The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-03-03

n to gross outrage, as he charac!erzes it, the
9 are traitors. What can consure from such
man be worth? In denouncing others, he blu
/ denounces himself and stands forth sefcon
9 victed.
come now to the speech delivered here tn
I other day. tho last in my series Of proof. | will
. show you what Mr.. JER. CLEMENS, Senator from
Alabama. is, in December. 85l. have read t.
you the first paragraph Of his speech. In sub
! sequcnt part he approves the whole compromise
He says
"Mr. President, it was not my fortune Il
agree with those patriotic men who framed the
compromise. doubted its healing effects bu
T even when differing from them, respected thei
motives, and felt that Rome, in its proudes
day, never assembled Senate of loftier intel
lect or purer patriotism"
i Why, thought he had denounced those SEN
ators who voted for the compromise az men
who would sell their souls to Satan for Office
who would sell their Saviour for half the price
Judas received He continues:
"But now, sir, when the work is accomplish
ed and its good Elects are vi s.ble everywhere,
| bow to their superior wisdom, and ask only
the humble privilege of assisting to maintain it. -
1t is indeed an stumble privilege" In my
estimation, rather than make the speech which
proclams it, the Senator from Alabama had
better, like Cranmer, have put his hand into the
flames and have it burnt to ashes
He formerly denounced the admission Of Cal
fornia as unconstitutional In this speech he
now airms that it was constitutional. | will
read what he says
"The Senator from South Carolina Mr..
RHETTl says the admission of California was
unconstitutional, because the Constitution pro-
vides only for the admission of States. If |
had not heard this same argument advanced at
home by ADLER men than the Senator, would
not hesitate to pronounce it pure nonsense. The
Constitution provides only for the admission Of
a State. True; but it is the act Of admission
which makes it State. Some thirty three
years ago, you, sir, were sitting in convention
in the then territory of Alabama framing a con-
stiution upon which you asked to be admitted
into the Union. Did you imagine that you
were committing the folly of asking that which
Congress had no right to grant, Suppose
some aDiSeacre had risen in that convention and
informed you that the Constitution provided
only for the admission of States-that Alabama
was territory and therefore could not be ad-
mitted into the Union--what would have been
your opinion, not merely Of his constitutional
learning, but of his common sense? From that
period to this, with only short intermission,
you have held seat in this body. Has it ever
|
tionay, and that in the very act of taking your
seat you violated the instrument you were sworn
to support? There are but three cases, be-
!eve, in our history, in which States have been
admitted into the Uaion- Vermont, Kentucky,
and Texas. All the rest came in as territories;
and if the position Of the Senator from South
Carolina be correct, the early fathers of the re-
public, the trainers Of the Constitution, knew
nothing of the fundamental law they estab-
shed. But, sir, while the Senator from South
Carolina denies to California the right to come
in because she was not State, he vet contends,
with that remarkable consistency which charao.
terizes many of the opponents of the compro-
mise, that Missouri did have that right. Now,
sir, the only difference between the two cases is,
that Missouri had regular territorial govern
ment, and California never had But they were
both territories nevertheless, and neither could
ever become anything else without the assent of
Cong rcss. The people of both adopted a con-
sttution, and sent it here for approval when
approved, they both became States, but not un-
til them"
Now here is his affirmation that California
was constitutionally admitted, because, as he
argues, she was admitted precisely like other
States they were territories as she was, and
the act of admission made her a State All the
other States, Alabama included, were territories
when they were admitted; so California, being
a territory when she was admitted, was admitted
as constitutiOnaly as they were admitted There
Is the argument. have in my hand the act of
Congress admitting Alabama State into the
Union. The truth is, Mr.. President, and You
know it very well, no territory has ever been ad-
n!ted into this Union as a State. In every in
stance the course pursued has been this: Con-
gress passes an act authorizing the people in
the territory to adopt constitution and form
State. The people get together, make gov
eminent, adopts constitution, put the machinery
OF their State government into operation, and
apply here for admission as a State. They are
States, and they come in as States. Under the
clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress
| to admit new States into the Union, their terri
| torial garb is thrown away, and they come here
robed in all the dignity of free and Independent
sovereignties. Alabama, the Senator's own
State, was admitted in that way The act of
Congress passed for the admission of Alabama,
begins thus:
THAT the inhabitants of the territory of Ala
bama be- and they are hereby authorized to form
themselves aconstituton and State government,
and to assume such name as they deem proper
and that the said territory, When formed into a
Stat, shall be admitted into the Union upon the
same footing with the original States in all re-
spects whatsoever"
They agreed to form themselves into free
and independent State, and they did so. So it
was with Missouri. Here is what the people of
that State did:
"We, the people Of Missouri, inhabting the
limits hereinafter designated, by our representa-.
tives in convention assembled at ST Louis on
the twelfth day Of June, 1920, do mutually
agree to form and establish free and independ.
ent republic, by the name of the State of Mis-.
sour; and for the government thereof do ordain
and establish this constitution"
Missouri was State; Alabama was State
and all the other States that have arisen from
territories were full sovereignties when they
came to be admitted into the Union. How was
it with Missouri! Missouri adopted n consti-
tuition in 1890 She was not admitted, think,
until 1929. Where was she, then before she
was admitted into the Union! She had all her of.
fcers in full operation-her executive her legis
ative, and her judicial departments of her gov
eminent organized And was she not State
could she not have remained State! Was not