{"character_count": 5818, "word_count": 998, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9542999863624573], "ccnet_perplexity": [2062.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
,f'SS'ioh, SHdH ~ DG Tfctiped, VI me HOUSE
has no discretion over the question Of recep-
hon! II is worse than idle TO ask this House
10 DO what il has no power 10 refuse. Let us
suppose case; suppose petition presented
here, which did not come in the FORM and with
The sanctions OF this rule has this House the
power to refuse TO receive it BY this rule
u certainly has. And if it has the discre-
uonary power, for the want of these forms
and sanctions, to refuse TO receive a petition,
how much more has it the power 10 refuse
those affecting the constitutional powers,
business and decorum of the body. Sir, if
Congress has no discretion upon this subject,
and cannot deny the reception Of petitions, then
these rules themselves are unconstitutional and
invade the great right Of petition Who is
prepared to press the right of petition TO this
extremity and expose this House to all the
lamentablc consequences which would ensuel
Sir, there is but little danger of this House
invading the right Of the petition. IL it does,
its biennial responsibility to the people will
correct the evil think, sir, both from the
nature and necessity of the case, aud the uni
form action Of parliamentary bodies. have
successfully demonstrated that, Congress has
discretionary power over the reception OF
petitions and that such discretion is not
incompatible with the right Of petition, but
necessary protection against its abuse and
licentiousness.


Having thus, as think, satisfactorily prov
ed the power Of Congress over the reception
Of petitions, the question recurs, whether PEE
ttions praying for the abolition of slauery"
and the 9 siaUe trade" in the District of CO.
lumba, should be received 7 In discussing
this question, the first inquiry which presents
itself is, has Congress the power to abolish
.'siduery" or the siape trade" so called in
the District of Columbia If Congress has
the power, such petitions ought to be re-
ceived; il not, they should not be received.
At the time Of the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, the District of Columbia was
component part of the States of Virginia and
Maryland, and its citizens entitled to all the
immunities and privileges Of the people OF
those States and were covered by the broad
manse Of the Constitution of the United States.
Virginia and Maryland were slave holding
States, and the people Of the District, as part
Of those communities, were a. holding
people. In this condition they were found
when the Constitution was adopted, and in
this condition they were found when the ces-
sion, by Virginia and Maryland, was made.
Now. sir, does the Constitution, or do the acts
of cession, confer upon Congress the power
to invade and destroy this right of property,
either by express provision, or by any fair
and legitimate inference! have searched
the Constitution and the acts of cession in
vain for any such authority. But, sir, inde-
pendent Of this want of declared power, there
is, in the Constitution itself, an express prohi-
bilion of power. In the fourth article of the
amendments to the Constitution IL is declared
that


"The right of the to be secure in their per-
sons houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and
shall issue but upon probable causes support
ed by oath affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons thrgs to be
seized"


The adoption of this amendment to the
Constitution gave the important protection of
this article to the people Of the District, as
citizens Of the States of Virginia and Mary
land against tyranny, vexation and oppres-
sion. Did the acts of cession strip them OF
it | answer, no-unless it can be proved
that the people of the District are not people
of the United States; which, imagine, no
gentleman will be bold enough to assertion
the article refers, in express terms, to the
"people" of the United States, and not the
people of the States, as states. If, then
slavery existed in the District of Columbia
at the time Of the cession, and the people are
protected by the article of the Constitution
which have Just read against unreasonable
searches and seizures, of their persons
house, papers and effects | maintain that,
by virtue of the succeeding article of amend
ment to the Constitution, the people of the
District are equally protected against any in
vasion or violation Of their right Of property,
either in slaves, or any thing else. The arti-
Gle reads thus


No person shall be held TO answer for capital. or
otherwise Infamous crime, unless presentnent or
indictment of grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land naval forces, the militia, when IN actual
service, in time of public danger shall any
person be subject for the offence to be twice put
in jeopardy OF life or limb; shall be compelled, in
any criminal case, to be witness against hnself nor
bo deprived of LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY, without
due process OF law shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be
TAKEN for public without just compensation"


Now, sir, if the people of this District are
entitled to all the important privileges and
immunities guaranteed in this clause Of the
Constitution, they are much entitled to the
protection Of their private property as any
other right, privilege or exemption; and, as
slaves are recognised by the Constitution and
laws as property, they come within the very
letter of the article, and are protected. If
Congress has the constitutional power TO abo-
lish slavery in this District, it has the same
power TO abolish the important right of trial
by jury, and all the other important rights and
privileges enumerated in the clauses which
have read, and establish an unqualified dcs-
potism. Is this true Cam it be so lf the
doctrine that Congress has the power contend
ed for over slavery, in this District, be true,