to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen.”  These eminent constitutional lawyers agreed in opinion of the importance of the provision; they differed only in thinking, the one, that the right of petition could not be too clearly defined; the other, that whether defectively defined or not in the letter, the People would take care that it should in spirit be faithfully observed.  While the first entertained a wise jealousy of the encroachments of the People’s representatives, the other looked for the protection of the public rights to the People themselves, the masters of the People’s representatives.  And as the fears of the former have been verified too speedily, I trust that the hopes of the latter will be not less truly realized.

There are some things in the context and phraseology of this article of the Constitution, which may deserve attention.  It speaks of “grievances” in the general; not “their grievances,” the personal grievances of the individuals petitioning, but anything, public or personal, which they deem to be a grievance.  It is the same article, which allows to us the free exercise of our religion, and the liberty of speech and of the press.  With these primary and fundamental rights of a free people, it associates the right of petition.  But there is this peculiarity in the language of this clause of the Constitution.  The words applicable to our subject are, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the People to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The right of petition, therefore, is not a privilege conferred by the Constitution.  It is recognised as a pre-existing right, already possessed by the People, which they still reserve to themselves, and which Congress shall not so much as touch with the weight of a finger.  The People, in their constitution, say to Congress,—­We place in your hands our right and power of collecting a revenue to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the Union; our right and power to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, and to raise and support armies and navies for its prosecution.  Upon these and other subjects you may exercise the discretion, which we repose in you by virtue of our constitution.  But this you shall not do:—­you shall not, until after the expiration of twenty years, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as we think proper to admit; you shall not pass any bill of attainder; you shall not lay any tax or duty on exports; and you shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the People peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These our great natural rights we keep to ourselves; we will not have them tampered with; respecting them we give to you no commission whatsoever.  And rights which Congress itself, the entire Legislature, consisting of the President, the Senate, and the House, acting in their combined functions in the enactment of a law, is forbidden to abridge,—­can this House alone undertake, by a mere resolution or vote, practically to deny, abolish, and destroy?  Sir, if we can successfully do it, I have greatly misconceived the democratic ancestry, the democratic principles, and the democratic energy of the People, whom we are appointed to serve in this House.