The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-05-20


number Of delegates to be elected to the
constitutional convention. The Legislature
and people OF Minnesota, Of all parties,
placed the latter construction upon the
word and acting upon this called conven-
ton OF one hundred and eight delegates.
Now, sir, this was done in good faith. 1t
could have been done in no other spirit.
What could the people of Minnesota gain
by putting this construction upon the law?
Anything? No, sir nothing.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, submit TO the can.
dor and good sense Of the House, if this ar
gument OF the gentleman from Ohio against
the admission OF Minnesota has any force or
validity? How stands the case, sir, when
plainly put, and disrobed of the sophisms
which the honorable gentleman has sought
to throw around it? Why, thus (: Con-
gress passed an enabling act which contained
such vague and loose phraseology, as to ad-
init OF two constructions as to the number of
delegates to be elected under ia matter.
10y the way Of not the slightest Importance.
The people of Minnesota acted upon what
they considered the proper construction, and
elected their delegated and now the gentle
man from Ohio and his friends would have
Congress reject their application for admis-
sion into the Union, because there might be
some doubt about the hidden meaning of the
law which we ourselves framed. Shall we.
sir avail ourselves Of the vague phraseology
OF our own laws to pe.pctate great wrong
upon the people Of Minnesota who acted in
good faith and placed what they believed to
be the most natural and rational construc-
ton upon them? Shall we do this great
wrong, too, for an immaterial matter-the
mere number Of delegates to their conven-
tion-a matter which concerns nobody but
themselves! In thus availing ourselves of
the vagueness Of our own laws, would we
not be initiating the example Of the Roman
tyrant, who hung his laws so high that the
people could not read them, and then pun.
ished those, who, through ignorance, were so
unfortunate as " violate them! | trust
need say no more on this point.
But, sir, another irregularity which the
honorable gentleman advances is, that that
convention was organized into two separate
bodies. lie designatcs them as mob. A
mob 1t is strange state of things when
a" 7opeka,ie' denounces mob. thought
such language was reserved for the Demo.
cratic side OF the House. | do not think
that any man who acted with the Republic
can party during this Kansas excitement,
any who during that excitement urged eve
ry conceivable argument to override law
and order in favor of mobs, has the right
here and now to make that objection He
has no right to apply the term mob to
legally-elected body Of delegates for the ter
ritory OF Minnesota. say that, in no
proper sense, can that convention, or the
two bodies composing it, if you will, be
characterized as mobs. The delegates were
fairly elected. They constituted a legal
convention. | do not care if they did sepa-
rate into two bodies. do not care if they
retained IA separate organization throughout
They finally agreed upon the same nstru.
ment rs the organic law OF the future State
OF Minnesota. 1t is not, indeed, the usual
method Tor convention TO organize itself
into two separate bodies. But should q
convention do so, yet finally concur in the
same action, that concurrence must be con
sldered as covering such irregularity.
But, sir, go further than that, and
wish to say that one of those two conven-
tons must have been legal convention.
upon the theory advocated by the gentle
. man himself. Now, sir, there were all the
delegates elected under the law, and | care
rot how you divide them il into two bod
les, one OF them must have been a legal con-
ventlon; for one OF them must have con
tanned majority of the legally-elected del
egatcs. 1t seems 10 me there is no escaping
this conviction. Mathematical demonstra.
ton could not b. palmer nor more satisiac.
tory. la some cases, il might BE- matter
oil the first Importance to determine which
OF these two bodies was the legal and prop
er convention. In this case, fortunately.
there Is no necessity for this inquiry, mas
much o. both agreed upon the same const.
tuition.
Now, sir, the gentleman knows very well
that this Is so. lie knows very well that
the final action OF those two bodies CORES.
pended IN every particular. lie knows
very well that every member of the two
branches Of that convention, except some
tour or five, signed the same constitution.
word for word.
Mr.. SHERMAN, OF Ohio. The gentleman
will see by reference to the senate docu.
nent Reports Of l,ammi,tees, Ne 2ll tha. 90
the members OF the two branches signed
different papers, though they may, upon
comparison. prove 10 be alike They kept
up, however, distinction to the very end
Mr.. JENKINS | will only say, in reply to
that, that l consider that equivalent to
signing the same paper. |, makes no sort
OF difference which paper they signed. Is
It the paper which comes here which consti-
tutes the constitution. say, then. in the
frst place, by way OF brief recapitulation
on this point, that the convention was not
mob that it was legally and fairly elected
under the enabling act and territorial law;
that 1t properly assembled; and if it divided
into two branch "a, that TACT makes no diff.
ference with the result, a. they both signed
the constitution and that it was as Justly
and strictly legal constitution as il there
had ben In. IL 4 - IT,