Preble County Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1857-1859, 1858-04-08

complain ne pSOpie VI thS OehSi
counties, through their delegates, offer
ed to admit him; he himself withdrew.
My inference, from this fact, is, that the
delegate never wished to be admitted;
that, supposing his application would
be rejected, he preferred it; but as soon
as he discovered it would not be rejec-
ted, he withdrew it. Here is a key to
! the whole case. There was no good
| faith in this transaction T..
Would it have injured the constitu-
tional convention, or the constitution of
Kansas, if the delegate from Anderson
had been admitted? Why. let us turn
to the Minnesota case. Congress passed
an act authorizing convention to be
called in Minnesota to consist of twice
as many delegates as there we're Repres
entatives in the Territorial Legislature.
Our Committee on Territories, through
the honorable Senator from Illinois, in
form US that the people of Minnesota
construed that to mean twice as many
delegates as there were Councillors and
Representatives in the Legislature, and
accordingly they elected that number.
The act of Congress required this con-
vention to assemble on a given day in
one chamber, and there, by united coun-
ellis, with opportunity for personal con-
ference and mutual debate, as the de-
liberation and judgment of all the del
egates together, to form Il constitution
and State Government. The fact Is,
there never was any such convention.
| There were two conventions on that day,
neither of them consisting of all the
delegates, both of them together con-
sisting of more delegates than even the
extraordinary construction placed on
the act of Congress would authorize.
consisting of men who were merely
claimants for seats on each side; and
the constitution was formed by COM
| mittce of conference between those two
! bodies.
1t is said that this irregularly was
cured by the subsequent vote OF the peo-
pie ratifying the constitution. l can
dicovcr no reason why Minnesota was
at liberty to dispense with the conven-
ton more than with the vote of the peo-
pie. They were both required by law.
But, sir, be it so; then we come to en-
ouire what was this vote of the people
Of Minnesota which is said to have
healed all the former Irregularities?
n1Nc hc1lu
that no man was allowed to vote in Kan
sas on the 21st of December, for or
against slavery, unless he would vote
for the constitution. That has been
said again and again. 1t has been said
that every elector was compelled to vote
for s'constitution with slavery" or ''con-
stitution with no slavery" and there
fore a man who was opposed to some
provision of the constitution, or who
did not wish to vote on the constitution,
could not vote either for or against sla-
very; and that has been constant
theme of determination in this Chamber
since the 9th of December last. Now,
sir. let US turn to the case of Minneso-
| ia. -a-'.
1 shall read three sections from the
constitution of Minnesota, by which it
is provided not only that the vote upon
the constitution shall be held on the
same day, and at the same polls with
the vote for all the officers to be chosen
under the constitution, thus electing
men to Offices not in existenceca at the
time, but that no man should vote for
or against the constitution unless he
would vote for officers under it. He
that runs may read:
SEC 16. Upon the second Tuesday,
the 18th day of October, 1857 an cleo
ton shall be held for members of the
House of Representatives of the United
States, Governor, Lieutenant Governor,
supreme and distrsct judges, members
of the Legislature, and all other officers
designated in this constitution, and also
for the submission of this constitution
to the peope for their adoption or rejec-
| ton.
"SEc. II. Upon the day 20 desig-
mated as aforesaid, every free white male
inhabitant over the age of twenty one
years who shall have resided within the
limits of the state for ten days previous
to the day of said election, may vote for
all officers to be elected under this con-
stitution, at such election, and also, for
or against the adoption of the constitu-
| ton.
SEC. IS. In voting for or against
the adoption of this constitution. the
words for constitution or against con-
stitution, may be written or printed on
the ticket of each voter; but no voter
shall vote for or against this constitu-
ton on n seperate ballot from that cast
by him for officers to be elected at said
election under this constitution"
If the form ofsubmission on the 21st
of December, 1857, in Kansas, was
fraudulent, what will become of the rat
ifcation ofthe constitution Of Minneso-
to by the people? 1t is admitted that
her convention was irregular, or rather
there was no convention at all; it is ad-
mitted that, from the very imitation of
the proceedings the act of Congress was
not observed: but Senators stand here
to-day insisting on the admission of
tho State by the sole virtue of popu-
lar vote. Here is the vote. Is it val
Id or invalid? If it be valid, so was the
vote in Kansas on the 21st of Decem-
ber. If it be invalid, Minnesota has no
more title than Kansas to be admitted
into the Union. But, sir, in my judg-
ment, in neither case, are the objec-
I tions material.
i might give another illustration. If
Il We wore to look into the con stitution of