Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-02-03

| by their own acts, distinctly and delibcr-
ately performed, on two seperate occasions:
the first was in 1855, as will be seen by ref
erence to Senate journal of that year, page
522. wherein they introduced resolution
for the election of United States Senator,
with the following preamble: Whereas,
there is no law on the statute book provi-
ding for the election of United States SEN
ator, and in the absence of any statutory
provision it is competent for the Legisla-
ture to prescribe by resolution the manner
! of appointment, and the person to be ap-
pointed; therefore, the House of Repr,sen-
tatives concurring therein, resolved" &C.;
for which preamble and resolution they
gave an undivided vote. Again, in 1857.
see Senate Journal. pages 1876 and 1877, J
they distinctly averred that an election of
/ United States Senators by each House in
their separate and independent capacity,
was legal and constitutional manner OF
electing, and that at the proper time they
would SO proceed to elect United States
Senators. This resolution was passed by
their undivided vote, on the 29th Of Janu-
ary, 1856, after the second adjournment OF
! the unauthorized meeting to which reference
has hereinbefore been made, and but SIX
days before its last session, when the pres
ent incumbents claim to have been chosen
Senators.
The above are substantially the facts and
the circumstances accompanying and sur
rounding the pretended election of the sit
ting members, and the chief reliance which
they had and have in support of their right,
is choice of a majority of the two Houses
in joint convention.
Your memorialist would earnestly invite
the serious consideration of your honora-
bic body to the two main points: FiEst
Does the Constitution of Indiana provide
for a joint convention for the election OF
United States Senators? Second, If so,
was this meeting. at which the sitting mem
! bers were chosen, such joint convention?
The answers to these questions your me-
morialist will cheerfullv leave with your
honorable body, under the light of the facts
and circumstances herein detailed.
But, aside from the facts herein embod-
led, your memorialist would further advert
to the position assumed by those who con-
tend for the right of the sitting members;
on the ground that your honorable body
has already acted in the premises and deci-
ded the question at issue in favor of the
incumbents- Aporialist would not
question the rig honorable body
to decide any and all qdcstchs 81 ;char-
Z acter upon the fact ina11nced at thdatime OF
such decision, I'd nha authority
conferred upon you'll ~ oily by,the
organic law of the nation. That yon SO
decided the present question is obvious;
but your meme-ialist would respectfully
suggest that the Legislative power of Indi-
. ana was as fairly and fully before your hon
polly, protesting against the right
of the sitting members to admission as her
Senator'S. as that Legislative power was
then demanding such admission. A ma
jority of the House of Representatives. but
not quorum. and a minority of the Sen
ate Of Indiana send to your body two per.
sons whom they call Senators, while mi
nority of the House of Representatives and
a majority of the Senate, follow up this &C
tion with a solemn protest, declaring the
former outside of and in conflict with the
Constitution Of this State. This fact, when
taken in connection with the provision OF
the Constitution which requires two-thirds
of each house to constitute quorum, and
in view of the additional fact that no reso-
luton for so electing Senators, was ever :
greed upon or adopted by both or either of
the Houses, appears to the mind of your
memorialist conclusive that the sitting
members were not commissioned in accord.
ance with the requirements of the Consti-
tuition of the United States or the viii of
the Legislature Of. Indiana. That there
were no other claimants contesting the
seats awarded the incumbents, your memo
rialist regards as a matter of no vital mo-
ment; but that such decision, founded on
/ ly upon what may be regarded as priinaa ia
cie evidence, should be held as conclusive,
and bar to the admission of evidence of a
higher character in support Of the right Of a
sovereign State of the Union to an equita-
Bile and Constitutional representation in
the Senate of the United States is a conse-
quence to which your meinorialist cannot
assent. at that time, it was a question
whether the applicants for admission should
be allowed the benefit of the evidence pre-
sunied from the possession of credentials
attested by the seal Of the State without in
quiry as to the validity and regularity of
such authorization, if indeed, it appeared
regular, was even essential. Now, howev-
er, the issue is one of broader and deeper
Significance. For. one Of the competent,
independent sovereignties of the Union de-
clares that which has been claimed as her
act never to have been done by her and re-
spectfully submits the question whether she
will be permitted hcrselfto select. among
her own citizens, the persons whom she
chooses to repfeeent her in your branch Of
the Federal Legislature, or whether unau-
thorized parties. acting in revolutionary
manner, and in conflict with the organic
law, but assuming the act for her. in her
name. and In her behalf, shall be permitted
to choose her representative? n
Your memorialist would here express an
entire and undminished confidence in the
disposition of your honorable body to car
ry OUT and exemplify in all your decisions
affsctingt the rights Of States, as well as in
dividuals, the spirit contained in the words