consequences.
The argument had been used, that if they would
receive, refer, and report upon these petitions, as in
ordinary cases, this would allay the excitement
which now existed on this subject. Mr. B. had
one conclusive answer, one irresistible argument, in
his humble judgment, against this proposition: They
already tried it. Many gentlemen were here discuss-
ing this question, as though the experiment had never
been made, of receiving these petitions, and of refer-
ring and reporting upon them. Why, the very speech
the gentleman from New York had made, if not
word for word, yet argument for argument, had led
to the adoption of the celebrated Pinckney resolu-
tion. Under this they had been recened, refeired-
and reported on; a digified, manly, respectful re-,
port had been made, and the decision of this House
had been had upon the question. Now, had that
allayed excitement? Had that had the tendency to
put down the spirit of abolition? So far from it,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, at the next ses- _
sion, had come within this hall with fifty thousand
petitioners at his heels. So far from it, the very
moment they had adopted the Pmckney resolution,
and determined to receive, refer, and report upon
these petitions as they did upon all others, the aboli-
tienists all over the country said : "Now is the time
to make your effort; send men to Congress able to
be the speakers of that body—able to serve upon
the committee—able to speak and vindicate the abo-
lition question. The doors of Congress are wide
open; they may not long remain so. Therefore,
now is the time, and put all your machinery m mo-
tion to effect your object." And abolition had
grown and flourished, and they were now reaping a
rich harvest from the seeds which had then been
sown under the Pinckney resolution.
[Mr. Adams (Mr. Brown yielding the floor) said
he wished simply to ask the gentleman whether the
report of Mr. Pinckney was in favor of receiving
these petitions? That was what he had understood
the gentleman to assert.
Mr. Brown. Certainly it was not in favor of
granting their prayer.
Mr. Adams said it was not in favor of receiving
the petitions, and that fact had been the occasion of
the multitude of petitions which hod been presented
to the next legislature. The refusal of the House,
under that very resolution, to receive thee petitions,
had been the reason for the multitude of them that
had been offered since that time.]
Mr. Broii n continued. With regard to the Pinck-
ney resolution, it had been a long time since Mr. B.
had examined it, but it had alwas been pointed to as
being in a degree liberal, and that very resolution
the abolitionists themselves would now prefer, a
thousand times prefer, to the 21st rule. His impres-
sion was that it did receive these petitions, but laid
them on the table.
Mr. B. relied, then, on the clear, manifest-expe-
rience of this House for demonstration that, if they
received these petitions—if they referred and re-
ported upon them—if they gave, in other words, a
respectful response to these petitions, he relied upon
the practice of the House and the expel ience of the
country that such results as gentlemen anticipated
would not grow out of this course of proceeding.
Why did gentlemen insist so strongly upon referring
these petitions? Why would they refer them? Did
they mean to grant their prayer? No. Why, then,
did they profess that they were about to do so, by
referring the petitions to a committee? Was it done
m hypocrisy? He did not charge it, and he would
not think it. Why, then, would they refer them?
Was it m order to manifest respect to the peti-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2368/m1/82/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.