Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-03-03
mo, ;. ~.

1
follow their example? For wear the
question has been before us--for weeks has
it been awaiting action in the House. the
Era had already taken ground in ia scf of
the bill--it was known that several Re-
publicans intended to do likewise Why
did not the Tribune speak in time? Why
did 1t not try to enlighten members on the
1 question: Instead of pursuing this reason
able course, it waits till the transaction is
completed, the record madeup, Oregon ad-
mitted as State. so that nothing is now
to be done-and then it suddenly opens a
battery upon the Republicans who in COOL
faith voted to admit a new free Statel-
Worse still--it passes in silence over the
first offenders, Senators Seward. King,
Foote, and their associates, and blazes a
way at the fifteen Republican members of
the House, who only followed high exam
pie, portion of them indeed voting III obe-
dience to positive instructions from their
Legislatures, passed by vote Of 79 to 1.
We submit that there is neither wisdom nor
magnanimity in such procedure What
good Wilt do? Can you put Oregon ont
of the Union? Can you change the record?
Is it the right way to cherish good feeling
among Republicans? Are you anxious to
ruin snch men as Colfax, Petit, Seward.
King, and Doolittle? Do you think
their places can be better filled by men
who concur in regarding Potts, Bell, Bates.
and Crittenden. as fit candidates for the
Presidency? Must every Republican mem
Der come up or down to the standard of the
Tribune, on all questions, OIL pain of being
thrown to the dogs? We shall expect, af-
! ter while that sentence will be pronoun-
ced against every man not in favor of the
abolition of the present mode of paying
congressman, or putting an end to the di
plomatic system.
Such intolerance is not to be tolerated.
Let the Tribune study the things that make
for peace--use its vast influence not so as
provokefeud and distrust among friends, and
build up miserable despotism over indi-
viduals and minorities, but so as to promote
charity, forbearance, good will, and mutu-
al trust. This it can do and yet be faith
full in pointing out what it deems the errors
of its friends. ~
We shall not arraign the Republicans
who voted against the Oregon bill, as if
they were traitors to the cause of Freedom,
or had been guilty of a grievous wrong
The reasons they assign for their act, do
not appear to us conclusive, but they re-
fleet no discredit upon them, as intelligent
and patriotic men. Our purpose is to de
fend the vote given by the majority of Re-
publican Senators, and the minority of Re-
publican Representatives, in favor of the
admission OF Oregon.
We have printed the peculiar features Of
the Oregon Constitution. There they are
we keep nothing back.
1t is an excellent Constitution, with one
or two exceptions. 1t makes the duellist in
eligible to oflice-it prohibits lottery gam
bling-it forbids banks Of eirculation-it
! protects the married woman's property
rights--it absolutely, and without qualif-
cation, inhibits slavery. In all these res
! poets. and they are fundamental, it is-a
J grand Constitution. But, in its aspect to-
/ wards free people of color, it is intolerent
aud unjust. Let us understand exactly
{ what it seeks to do. 1t seeks to prohibit
their immigration into the State, and, to
accomplish this, undertakes to deny to
those who shall come into the State, in de-
, 6ance ofthc prohibition, the right to sue in
any of its Courts of Justice. II does not
touch the right of residence of colored peo-
pie in the State at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution, or their right to bring
suit in the courts. The unjust provision
applies exclusively to those who may en-
ter after that date-being prospective in
Its operation. But, even this iniquitouS
, provision is rendered null and void, so far
, as s.bringing suit is concerned, by an un
qualified Affirmation, in the Bill of Rights,
r a part of the Constitution, "that eyery man
, shall have remedy by due course of law
for injury done him in his person. proper
, ty, or reputation MAN." with
out qualification. a.fa
Thus explained, the provision is divest-
ed of portion of its malignity 1T it is
still unjust and mean; and If the question
had been, Will you sanction il. will you
do anything to perpetuate it? we should
have voted, No. That, however, was NOT
the question. Suppose the Constitution
bad contained provisions authorising
Banks of Circulation, would the opponent
of Banks. voting for its admission under
such Constitution, have sanctioned, by
his vote, such institutions? His great OBJ
Ject had been to bring it In rs free State,
and secure triumph for Freedom. This
, paramount consideration induced him to
t subordinate other considerations. If every
, part of the Constitution Of a new State Is
: to- receive the approbatioH of every nem-
: Der ofCongress, before he can vote for it,
there will be an end of the admission of
new States. -.sr1ss gra
We must deal with the business of leg
islation practically. There are not, we
presume, a~lozen colorcd men in Oregon.
5 More or less, their rights are not affected
a by this provision. For the next ten years,
it is not probable that dozen colored men
, may desire to go thither. Should they do
4 so. this provision, if we Judge from the in
a efficacy of similar provisions in Illinois
{. and California, win oppose no real obsta
: Gle. In form, the Injustice is gross and
repulsive--in fact, it amounts to nothing.
. Beside admitting that it were as bad In
/, fact as in form. it seems to us that the
: question for philanthropy to ask is, How
4 shall this mischief be rcmedied? Will you
\ cure it by remittinp Oregon tn the eona;