Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1861-03-14
-THIHTY-saxTn ooNcKE.s.

bhpONU SEdHION.
WASHINGTON, March 4. -Snats=The Sen
ate resumed the consideration Of Mr.. Fosters
resolution for the expulsion Of Senator Wig
fan, and Mr. Clingman's substitute.
Mr.. Foster had offered the resolution, neither
as a party or personal question, but had acted
In accordance with bis duty, considering the
avowal Of the Senator. He differed with Mr..
Clingman that q State has the right, under the
Constitution, to 20 out Of tho Union.
Mr.. Foster said the Senate owed to itself not
to allow a seat here to one who ayowed be was
a foreigner, and owed no allegiance to the
country to which be belonged, but to a foreign
government; and If that government happens
to take up arms against this Government, and
ssizes It's property, and expels from its terri
tory by force the troops OF the United States,
it became a very seri0ns objection, and It was
inconsistent to allow any one so elreumstancsd
to hold a seat here. He had no personal feel
ings In The matter.
Mr.. Foster then argued against Mr.. Cling
mans substitute, which admits he right Of Sc
%eession but ne such thing was known 10 the
Constitution, which was too plain on this
point to argue or admit Of debate. He held
that the Senator was not entitled to a seat on
sound constitutional grounds, whether Texas
seeded or not. That State by Withdrawing
from the Union could not Withdraw him from
that body.
Iulr CAlNk Ddu EbpAAt4 Ahdh II Ahh dlCUAAAs
were true, Texas had called a convention and
passed an ordinance of secession, which had
been ratified by the people, and il the act was
valid, TeXas.is no longer one Of the States, and
he took it for granted, IL Texas seeded, she is
not entitled to a representation here. The
Senator from Texas believes bis State has Sc
ceded. The Senator from Connecticut says
the act Of secession is invalid. Then The Sen
ator from Texas is entitled to a seat, unless an
/ arranaoua ouinfcn diooualfGaa hin Wou 50
ever maintained that because one Senator diff
fered from another on a constitutional ques-
tioD, that that was a reason for expelling him :
II it is an error for the Senator from Texas "a
believe that bis State has a right TO seeede
why not expel the Virginia Senators, who holl
the same opinion, and, especially, why not eH.
pei those who have declared it and gone away
No motion is made to expel Jefferson Dsvis
who is at the head Of a foreign republic, anC
who has advised the seizure Of arms and forts
Mr.. Mason thought the resolution should b
referred TO a committee.
Mr.. Foster asked whether, after the Senator
from Texas had been duly elected by bis State
and admitted as a member here, they could in
quire into the legality by which be holds BIZ
seat, a new fact arising which did not exist a
that time.
Mr.. Mason vas very certain IL the Senate
was not entitled to q seat it could be vseatsi
whenever the iacls HAsTanIhR sucu d COuis'
should be disclosed. He defended the cours
Of Mr.. WigfaH, and said IL It be a punishable
ofense to alIege a constitutional truth, the:
the resolution may be well founded. For on
be (Mason) recognized no allegiance to thi
Government, none whatever, and here took hi
position alongside the Senator from Texas
He owed allegiance to Virginia, and no on
else. Did the Senator from Connecticut resis
the doctrine Of constitutional law and hold thI
Government of the United States sovereign
II be did, God help him. He knew no soveT
eign power except the States.
Mr.. Hunter considered the resolution as on
Of censure for the mere expression Of opinions
The Senator from Texas has done nothinI
more than declare his belief in secession. Mr.
Hunter continued at length, advocating State
rights.
After executive session, the Senate I'D
iournsd