Nebraska advertiser. [volume] (Brownville, Nemaha County, N.T. [Neb.]) 1856-1882, 1858-01-14

Mr.. Nilsson Of Virginia suggested that
it be amended so as to read as follows:
Whereas it appears from the message
of the President that many persons in the
Territory of Utah are in q state of rebel
lion, and whereas it appears that John NJ.
Bernhisel, the delegate from that Terri
tory, may be implieated--
Mr.. Warren. cannot accept such a
proposition. must insist upon the pre-
vious question.
The previous question was seconded,
the main question ordered, and the pre-
amble adOpted-yeas 107, nays 76.
Mr.. Keit of South Carolina moved that
the vote by which the preamble was adop-
ted be reconsidered. His objections to it
grew out Of the basis upon which 1t was
founded. 1t charged that from the pro-
clamation of Brigham Young there was
rebellion tn the Territory of Utah. He
knew nothing of that proclamation, and
he did not apprehend that there was
member there who had an authenticated
copy of it. The President had not said
in his message that there was rebellion.
and was the House to affirm it upon mere
newspaper statements
Mr.. Warren remarked that the gentle
man had stated that the only evidence that
they had of the proclamation was floating
about in the newspapers. He would re-
fer him to the message of the President,
and ask him to say emphatically whether
it did not say so.
Mr.. Keitt replied by asking whether
the President had not sent regiment or
two to Utah. If he had believed that
Brigham Young intended to maintain his
authority by force, should he have sent a
single regiment or two? The President
did not come to them for an increase of
force in order to test whether or not
Brigham Young intended to maintain his
authority by force. If he had believed
that that proclamation was for war, why
had he not said so in his message? He
would go step further, and suppose that
there was rebellion there. In his opinion,
it would be rebellion against the constitu
ted authorities, and if they were asked
asked for anGthing, it would be for troops
to suppress it. Ours was a representative
government, and representation was es-
sentiaI to the very structure and organi-
cation of the government.
Mr.. Seward Of Georgia asked the gem
tleman I'd show him under what provisions
Of the constitution delegate fron a Ter
ritory held his seat on the foor rsS
Mr.. Keitt replied that when he came
came to /, lat point he would answer it,
Our government was representative be-
cause it was asystem-a political organ
ism-and not a mere individual. If that
Territory was in rebellion, and Its dele
gate upon the soil not in rebellion, under
the law, and in conformity to the policy
and structure of the government, he had
right to a seat on the floor. He was
the representative of a political system,
and while that system existed he had a
right to his seat. In answer to the gen.
tleman from Georgia, he would say that
the delegate could not vote and represent
system inferior to those who represent
ed the States. He was not entitled to a
seat under the constitution, but under the
organic act of the Territory and by cour-
tesy, and there. was no charge made
against him. r. ~.
He thought that really the House had
Involved itself in some little contradictions
Yesterday they had declared they ad-
| journed for ten days. To-day, by the
resolution of the gentleman from Ar
kansas, they had declared war. They
said Utah was in state of rebellion
that the Territory should be subjugated,
Now, if it was true that war did exist,
should they adjourn for ten days and if
they did not believe that war existed,
should they declare it in resolution? In
conclusion he moved to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table.
The motion was agreed to, @
The House adjourned to meet on Mon
day the 4th of January next.
|