University of South Carolina Libraries
"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