Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1860-03-21
An Argument Under Dinouitios.
To the EdltOr Of shs EnrIre.

IL ~ very often that a man will bluntly make
an assertion, and, when put TO the test task his
ingenuity for Arguments to sustain il. Great
men, aud little men, and those between, are
many times driven TO the necessity Of thus ar
guing under difficulties. Tom Corwin, though
he possesses some original traits Of character,
still, politically and intellectually, belongs to
that status of besutiful betweenity, where he
neither sticks up too high above. nor bangles
too far below, the general run Of humanity.
He also is subject to the calamity Of first setting
up a dictum as an "axiomatic principle Of law
and Of being compelled afterwards, from the
necessity Of the case, to hunt up argumenlative
props to uphold IL. His last eight hour speech
10 the House is proof Of this. The very fact
that II took him eight weeks 10 revise it,--one
week for each hour Of his speech, shows con-
clusiVely that he must have labored under great
difficulties to make his arguments, quotations
and precedents conform TO his dicta. He did it,
but in doing so he overturned some of the most
acknowledged principles Of right and justice;
principles which in fact, and not iguratively
only, stand as political axioms in American
history, and which the people hold too dear
and sacred to yield, in order to crafty Mr. Cor,
win that he may fud arguments to maintain
his propositions. His necessities in that re-
gard, however great, do not justify or entille
him to deny the people what they rightfully
claim as their paternity dearest Of all.
do not intend this as general review Of
his entire speech. Neither time nor space
would permit it. will allude only to one
point Mr.. Oorwin has made and that will,
have no doubt, convince the reader Of the just,
ness of my remarks. Mr.. Corwin claims for
the Congress of the United States, in other
words, for the Federal Government, sovereign
power over the Territories, To prove this he
quotes and adopts portion Of the argument
adduced by Louis McLane in the XVIII Cons
gress, during the discussion of the Mission
question. His argument runs thus:
"The most important Of the Federal advan-
tages and immunities consist in the right of
being represented 10 oongress,-as we'll In the
Senate as in the House the right of partici-
pating in the councils by which they are gov>
erned. The inhabitant Of a territory merely
has no such right. He is not citizen Of the
Uuited States"
The reader will perceive that in this passage
adopted bysMr. ooTwIn, and therefore properly
considered as his own, the position is assumed
that "the inhabitant Of a territory is not a citS
izen Of the United States" and that therefore
he has no right to participate in the councils
by which he is governed" Truly Mr.. oorwin
must have been in great distress when he found
1t necessary to fall back upon an argument like
this, not only offensive to the people at large
but ridiculous in itself. It's utter absurdity is
made apparent by a cursory glance at the true
principles of the case
Mr.. Corwin seems to assume as a starting
point, that to be citizen Of the United States
one must be the citizen Of State, as this is q
Government Of United States; living in Ter
ritory and not being within the jurisdiction Of
and owing no allegiance to State in the Cons
federacy, it is contended that he is not, from
the import of the words, citizen of the Uni>
ted States. This is not so The District Of
Columbia is not State, not one Of the United
States, aud yet those born or permanently re-
siding there, are citizens of the United States,
through not of any particular State. We have
a decision Of the U. s. Supreme Court, by Chief
hOthvr reasons why it cannot be true If il
were a necessary condition precedent to be
citizen of State before attaining to the high
distinction of citizen Of the United States,
eUsry citizen Of State would propTiO ui9oTe be
a citizen Of the United States. We find this
not to be so. will recall only few instances
out of many TO the recollection of Mr.. Corwin
When Wisconsin was admitted State, large
portion Of her population were foreigners who
had only as yet declared their intention to be.
come citizens. All those, however, were de-
elared citizens of the State and voters But no
one will affirm, that the necessity of their be-
ing naturalized according to the laws Of Cons
gress was thereby superseded. Massachusetts,,
by recent enactment, declared that nAturAl>
lied persons are not citizens Of that State un-
less they have resided there two years after
naturalization; does Mr.. Corwin claim that not
being citizens of Massachu uselts, they are not
citizens Of the UDiied States, though holding
certificates Of naturalization granted them in
pursuance of lawP Again, in New York, me-
groes owning property to the value of 81, so,
are regarded citizens Of the State snd voterf;-
does that make them citizens Of the United
StaiesH Suppose Mr.. CorwiD removes To South
Carolina; he will reside there two years before
gaining citizenship in that State. After being
absent one year from Ohio, he will have lost bis
citizenship here,--aud not having as yet gained
that of South Csrolins and thus being a cit>
izen of no State whatever, will he admit that
he has has lost his rights, privileges and i'm
munities" Of citizen Of the United Statesf-
Certainly not. 1t was an absurdity, then IN
Mr.. Corwin and shows no great power Of logs |
ical reasoning. to adopt the argument, that beA |
cause the people Of Territory are not citizens
Of any of the eobiederated States, therefore
they are not citizens of the United States, and |
have no right to govern themselves, as this
right pertains to the citizens in the States.
But let US look at this matter as applicable
to Territories. 1t is admitted by Mr.. Corwin
as declared by Mr.. MLane, that citizenship Of
the United States carries with 1t the fright 10
participate in the councils by which they are
governed; land it is claimed that the inhAbi-
iantt Of a Territory can have no such right
because they are not citizens Of the United
States. But little investigation is necessary
to show that this assumption Of Mr.. oorwin,
both legally aud practically is wrong. The
Territories we have now have all been acquired
sion with France, of 1903 aud the treaty Of
peace with Mexico, at GusdelOupe HidAlRo, Of
l848, Perhaps, l ought also 10 mention the