Preble County Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1857-1859, 1858-04-08
Speech Of Hon. Geo. E. Pugh
on. the Kansas Question.

. otherwise have given, in accordance with
! my myiowniopinions, has been taken from
under mv2control by the instruction of
Hthe GeueraliAssembly Of Ohio, in which
: the political party to which I belong has
N decided majority. Twill say, however,
Individually, that / regard the act passed
8 bS the Territorial Legislature of Kansas,
: on the 18th February, 1857, true and
substantial copy. in every material pro-
vision of the bin which passed the Sem
ate of fHS United States on the 2a of
j uly, 1885, That bill, at the time, after
the most thorough discussion, and the
most careful and anxious consideration,
rcceivedmy vote audunqualificd apnrov-
al. Afterwards, before hepeople of my
State, in theirprimary assemblies, it'was
q my duty and my pleasure to explain, as
fully as was able, the purposes, the
principles, and the detailof that bill; and
at all events, the party to which belong,
and with which have always been as
soeiated, gave the bill alike approval.
ir. Nor, sir, do Iregard it material wheth-
er that bill was passed by the Congress
of the United States, or by the Territor-
ial Legislature. l know Some distinc-
ton has been attempted in that regard;
but after thorough examination of the
history of all the cases of the admission
of Estates into the Union, my own judg-
ment' IS, that the most regular manner,
- and, originally, the only regular manner
fer the application of new State, is
through convt ntion called by the Ter
ritorial Legislature. The frt three of
the States admitted, after the formation
of the Constitution, had no enabling act.
Vermont and Kentucky were not au
therized by Congress to take any steps
toward the formation of State govern
ments. They proceed the authority of
= the States from which they were sepera-
ted Tennessee, the third State, pro-
ceeded under the sole authority of her
territorial government.
'7 The first enabling act ever passed was
In the case of my own State, and the rea :
sons for it were peculiar and Imperative.
Under the ordinance of July 13, 1877,
5 the people did not elect the Council r
Senate of the Territory. The Council
ors were uoiui mated by the House of Rep
resentativcs, and -chosenby Congress
No man could be representative, even
in the most numerous branch of the Fer
ritorial Legislature, unless he owned a
fcesimple estate in two hundred acres
ofland, nor could any man be voter
for representative unless he owned a
freehold estate in fifty acres. AS a con-
sequence, the Federal party, although IA
minority of the people, controlled the
Territorial Legislature. Without going
ut large into the circumstances which, in
some other form, l shall lay before my
constituents, it is enough to say that
this Federal control of the Legislature,
with the assistance of an absolute veto
in the hands of the Governor, was so
exercised as to prevent the admission oi
Ohio into the Union at the proper time,
and exercised for merely partisan pur-
tjoscs. 1t was to redress this usurpation
on the part ofthe Territorial Legislature
THAT Congress, for the first time in our
history, passed an enabling act. 1t was
not based ON the ground that the Ter
ritorial Legislature lacked the power
II was based on the ground that the Leg
islature had the. power and refused to
exercise it. ar a.
The next case was that of the State
of Louisiana In. the petition of tho
Territorial Legislature of Orleans, whicl,
will be found in the American State
papers, it appear that the people of that
Territory, through their Legislature
had at one time endeavored to form a
State Government, and Congress had re
fused to recognize their proceedings
and, therefore. at subsequent period
the Legislature petihoned Congress fol
an enabling act, aud that enabling act
was passed in response to the petition
These two cases, although special in
their circumstances, were followed with.
out any question in the instances of In
Missouri, over all of which States the or
dinance of 1887, with or without the
restriction of slavery, extended.
io The difficulty in the case of Missouri
was this: she had complied with every
condition in the act of Congress-; she was
entitled to have her Senators and Rep.
irosentativcs sworn upon the .presenta.
ton of their credentials. When the
first enabling act for the State of Ohio
was before Congress, when the Fedora
party denounced it as usurpation by
Congress, the Democratic Republican
party defended it on the ground that i
was conditional act of admission; tha
whenever e the Territorial Legislator,
had taken steps for the assembling o
convention, and the constitution tn,
new States bad been formed, then Con
gress had merely1to admit the State;l bu
whenever no convention had been called
and no constitution had been formed
that then Congress might pass the act o
admission beforehand, defining the boun
daries and prescribing the conditions
so thatI take an enabling act to be, as
saidasomc time since on this floor, con
ditional of admission. Missouri hat
complied, With the condition; she wa
therefore, entitled to have her Senator
and Representative sworn, for tits liter
ally true, as has been stated severa
times on this floor, that the State o
Ohio, iu which case the first enabling
act vas passed, pever had any other ad