Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1837-02-02
MN\

her constitutional none to anuul her dis.
sent to the condition Of admission regular
ly given by q convention Of the people of
the State, cOnvoked by the authority of the
State-te- Introduce her on its authority
would be not only revolutionary and dan
gerous. but utterly repugnant to the princi-
pies Of our constitution. The question
then submitted to the Senate is, had tha,
assemblage the authority to perform these
high aud solemn acts?
The chairman Of the Committee on the
Judiciary holds that this self-c, stituted as
semblage had the authority ; and what is
his reason! Why, truly, because a greater
number Of votes were given for those who
constituted hat assemblage, than for those
who constituted the convention of the nco-
pie OF the State, convened under its con-
sf'tuted authorities. This re.
solves itself into two questionable first of
fact, and the second Of principle. l shall
not discuss the hrst. 1t is not necessary to
40 SO. But If it were, it would be easy to
show that never was so important y fact
so loosely testified. There is not one par
ticie Of official EVIDENCE before us. We
had nothing but the private letters Of indi-
viduals, who do not know even the mum
hers that voted on either occasion thew
Know nothing of the qualifications of voters,
nor how their votes were received, nor by
whom counted. Now, none knows better
than the honorable chairman himself thar
such testimony as is submitted to us TO
establish a fact Of this moment would not
he received i'll the lowest magi %>tratc's court
IN the land. But I waive this. I come to
the question Of the principle involved; and
what Isn! Tho argument is, that Il greater
number OF persons voted for tho last con
vention than for the first, and therefore the
acts nF thu loSt <f r.rI, .l,.,I L- T.
the first; III other words, that mere numbers
without regard to the forms of law, or the
principles of the constitution, give authori-
~ The authority Of numbers, according
10 this argument, sets asidr The unfhoriiy or
tdn n the constitution. Need | show thar
such a principle goes to the entire over
throw Of our constitutional Government.
and would subvert all social order 1t is
the identical principle which prompted The
late revolutionary and anarchical movement
IN Maryland, and which has lone more to
shake confidence i'll our system of govern
ncnt than any event since the adoption of
our constitution, but which happily has
"een tr"wncd down by the patriotism
ana intelligence of the people of tina,
State.
What were the grounds of this insurrcc-
t'onary measure, but that the government
OF Maryland did not represent the voice of
inc numerical majority of the people of
Maryland and that the authority of law
anu constitution were nothing against that
OF numbers. Here we find on tlli, floor.
ana from The head Of the Judiciary Com
mIttcc, the same principle revived, and if
possible, IN Il worse form for in MARYLAND
the anarchists assumed that they were s,s-
tanned hy the numerical majority of the
people of the State, in their reyolmtionary
Ahhn' ffreYthid 70 have, is "A mere ni"r,I;,n
The largest number of votes claime; :3Wr
the scIf-crcated assemblagc, is sOW and
no man will undertake to say that this con-
%stitutes any thing like a majority of the
voters of Michigan; and he claims The high
authority which he does for it, not because
1t Is "A majority Of the people of Michigan,
mt because 1t is Il greater number than
voted tor the authorised convention of the
people mat refused to agree to the condi-
ton of admission. 1t may he shown nv
Ms own witness, that a majority of the
voters of Michigan greatly exceeded SUU0.
MIR. Williams, the President of the self
created asscmhIage, stated that the popu-
lhti0n OF that State. amounted to nearly
2Uo,OOO persons. Ii so, there cannon be
less than from 10000 to 30, 1000 voters. con-
sIdering how nearly universal the right of
suffrage Is under its constitution and il
thus appears that this irregular, sclf.consti-
tutcd meeting did not represent the vote of
Onc-third of the State; and vet ON u mere
principle Of plurality we ale TO slpc,scde
the constitution of Michigan, and amnul the
act Of a convention of the people regularly
convened under the authority of tic gov
eminent Of the State.
But, says the Senator from PENNSYLVANIA.
(Mr. ~Buchanan.1 this assembly was moi self
rnnStIfnfRI mat pInS H. ~ 81
an act OF Congress, and that had no reference
TO The State, bur only to the people; and that
the assemblagc in December was inst such
a meeting as that act contemplated. Ii is
not my intention To discuss the question
whether the honorable Senator has given
the true Interpretation of the acr. bur, iii
were, could very easily show his intcrprcta-
ton to he erroneous; for. if such had been
the intention of Congress, the act surely
would have specified the time when the con-
ventiOn was TO be held, who were to be the
managers, who the voters, and would MOI
have left il tofnhividuals, who might cboosc
10 assume the authority la determine all these
important points | might also readily show
that the word 'conventi0n" 0ftlle peonIc ~
used i'll law or the constitution, ALWAYS means
n meeting of the people regularly convened
W the constituted authority ofMe state, in
their high sovereign capacity. and thai il
never means such an asscmblagc rs the one
in question. But waive this; | take hiuhcr
ground. If the act he, indeed, such rs the
Senn'or says il is, then | maintain tina, i, is
utterly opposed TO the fundamental princi-
pies ~ Tour Federal Union. Congress has no
ri%ht Whatever to Gala convention in a State.
IL can can bueonc convention. and thai is n
convention ofthe people ofihc United States
10 amend thsl ItnJnrnl (N