hereafter to state at length.

One other case is cited, that of the petition of Vicente Pazos,
agent of New Granada, which, in the year 1818, the House refused to
receive. But the printed debates of that day show clearly the ground
of rejection. Mr. Forsyth moved that it be not received. "He stated
that, as the petitioner was the agent of a foreign power, and
applied to Congress as an appellate power over the Executive, he
thought it improper that he should be thus heard." And the question
was decided upon this single point. I heartily approve the remarks
then made by a distinguished statesman, now no more, who at that
time represented Massachusetts on this floor.

Mr. Mills, of Massachusetts, said that "the right of petition was a
sacred one, and belonged equally to the meanest and the greatest
citizen in the nation; and if such a petition as this, implicating
the conduct of the Executive, had been presented from the meanest
citizen, he would receive it; and if it complained of grievances
without pointing out redress, it would be the duty of the House to
give the proper redness; but it was to our own citizens only he
would turn this listening ear. What right had a foreign subject to
petition this House?"

Sir, I have incidentally touched upon the argument of precedents,
and shown how untenable it is; but I care not if there were a
thousand precedents of refusal to receive petitions. Such a fact, if
it existed, would not abate my zeal on this point, or shift, in the
minutest degree, my position. Upon the Constitution, upon the
pre-existing legal rights of the People, as understood in this
country and in England, I have argued that this House is bound to