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

PooP'c VI the lcIritory whether tney nave
ratified il, And, notwithstanding the con-
duct Of the convention purportiDg to repre-
sent the people in this case, yet the suisse
quent vote OF the people, almost unanimous
~ accepting the constitution and requesting
to he admitted under that constitution,
cures all these Irregularities and she comes
with her own clean hands and knocks at
our door. The question now il, shall We
admit her! shall we admit her with a con.
-tltution lair upon liz face, which does rot
violate the Constitution OF the United
States, which protects the fundamental
rights Of man or shall we turn her out DC.
cause OF irregularities in framing it-gross,
indeed, bat cured by the people and be.
cause OF impericctions not fundamental in
their character?
am not willing TO permit gentlemen on
the other side OF the House to get the cred
it Of exclusive friendship for the State of
Minnesota. II is my own State. have a
greater interest in its future glory than any
| gentleman on the other side of the House
can have--that is, upon the supposition that
there can be any diversity Of interest in the
matter, which do not admit and | do not
want my friends to show such regard for
tccbncalties as TO insist upon them TO her
rejection when this State comes to US ask
ing for admission on the very terms which
we held out TO her when We passed the ena-
bling act
On Tuesday, the 18th, Mr.. RicAUD,
American, Of Maryland, when the Minneso.
ia bill was taken up, spoke in opposition, On
the ground assumed previously by Mr..
SMITH, Of Virginia, and for the further rea-
son that our Representatives were not elect
cd in single districts.
Mr.. STEPHENS, Of Georgia Mr.. Speaker,
my time will not allow me to answer all the
objections that have been made TO the ad-
mission of Minnesota. do not think il ne
ccssary, however, to consume time, or to ex-
haust my feeble strength in answering all
the objections that have been raised. Many
Of them are Of small import, while some Of
them are grave, important and 90 to the
very foundation principles of our govern
ment. This latter class Of objections are not
new they are not novel; they involve
principles coeyal with our institutions. In
reply to them, must be brief in the forty
minutes allotted to me. They involve two
inquiries. The first question in reference to
them is, whether they be well taken in fact
and the second is, whether if well founded.
they amount, in themselves, to good and
valid ground for the rejection Of State
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. Gar.
nett objects because Of the State bOunda-
ries violating the stipulation between Vir.
einia and the United States in the cession
Of the Northwest Territory In point Of
fact, | do not consider that objection well
taken but if il were good, it ought To have
been taken when the enabling act was passed
last Congress, fixing the boundaries of Min
nesota. That portion of the Northwestern
Territory now included in the State Of Min
nesota was included then, and the objection
should have been taken then, il at all. There
is, however, but a small portion of the old
csssion Of Virginia included in this State.
Twenty odd thousand square miles of that
ccssi0n, it s true have been added to the
ninety-odd thousand square miles constitut-
ing the main body Of Minnesota. This was
for convenience. Only a small portion,
therefore, OF the original Virginia cession
has been taken on aud ADDED to the large
extent of country that makes the State of
Minnesota, tor the public convenience
There has been no injury resulting any
where, and no breach OF faith, in my judy
ment.
1t was stated, also, that the number of
delegates who formed the State constitution
was larger than that ordered in the enablin
act. That objection has been well answered
by the gentcmans colleague, Mr.. jenkins
The act OF Congress provided that az many
delegates should b. chosen as there were
representatives in the Territorial lRgisa.
ture. Well, sir, the people OF Minnesota
construed that 10 mean their Senators or
Councilmen, as well Representatives, in the
lower House. The bill admitted Of doubt,
| do not conceive that that objection has
much force it.
But must pass m 20 notice the other
obJcctlous OF graver character. Ii was
stated by the gentleman from Ohio Mr..
sherman, who opened this debate. and has
been repeated by several other gentleman.
that the constitution of Minnesota is viola
tive Of the Constitution Of the United States,
in this that il permits aliens to vote or
other than citizens Of the United States 10
vote, in State elections
Mr.. Speaker, before arguing the point
whether this clause Of the constitution OF
Minnesota does or does not violate the Con-
stitu,ion Of the United States. let me ask
right here this question suppose it be true
that that feature of their constitution does
violate the Constitution OF the United States
or is inconsistent with il is that good
ground for her rejection. lput i, strongly
and broadly IN the fore front of the argu-
ment-suppo>e tina, be conceded; Ia II a le- .
Ultimate ground OF objection 10 the adms- .
sion Of State that provision OF It's con
stItutlon is inconsistent with the COustitu.
ton Of the nli,d States SAY. SIR. not.
! say ], as States rights man advocating
the principles OF the Statesrighis school. .
We can only look into the constitution Of
new State applying Tor admission. 10 see
that II Il rpnuhtran IN form and that /, Ia