The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-13

"Suppose the white population of Texas mdSse,
under the promptngs of some mania for the gold
mines, should remove to California and become
citizens thereof, taking the oath of allegiance
thither, and renouncing thereby their allegiance to
Texas; suppose further that all of them should re-
tain their lands in Texas, leaving their slaves 10
cultivate them, and to account to them for the
crops, SC; suppose further, that the legislative
and popular electors of Texas had chosen their Sen
ators and Representatives prior to emba king upon
this wholesale migration; and suppose lastly, that
the United States marshal for Texas in making
his census returns should report all of these facts
Congress, and that the Senators and Representa-
tives elect the only resident citizens of the
State: now, demand to know whether, if all these
supposals were brought into realities there be any
one among them which would not be perfectly
la1Ja act under the Constitution of the United
States! Most undoubtedly they would be SO, Very
well. Now would either house of Congress admit
these Senators and Representatives TO seats in the
face of their official knowledge that they were
without constituency? We know they would
not. Very well, again. Could Congress apportion
and allot representatives to State under the cen
sus which was destitute of representative numbers,
and those former citizens had already been counted
and registered among the representative members
of California? We know it could not. And now
for the result Texas would be out Of the Union
She would have accomplished that result through
her own acts exclusively All Of these acts would
be ia,rftA acts. She would then have lawfully cx-
ercised the right Of secession and have ceased to be
State in the Union Would there be any treason
in that? Would the migrating citizens be traitors
to the Union Would that be levyng war or ad-
herring to the Unions enemes?'
Answering for ourselves, and for nobody else,
we have to say, that Randolph knows good
deal more than we do if he knows that Con
gress would not admit Senators and Representa-
tives from the State of Texas to seats in the
case first put. If it did not, the consequence
would hardly follow which he deduces In
what sense would Texas be out of the Union2
The soil would remain, though its propretors
had removed; the laws of the Union would CON
unue to be in force.
The soil OF Texas might indeed 90 unrepre-
scented when its former inhabitants were no
longer upon il to exercise their franchise, but
they being by the hypothesis in California
would still be in the Union. We think we
may venture to express the opinion that they
would not be guilty of treason, and when we
have done so, we cannot perceive what peril
nence the questions, the answers and all pos
sible differences that may be drawn from both,
have to elucidate the effect of the action of
State, which by secession withdraws both It's
soil and its inhabitants from the Union, upon
the condition of the remaining States and the
Federal Government.
Such are what Randolph conceives to be
''striking demonstrations of the several facuI-
ties existing in the Constitution itself, adequate
to its total overthrow without any breach of
any of its provisions"
1t is upon the strength of such demonstra-
tons that he asks, with an air of triumph,
whether, since two States of the Union are in
vested by the Constitution with a capacity
their arbitrary will and pleasure, two other
States of the Union may not "disnienlber ii by
seeding from its jurisdiction and authority,
and without being branded with treason for
levying war which would never be waged
but in defending their homes and fresides from
the hostile invasions of the other States" We
are very confident that, if no better defence
against the imputaton of treason be presented
than this, few persons will be found to incur
the hazard Of relying upon it.
Inasmuch as Rand oil PIN attached sufficient
consequence to what we have heretofore said to
make it the professed occasion of undertaking
his dispositions we beg that it may be observed
that in the remarks now submitted we have
avoided any controversy in relation to the right
Of secession. We want 10 find out first what is
10 be the effect Of secession on the non seeding.
and how many States must secede before the
Constitution is subveried among those who adj
here to and maintain it. As yet we get no an
sver, but in place thereof attempts TO show that
the Constitution may be subverted in other
modes than secession, which we understand 10
be offered as a proof thatit may be subverted in
this mode The withdrawal Of one State, how
ever, is expressly rested for lis justification on
the ground that it does not affect the Union
among the rest five comprehend its advocates.
What then is the least number Of States that
can preserve the continuity Of the Government
How many must 90 before the object which
seems TO be aimed at-thc destruction Of the
Constitution--can be accomplished DO let us
into the whole theory and modus operdndi of Sc
cession, instead Of talking about theothcr modes
" bringing about anarchy, TO which this must
be deemed preferable. OF. would not have been
selected.