The Arkansas advocate. [volume] (Little Rock, A.T. [Ark.]) 1830-1837, 1835-09-11

mean, not citizenship alone, but adnissioa
into the Union.
Mr.. Barbour, of Va. said;
"What are Missouri's claims? Anaoa.i
extent Of country, the number of her NV NV
pie, her frontier situation, right oea rs0'
teed by the treaty by which we ACQUIRED t ~.
country, but. above all. the invaluable M ny
vilege of self government, of which she r'
now deprived; privilege dear TO evo,s
American; the deprivation OF which ;s ~ ~
last injury which can be inflicted unan
them" spO4
And further, concerning the restriction.
on Missouri:
an ow, we say Won have no right e j.,
pose these restrictions, and, having no rich,
you shall claim no advantage by tba ~
tempt. This would be to suffer Won IL
profit by your own wrong and if | am eo,
rect in saying you would have no obiect;on
to the proposed consolidation, were 4 -,
for this attempt 10 control The people #
Missouri in the exercise of the great priv.
lege Of making their own government. and
also that you have no right SO To eontrol
them, We who assume both these as IN.
questionable truths can see no serious diG5
Guilty 10 The proposed union"
Mr.. Simkins, of South Carolina, said. Fol-
1920, in the II. of Representatives., speaEju.
of the Treaty of Cession;
"This treaty provides for the ADNIssIov
OF this Territory into the Union as soon .,
possible. You refuse it, although YOU have
ne doubt that the Territory is ripe for adj
mission, as it relates to their numbers, g.
THIS treaty prorides for their eajog,aen +.
STATE, Of all The Rights, adrautages, and
inan@dfies Of citizens Of the United Stata
YEA, OF THE MOST FAVORED cITIzENs.u
And againi
Away then with the suggestion Of be
member from Massachusetts, that there was
not sufficient power to make the treaty. Or
that ii there was, the people must complain
through France for It's violation. AWAY
then with the strained argument of 6e
gentleman from New York. who though
he had discovered a safe ground of retreat
when he alleged that the word State was no
used in the treaty, and that, therefore, there
was no obligation to admit this Tenilov &
as State-bat merely to incorporate
with other Territories, or annex il to other
States. Such arguments appear to be weak
and not worthy the high sources from which
they came s.
We shall now only quote the following re-
solutions, which, among others, were passed
at st Louis, May 18th, 1919, by meetngd
which Alexander M.Nair was President, and
David Barton, seeretary;
"Resolped, That the right of the MssOni
Territory to be admitted into the Union de-
ponds, not upon the will of Congress, bds
upon the treaty of cession and the prince
Piles of the Federal CONSTITUTIONS.
ResotCed, That the people of the Nilsson
II Territory have a right to meet IN Con
ventlon By their otpn 0atho,iiy, and 10 form
a Constitution and State Government
whenever, hereafter, they shall deem it es
Pedlent 10 do so and that second refR
sal on tle part of Congress to admit then
INTO the Unlona upon an equal footing with
the original States, will render it expedient
to exercise that right
Re8otred, That a Constitution so forna
cannot be disapproved by Congress for
cause, other than for anti-repnbliean iea
lures; and if disapproved upon any otha
Pretext, such disapproval will be equiyaled
to an attempt TO expel the Territory of Mis-
sour from the federation of the States
1t seems from the second resolution abOF
quoted, that they had concluded that theyha1
done, not only needless, but a very FOOLS
things in asking leave to form Constitutioa
With these extracts and remarks to suppd
our positions, we have done with the subjcd
for the present.