The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-04-22


Senate.
Mr.. Pron moved 10 amend the preamble
70 the Senate bill, and insert after the word
whereas" the following
.Ths people Of Minnesota have asked for I'D.
mission into the Union ~ State, and have
submitted constitution, which, on due exam.
nation. Ii found 70 be republican in Its form
Of government"
Mr.. Simmons. Let US have the preamble
that il proposed TO be stricken out, read.
The Clerk read il, M follows:
..Whessas, a. act Of Congress was passed
February 2E, 1851, entitled An act 10 authorize
the people Of the Territory Of Minnesota to form
. constitution and state government prepare
tory 10 their admission into the Union on an
equal footing with the original States and
whereas, the people Of said Territory did, on
the 18th day Of August, 1851, by delegates
elected for that pHpose, form for themselves
. constitution and State government, which Ia
republican Ia form, and WAS ratified and adopt.
ed by the people, at an elaction held on the
18th day Of October. 1857, for that purpose. in
pursuance u said act Of Congress"
Mr. Simmons. | would like 10 know
what object there is in striking that out
Does it not rccite the true history Of the al
fair
Mr.. Pugh supposed, after the long
discussion on the Minnesota case, that Sen
ators were sufficiently aware that there nev-
er was any convention in Minnesota. In
the first place, they enormously construed
the act Of Congress That required the con-
ventlon 10 consist Of twice as many delegates
IA there were representatives in the Terrific
rial Legislature. They commenced by elect
ing twice as many delegates Us there where
councillors and representatives in the Legs
ataEa. Then they geyer hal n sngle. body Int
two bodies met in which persons claiming
seats, contestants, sat. lfyou took the whole
number together, you had more than the or
binary construction would allow aud if
you took either Of them seproately, you had.
not the convention which the act Of Con
grcss required. There never was anybody
corresponding to the convention required by
the act Of Congress,
Then they RENTED the constitution to q
vote OF the people, but, as have stated be-
lore they expressly refused to allow any man
10 vote either for or against the constitution,
unless he would vote for all the officers under
il at the same time, and on the same ticket.
Now | want to know from my friend from
Rhode Island who has been criticising the
what he says to that II IL because | am
not satisfied that there ever was legal CON
vcntion, or that this vote il vote which We
could approve. after what we have heard Of
Kansas, that propose TO do ~ was done in
the case Of California. There is constitu.
ton in Minnesota. Ii is in force The
people acqnicsce under it they are satisfied
with il. and treat it as IA constitution in
force by the submission TO the will of the
people. irregularly formed; and would sim
ply say, as in the California case, that they
have presented constitution to us, and il
is Republican in form they have asked ad-
mission, and we allow them admission.
Mr.. simmons. did not know i, was
understood here that If IA man asked wha,
there was IN n bill that was not correct in
point of history. it followed that he must
vndicate an error. The Senator asks what
! will say to that say it is an errcr.
wonld strike that out; but it ia necessary to
strike out every truth that is there? That
is what wanted TO know. II any part of
the preamble is true, why do you want to
strike IL out
Mr.. Pugh. do not think any OF it is
true literally. do not mean that the Sen.
ntor from Illinois has stated 1t wrongiully
but the language, literally construed. will
not carry ont the exact facts.
MIR, Douglas. | will give the Senator
from Ohio an explanation oi the preamble
The Committee on Territories found them.
selves divided ON the question Of which he
speaks, tho history OF this convention. II
was irregular. We went through and agree
TO bill. Then the question was asked
how the preamble should be framed TO be
in exact accordance with the facts One
side made this suggestion. another this, AM
this; until we agred unanimously ON al
sides, that the preamble reported was pre-
ciscly according to the facts. and was the
only possible iorm Of words We could axre.
upon. That is my only objection to the
taking Of the Senator's form. All side
agreed that this form OF words did express
the truth after u thorough investigation, tina,
lasted about two weeks. aud hope. ther,
fore. i, will be retained.
! Mr., Pugh. As to the vote of the people
will ask my friend from Illinois another
question. Was he aware, Mt the tine thi,
bill was before the Committee on Terrific
ries, that there was restriction upon tb,
right OF voting for or against the consti,u
ton, that nobcly was allowed to vote Ion
or against this constitution. except on III,
same ticket that be voted for State officers
Mr.. Douglas. do not understand now
tho precise point of the Senator.
Mr.. rugh. The section of the cons,itu
ton which remits the constitution to vote
Of the people, says tina, no man shall b,
/ allowed 10 vote for or against the cunstltu
! ton, eNcep, On the same ticket with bis vo,,
/ for State officers
! Mr.. Douglas Read the clause in III,
| precise form Of language used 10y the con
| ycntlon.
Mr.. fugh. | have not the constitution
here.
Mr.. Douglas, had the clause before me
ami knew It's prcie language when the re.