The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1861-01-23
State or the Union.

After the reading OF the joint resolutions by
the Clerk, and after certain circumstan,ial amend
ments, Mr.. Gilbert, of Kent, offered substitute
for the second subdivision OF the first resolution,
which was not adopted.
Mr.. Joy, of Wayne, offered substitute for
the preamble and resolutions reported by Mr..
Howell. He advocated the substitute at some
length, and with ability. He said, that while
portion OF the country are in arms to overthrow
the constitution it is no time to consider what
that constitution means.
He said, We have but single thing to do, and
that is to defend the government. Let US do
this in the fewesr possible words. Our duty is
plain and it is single. Let US put ourselves in
position to assist all who will defend the govern
ment; then We shall have no discussion.
Mr.. Joy deprecated all verbiage. He depre-
Gated all application, and all duplicity of topics.
He strongly objected to any declaration here,
upon the repeal of the personal liberty acts 1t
was enough he said, to declare now, that We ten
der Michigan's power to help government, in the
hour of her greatest need. The strong objection
urged against the resolutions of the committee was
that they seemed insincere. They did not mean
exactly what the seemed to mean. They would be
read at the South, side by side with the acts of
1855 and 1859, relating to slavery, and the ene-
mics of government would say in triumph, 1" see
the sincerity of Michigan" We should pass
resolutions that no man can vote against, and
call himself good citizen.
Mr.. Joy objected to the resolution offering our
and means should be offered for whatever pur-
pose wanted.
Mr.. Howell, of Newaygo, who reported the
resolutions, rose and defended them. He thought
it eminently fit and appropriate that the pream-
BILE and resolutions should declare the crcum-
stances which led to the adoption of the resolu-
tons 1t should show in some measure, as the
Declaration of Independence shows, what facts
lead to its adoption.
Mr.. Howell claimed that the resolutions are
frank and manly, if language can make them so.
Mr.. Howell declined to discuss the consttu-
tionality of the personal liberty laws. This peri
cd is not the time for that.
Mr. Howell thought his resolutions broad
enough, in rendering the power of Michigan.-
He objected to the substitute, because no
distinction is raised between the act of States
and the act Of individual citizens. He had no
sympathy with treason, and no soft words for
traitors.
Mr.. Pringle, of Jackson offered a substitute
for the substitute of Mr.. Joy.
Mr.. Pringle objected to the original resolutions
as too diffase, and that they lack maliness lie
differed however from Mr.. joys views of them.
He saw no objection to declaring in Legislative
capacity, that Michigan will not permit laws to
nullify the Constitution of the United States. Mr..
Pringle believed that Michigan never intended to
violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution of
the United States, in enacting the personal lib.
erty laws. The Executive of the State holds
that these laws are not unconstitutional.
Mr.. Pringle analysed the original resolutions
critically, and objected to their phraseology, syn
tax and arrangement. He thought them lot
creditab!e to Michigan Legislature. They will
go throughout christendom, and be read. They
are not concise. he said. they perspicusus,
nor definite IL is not time tn indulge in nice
constructions o. the constitution, when hostile
array is arraycd against the United States. Mr..
Pringle found 10 objection to the resolutions of
Mr.. Joy.
Mr.. Howell called for the reading OF Mr.. PIin-
gle's substi ute. He INDUCED in satirical dis
QUESTION upon the literary merisof Mr.. Pringles
substitute.
Mr.. Taylor, of Kent, thought that either set
of resolutions declared the sentiments of the
House, and that the dispute was about their pa
ternity. In such cases the miller's rule should
prevail-"iirst come first served
Mr.. JOY disclaiIned all pride in The paternity
of the resolutions He would as cheeriully vote
for Mr. Pringle's resolutions as his own, except
the last, which in his judgment was obnoxious &c
the same objection which prevailed against the
original resolutions.
The resolutions should lot bring up the con-
stitutionality of the liberty acts of So and 80
He quoted from Gov. Morgan's message.
Mr.. Joy cited the passage, in answer 10 Hr
Pringle, who had since that both the present
and the retiring Governors had declared the per-
sonal liberty law constitutional If those laws
are constitutional, they are in direct opposition
to the legal rights of the South. The original
resolutions ought not to pass, unless we were 10
repeal the personal liberty acts. The Legislature
of Michigan would be false, if they could do SO.
No promises should he made, except such as
intend to keep. He urged this upon considera-
tions of solemn duty. Mr.. Joy said that he had
taken solemn oath, and that oath must be kept
He could never endorse the views of President
Buchanan to n aintain peace, and could vote for
no such resolution.
Mr.. Joy said that the personal liberty laws had
little or nothing to do with the present condition
of things, nor would their repeal at this time, be
of any Importance. 1t is a question whether
they should be repealed, and that question he
did not propose to argue, but We should hold ont
no implied promise that they should be repealed
unless we mean to DO it.
Mr.. Cutcheon, of Washtenaw, did not prefer
the original resolutions. He preferred the SUBJ
stitute of Mr.. Pringle. He was in favor of main
tanning the Constitution North and South-in
Michigan ard in South Carolina
Mr.. Morrison, of Berrien, sustained the resclu.
tons of the committee, because they asser; the
principle that treason is committed not BIZ States
but individuals, and that the National Govern.
ment is paramount and supreme. If we have
made mistake in passing the personal liberty