Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1848-01-26
PROTEST.
or the Democratic Members OF
the House against the expulsiolaI
Of Mr.. KtnSlnah.

+ hOl ESI
or the Democratic MemEers OF
the House against the expulsion
of Mr.. ktnslnsh.
When all else 10 lost. the constitution
intends to secure to the minority the
last privilege Of protesting against any
act Of this House which they may deem
eminently illegal or unjust The recent
resolution Of this body, excluding unjust
ly, as We think, one Of our. fellow mem.
bers from seat here, imposes upon us
the duty Of expressing in the constitution
al way. our emphatic dissent thereto. and
Of doing all that now remains in our cow.
or to prevent the present case from being
regarded - precedent hereafter. In
justice, then, to ourselves, to our constit-
uenfs, and to the great cause Of constit0-
tional liberty, we hereby solemnly pro
test against this act Of exclusion, and ap
peal from the decision Of the majority
here, to the country and to that great cour,
of appeals-posterity. ,s sS
Our first ground Of protest is, that no
proper charge is made in the resolution,
or Indictment, as reason for excluding
Mr.. Kinsman from his seat, aud depriving
the people who sent him here ofthe bene.
fit Of his services. II vaguely shadows
forth the allegations, @4 @ !
lst; That he had resigned his Office;
and 3D., that he had removed from his dis
trict. Upon this double charge has he
been tried by this House, and pronounced
guilty; but whether of the one or the 9TH
er, or Of both these allegations, no one is
informed. Possibly, but little more than
one fourth ef-his judges believed one Of
these charges sustained. Another like
number might have found him guilty on
the other; and thus, while nearly three
fourths Of this body would have decided
in his favor in detail, majority Was viii
ling to pronounce against him in the ag-
gregate. The ripened reason Of the law
has well established the rule that no per-
son shall be compelled to defend himself
from compound charge. Should this
high court have disposed Of the interests
Of the people of whole distric. in mau
ncr that would have been rejected as un-
jast and oppressive, by the untutored
reason Of q justice Of the peace?
Nor do we believe there is any lega'
or rational foundation for either Of these
charges. What was the proof that he hat
resigned his seat? An unguarded expires
sion, substantisted by doubtful testimony
"a mere verbal statement, made to ont
whose evident purpose was to entrap, ant
repeated by him with all natural colorine
in the vsty teeth Of strong contradictory
circumstances, is all the evidence of tn i.
pretended resignation.
Opposed to this, is the CONCLUSIVE fac
that no such resignation can now be found
or has ever been seen. The original ha
not been produced-no copy has bee,
shown-not even witness who couil
swear that either ever existed. The ten
ure of office Of the members of this body
& the rights Of their constituents, are no, L
be placed in jeopardy by such proofas this
Nor does the admitted fact Of his re
moval from his district, subsequent to hi
election, furnish any more solid eroun,
for the resolution adopted by thi. House
The rights Of representative and consti,
uents are fixed by nature & limited only By
our constitution. That instrument leave
to the people all powers not therein aenie,
them. Their natural light TO select whom
| sUevet they please as their repre.entatiy,
or agent, has been narrowed down SO a
to limit their selection to White male CHI
zens, over twenty one years OF age;- Wit
shall have resided one year in the State
and who at the time of their election shall
haye had residence Of thirty days il
their district. When the people have ia
ken care to select such an individual, the,
may regard their right to be represente.
in the General Assembly as secure. Their,
is no provision which requires them t'
confine his person within the limits O
their districts. Their property in him doe
not cease whenever he leaves his enclo
sure. The cons,i,ion says vi hat it means
and means what it says. Ii has fixed nj
such qualification. We can make none.
These views are sustained by the ex
positions given to similar constitutions
provisions 10 the other States Of the I'm
ion. Many like cases have been heowl
to arise there, and the construction has
we believe, been uniform in coincidenc,
with the position above assumed.
The same may b said in relation TO ths
constitution Of the United States, and III.
construction and practice under it. B,
that instrument, the representative, uhe,
elected, is required to be an inllabitant o.
the State in which he shall be chosen; ane
yet, though many instances Of subsequent
removal have arisen, no objection on tha
! account has ever been sustained. Judg,
Story in commenting upon this subject
observes, 1.-The omission to provide that .
subsequent non-residence shall be a vaca
ton OF the seat, may 10 some measure de
feat the policy Of the original Limitation
For it has happened in more than one in.
stance, that a member. after his election
has removed 10 another State and thu:
ceased to have that intimate intercourse
with, and dependence upon, his constitu
ents upon which so much value has beer
placed in all the discussions on this sub.
ject." No doubt is expressed by the dis
tinguished commentator as to the proper
construction Of that clause Of the consti.
tuition. 1t is treated as an admitted fac,
that the constitution cannot be so strained
as TO cause a disqualification to result from