Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1858-06-01

acted with the Republican party during
| this Kansas excitement, any who during
that excitement urged every conceivable
argument to override law and order in IA
vor Of mobs, hasthe right here and now to
make that objection. He MAS no rig hit to
apply the term a mob to- Illegally elect
led body of delegates for the Territory Of
Minnesota Il say that, in no proper
sense. can that convention or the two
bodies composing it, if you will, be char
faeterized as niobs. The delegates fairly
elected. They constituted i legal con;
gention, ! do not care if they did selfsr-
ate into two bodies. LIDO not care if they
retained separate organization through
out. They finally agreed upon the same
instrument as the orgauic law OF the flu
tureH State Of Minnesota. Its not, in.
deed, the usual method for i vconention
10 organize itself into two separate bodies.
But should convention 10 so. yet finally
concur Id the Same action, that concur
renee must be consideFed IS covering
such irregularity i a,s.
1 But, sir,I 30 further than that. ana 1
wishIto say that one Of those two conyen-
tons must have been a legal convention,
upon the theory advocated BY the gentle-
imam himself. Nov, sir there were all
The delegates elected under the law, and
/ care not how you divide them, if into
two bodies, one of them must have been
Il legal convention; for one Of them must
contained a majority of tile legally -eleeted
delegates. II seems to nle there is. no
escaping this conviction. Mathematical
demonstration could nottbe palmer, nor
more satisfactory. IN some cases it
might be d mattef4of the frst importance
10 determine which Of these two bodies
was the legal aid proper convention, In
this case, Fortunately, there is no neces-
sity for this Inquiry, inasmuch as both
agreed upon the same constitution.
Now, sir, the gentleman knows very
we'll that this ills so. He knows very
we'll that the final action of those two
bodies correspondent il every particular.
He knows very we'll that every member
III the two branches Of that convention,
except some four Or Eve absentees, sign
Cd the same constitution word for word.
Mr. SHERMAN, Of Ohio. The gen
tlemanSwiIl- see by reference to the Senate
document Reports Of Committees, No.
2f) that the members Of tile two branches
signed different papers, though they may,
upon comparison, prove To be alike. =
They keptup, HeEever, d distinction 10
the very end. Il l~c f3.t.
Mr.JE NKIES. / will only say, in
reply tolthat, tliatI consider that action
equivalent to signing the saine6paper. il
makes no sort Of difference which paper
they signed. Isitthe paper which comes
here which makes the constitution ? i
SAY, then, IN ths first place, BY way Of \
briefIrecapitulatipn on thispoint, that the
convention. was hot 4 mob that twas
legally and fairly elected under the ena-
bling act and territorial law that prop
| eily assembled i and if il divided into
two branches, that fact makes no differ
ence with the result, as they both signed
the constitution and that il was as just
IN and strictly al legal constitution as il
there had been bEtt one body. In addir
ton to all this, SIR, this constitution has
the sanction Of ihe popular voice in an
almost unparalleled manner the .propoFt
| ton Of the whole vote being about the
ratio Of sixty in favor, to one against It'll
AaDtherebiactlon which the gentleman
from Ohio makes against the admission
of Minnesota is. that the members Of the
Il L - IL
elected fer Why Sir, if the State Of
Minnesota chooses TO elect her Represen3
tatiyes for life. 4 cannot see that it is d
reasonable objection to her admission \
The gentleman may say that il is anti
republican but 1 think the gentleman
will find il. hard Ito prove it. I admit
that it is not such a provision as 1 would
vote for; and il IIwere 10 a Slate which
adopted such constitution, and persist
ed ii retaintngit,I would remove from
Bsuch State !; butEI should not consent
Ito see the despotie arm Of the Federal
government iinteFppse to remedy The evil;
fofI believe the evils which would grow
out of such 4 doctrine Of interposition
R0uiu UGy luhult .MuIoU, tpau tH0Sp
Sought to be remedied. 4
III will not do, sir, simply to say that a
feature of a State constitution. permitting
Representatives in the Legislature to
ksetve for life, is odious, aud therefore
sufficient reason for Congress I'd reject it.
I repeat, 1siir, that however sodious such a
feature would be, land it would be as
odious to me as to any man living, still
that is q matter for the people of the in
cipient State to decide for themselves.
Ifithey want such 4 lconstitutibn. It is
their business, and not yours or mine, as
members Of Federal Congress II the
people of State want such a constitu-
ton, we cannot impose a different one
upon them against their will When
they choose TO change if they can do 50.
You must then show that such aeonsti-
tuition is anti-republiean. or however OBJ
iectionable il may otherwise be. the Fed
efal Government cannot interfere. Is.
then, such constitution anti-repnb1ican?
How, then, shall We ascertain the true
meaning Of the term republican. I as
used III that clause of the Federal Con
stitutiof which says "that the United
States shall guaranty % every State IN
/ this Union . republican form of govern,
ment /"
First, letus examine the tern ITSELF
Is there anything III lis general significa-