The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-04-24

though the majority of the committee in that case
did not 60 this length find report in the case sub.
mitted by that eminent and deeply -lamented man.
the Hon Sias Wright, jr, late of New York, where
the entire question of the power of the Senate in
the premises is discussed with signal ability. The
majority, in their report. had said
" 1t is n general principle of national law, appca-
BILE to all distinct and indepea1ent Governments
that if there arise any disputes in State the
fundamental laws and administration, or on the
prerogatives of the different powers Of which it is
composed Ii is the business of the State alone to
judge and determine them in conformity to its po-
litical constitution"
Upon this Mr. Wright remarked:
These principles may be perfectly sound, when
applied to nations wholly disconnected with, and
independent of, each other but the undersigned
respectfully submits that they cannot be applicable
to Governments related to- and connected with each
other, the Governments of the States of this
Confederacy and the Federal Government, of which
the States component parts and especially when
the question is the proper representation of the
State in that branch Of the Federal Legislature
where its sovereignty is represented in the partscu
lar pointed out BY the Federal Constitution
Upon such question, that instrument and not the
general principles of international law, must gov
ern the decision. We have already seen that the
Constitution makes it the duty of the Senate to
judge of the elections of its members. Another
provision of that instrument says, the Senate of
the United States shall be composed of two Sena-
tors from each State, chosen by the Legislature
thereof; and the question directly presented is
aoGs Mr. Robins chosen bu the LEGISLATURE of tho
State of Rhode Island?
1t would seem to the undersigned with all defer
ence to the opinion expressed by the majority of
the committee. that the Senate cannon Judge Of tie
election of that individual, unless il look into and
decide this question; and that to determine this to
be an unauthorized interference the part of the
Federal Government in the domestic affairs Of the
Government of the State of Rhode Island would
he to determine that tho Senate cannot, tie most
important point always involved judge Of the cleo
tons of its own members, that it cannot judge
whether or not they were chosen by the Legisa-
lures of the States when the Constitution express.
ty requires that they should be so chosen"
And he adds:
"He cannot but consider it a plain proposition and
not requiring argument to support it, that when tho
constitutional Org0nt cation Of body of men claim
ing to be tn, Legislature of State is the question
in issue, the acts of the body whose constitutional
powers disputed not to be adduced rs en-
dence of the constitutional power of the body to per-
form them.
Equally clear is it to his mind, that when such
question is to be determined the consequences of
pronouncing the act invalid are not considerations
which should legitimately control the decision The
act is either constitutional unconstitutional If
constitutional the dispute is settled; if unconstitu-
tional consequences to follow from a pronuncia-
ton of the fact make Invalid So with the body
claiming to be the Legislature of the State If the
Legislature of the State according to the provisions
of the Constitution the controversy is at end if
not The Legislature of the State no acts of theirs in
follow from the invalidity of those acts can give
them the poUers which they had not when the acts
were performed, make them what they were not
the legislation Of tie State"
L have nov concluded, Mr.. Speaker, all that
desire to say upon the questions arising in the lease
made by tho statement Of facts reported by the
committee. These questions, repeat, are:
l Was the Assembly which enacted the election
gtatu in he eff nd wb;n h
sitting Delegate chosen, the legally elected Leg
isative Assembly of Kansas?
2. Is this election statute by that body enacted
void
Because it does not prescribe with the requisite
certainty the places of the elections?
Because it extends to Indians the elective fran.
chise contrary to the provisions of the organic act
Because that body legislatcd temporarily at place
other than that prescribed by the organic for the
temporary seat of Government?
3. Was the sitting Delegate Mr.. WHITFIELD cho-
sen by the people OF the Territory by resident
invaders-at what places was that election held
and by qct0n or by what law those places pre-.
scribed? Were tho places prescribed by the body
assuming to be the Legislature or by the county
commissioners, or by the county sherfs
As to the mode of proof in this case, / contend
that the only practicable method is by compelling
the attendance of witnesses here because, by the
admission of the sitting Delegate there has been and
is lawless violence in the Territory and by the in
formation communicated through the President it
of passion and brute force. The laws being of no
force within the Territory, it must be apparent that
a commission could not be successfully executed
there To refuse therefore to send for persons and
papers, and to transfer this investigation from the
committee of the House to a commission to sit in
Kansas, would be, in my judgment a refusal to in
quire into the The very attempt to investigate
this matter there will beget new acts of violence
To grant the power asked to compel the attendance
Of witnesses can do no harm and after fair trial.
if it fail il will thon be time enough to consider the
doubtful expodient of a commission.
Touching the expense, Of which something has
been said in my opinion there will not be much
diferer CO between tho two methods. But that con-
sideration ought not to have weight in a matter of
such significant import Vigilance. investigation,
inquiry, at whatever cost is the cheapest defence of
nations and this INVESTIGATION at any expense will
be wise economy, if thereby the violated law of
our common country shall be vindicated, and those
guilty of its infraction signaIly rebukcd.
There, sir, in that remote Territory, our law is
broken and our people conquered. Shall we not in
qure who has dared thus to tre with the rights of
tho people? or shall we shut eyes to the fact
and talk of popular sovereignty, while the SOW
creignty of the law is set at naught?
If we allow this act of treason to go unmestioned
do in sort sanction it, and invite repetition
of it. Now that feud, and strife. and the noise of
words heard within borders it should be the
of this House to fail of duty essential to the
maintenance of the Constitution and the laws, so
that those who wantonly violate their supremacy
shall take nothing by the treason
That distant Territory rolling away to the setting
sun, is part of our national heritage. We have
deraken to extend it tho shield of the Constitu
ton, and to to those of our peoplc who arc
filing its solitary places" the sacred right of self
government, guarded and sheltered by American
law This right, sir, has been ruthlessly stricken
down, and the majesty of the national law defed.
SHALL THIS WRONG REDREssED-SHALL THAT
RIGHT BE MAINTAINED?
Humboldt, who is now past eighty years old
is said to be as busy as he ever was in his young
er days, completing his cosmos" Those best
acquainted with him notice no failure either in
his physical or intellectual system, and his
friends th;nk he bids fa;r ~ reach I0n ,o.-,