The Weekly register., 1843-09-16


how, for we have a stubborn sort Of
self-importahce, which will make US
stick it out until that is done.
We hear much about what the Con-
vention determined, nterlarded with ho-
miles about the inexpediency ofthe mem
bers Of the Whig party setting up as
Mw breakers, DC. DC. This is begging
the question, unless the Wing Conren-
ton is set up as the infalIible guide Of
whig faith and practice. We do not be-
long to that church. If the Convention
was right IN that determination, we say
sAow it. If"tho State is legally entitled
10 be represented, the whole Of the hom-
lilies which we have against running can
didates are groundless. We believe 1t
is, and we are not alone IN the opinion.
The Wings of South Mississippi may as
we'll know now as ever that the wings
fofthe North will never support the "bond
paying democrats" for Congress. A large
por rtion, IL not the majority, believe the
State entitled to be represented under
her own existing law; and, depend upon
it, they will act cut the conviction, by
voting for wings, or not voting at all. if
the wings Of the South persist in refu-
sing to run candidates. The election Of
the anti-bond ticket will then be inevita-
BILE. To avoid this result we are anx-
ious TO run whig ticket, sincerely be-
lieving that we should be just about as
bad "ta,c breakers" # 1ce should rote for
bond paying democrats as bond paying
,chigs for Congress. Isn't that curious
idea--to vote for bond-paying democrats
just to avoid breaking the law, which is
TO be broken by voting at all
The position taken by the whig press
es of the State generally, are high and
manly we admit, taking the State TO have
no legal right to representation in the
next Congress. But let us ask them, if
you are sure you are right gentlemen,
why don't you produce some reasons
which will show you are right? Does
not theburden Of proof rest on you, who
assert That one of these sorreign States
is excluded fr0S. a roice in the National
Councils, and her citizens disfranchised I!
Surely, if it is so, Il is Something very
unusual and worth looking into. Has
the State disfranchised herself? ''Not as
any body knows off, Have the federal
authorities done it? No; nobody knows
that either. Have the State and Fede-
raj authorities done it togeihers No
not that either. Well, what has done il?
Why, train Of circumstances, argue
some Of our friends. Now we serious
iy ask, is not such reason as that ridi-
culous? Have we a government so i'll
contrived that such serious results come
about in it by mere accident, or by
bunder of a single department of that
government? But Congress passed
law, say you, and as our Legislature has
not obeyed it; the people Of the State are
necessarily disfranchised, & must take
consequences. Will that argument do?
Suppose Congress should pass law thai
none ofthese States should be represent
ed, until laid off into districts by the
King ofthe Netherlands--would that be
sufficient to disfranchise tho State Of
Mississippi, 1.-THE King should fail to do
it? Certainly not Congress has pow
er to "naake or aztern the regulations of
the States onthis subject. Doubtless she
may do it by her agent if she chooses, but
before SHE HAS DONE tie one or hte
other can the law ofthe State be changed
or annulled? Clearly not. The law Of
Congress which annuls State law must
not only be constitutional, but complete
in itself How then is the State dis
franchised? Congress has chosen to
make our State Legislature her agent to
district our State, and anauz our STATE
1aw. The agent ofCongress has refused
TO obey her commands. What then is
the consequence? Why that nothing is
done. Congress has done nothing but
command her agent. Her agent has
done nothing at all. Now is not our
State law, coupled acih The constitution
al guarantee to a free people of the right
of representation, sufficient to stand