Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-03-13
sena1e--Execuslve session.


WASHINGTON, March l1.--SxSATEe-The Senate re-
sumed the consideration of Mr.. Fosters resolution
| for the expulsion of Senator Wigfall, and of Mr..
Clngmans substitute.
Foster had offered the resolution neither as par
ty personal question, but had acted in aecor-
dance with his duty, considering the avowal of the
Senator. He differed altogether from Mr.. Clingman
on the question whether State has the right un-
der the Constitution. to go out of the Union. Mr..
Foster said that the Senate owed it to itself not TO
| allow q seat here to one whs avowed himself for
eigner, and owed no allegiance to the country to
which he belonged, but TO a foreign government and
If that government happens to take up against
this government, and sezes its property and expes
from its territory, by force, the troops Of the UNI
ted States it became very serious objection, and
it was nconsistent TO allow one so circumstanced
to hold seat here. He had no personal feeling in
the matter.
Mr.. Foster then argued against Clingman;s sub
stltution which admits the right Of secession, but
no such thing was known to the Constitution which
was too plain this point to admit of argument
doubt. He held that the Senator entitled TO
seat on sound constitutional grounds, whether Tex
as seeded or not. That State by withdrawing
from the Union could not withdraw him from that
body.
Clngman replied that if the accounts were true
that Texas had called convention and passed an
ordinance of secession which had been ratified by
the people, and if the act valid Texas is no lon
ger of the States of the Union, and he took It
for granted, if Texas had seeded she is net enti-
tied to representation here. The Senator frem Tex
as believes that his State has seeded. The Senator
from Connecticut says the Of secession is inva
id. Then the senator from Texas is entitled to g
seat, unes erroneous opinion dIsquailtles him.
Was 1t ever maintained that, because one Senator
differed from another on as constitutional question,
that that was for expelling him. IL it Is an
error for the Senator from Texas 70 believe that his
State has right to secede, why not expei the Vir
gna Senator'S who hold the same opinion; especial
Iy, why not expeI those who declared 1t and have
gone away? No motion is made to expei JEFF. Davis,
who is at the head of foreign Republic, and who
has advised the seizure of arms and forts. He
tClingman) did not think the avowal of Wigfall a
sufficient ground for his expulsion. He continued
the same length, arguing that the course of the
Senator from ConBestieut was not proper one.
Mr. Mason commended that the resolution was one
of expulsion for what the Senator from Texas said
on this floor and said if Mr.. Foster thought that
WgfaIl ought not 70 occupy his seat because he
to Committee. that if the facts warrant it, the
seat might be declared vacant
Mr. Foster asked whether, after the Senator from
Texas had been duly elected by his State and admit
ted as member here, they could inquire into the
legality by which he held his seat by new fact
arising which did not exist at that time.
Mr.. Mason was very certain that if the Senator
was not entitled to his seat it could be vacated
whenever a fact warranting such course should
be disclosed. He defended the course Of Mr.. Wig
Iatl. anu II IL oc puulSlaDtS Oue1ce 70 alcte
Constitutional truth then the resolution may be
well founded. For one, he (Mason) recognized no
allegiance to this Government-none whatever
and here took his position alongside the Senator
from Texas. He owed allegiance to Virginia, and
nowhere else. Did the Sesator from Connecticut
resist the doctrine of Constitutional law, and held
the Government Of the United States sovereign. If
he did, God help him. So far as the Senator from
Texas has committed any offence by saying that he
owed no allegiance to this Government, he stood by
Il. L., ~G.sa .C~1e keal
did not Allegiance here is that which is due from
= citizen to sovereign power, and he knew no
sovereign except the State. He denied that the act
vi separation nullity, and said that not only
Virginia denied it, but six States denied such doc
trine, and have formed Government and prepared
to sustain it if attacked.
Hunter considered the resolution one Of cen
for the expression Of opinion the Senator
from Texas having done nothing more than declare
his belief in secession and continued at length adj
vocatng State rights.
The Senate then went into executive session, and
subsequently adjourned