Miss., Bell of Texas, Bocock of Va., Boyce of S. C., Breckenridge of Ky., Bridges of Pa., Brooks of S. C., Caskie of Va., Chastain of Ga., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Tenn.. Clark of Mich., Clingman of N. C., Cobb of Ala., Colquitt of Ga.. Coz of Ky., Craige of N. C., Cumming of N. Y., Cutting of N. Y., John G. Davis of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Disney of O., Dowdell of Ala., Dunbar of La., Dunham of Ind., Edmondson of Va. John M. Elliott of Ky., English of Ind., Faulkner of Va., Florence of Pa., Fuller of Me., Goode of Va., Green of O., Greenwood of Ark., Grey of Ky., Hamilton of Md., Samson W. Harris of Ala.. Hendricks of Ind., Horner of Ia., Hibbard of N. H., Hill of Ky., Hillyer of Ga., Houston of Ala., Ingersoll of Conn., George W. Jones of Tenn., J. Glancy Jones of Pa., Roland Jones of La., Kerr of N. C., Kidwell of Va., Kurtz of Pa., Lamb of Mo., Lane of Ind., Latham of Cal. Letcher of Va., Lilly of N. J., Lindley of Mo., McDonald of Me., McDougall of Cal., McNair of Pa., Maxwell of Fla., May of Md., John G. Miller of Mo., Smith Miller of Ind.. Olds of O., Mordecai Oliver of Mo., Orr of S. C., Packer of Pa John Perkins of La., Phelps of Mo., Philips of Ala., Powell of Va., Pratt of Conn., Preston of Ky., Ready of Tenn., Reese of Ga., Richardson of Ill., Riddle of Del., Rob bins of Pa., Rowe of N. Y., Ruffin of N. C., Seymour of Conn., Shannon of O., Shaw of N. C., Shower of Md., Singleton of Miss, Samuel A. Smith of Tenu., William Smith of Va., William R. Smith of Ala., George W. Smith of Texas, Snodgrass of Va., Frederick P. Stanton of Tenn., Richard II. Stanton of Ky., Alexander H. Stephens of Ga., Straub of Pa., David Stuart of Mich., John J. Taylor of N. Y., Tweed of N. Y., Vail of N. J., Vansaut of Md., Walbridge of N. Y., Walker of N. Y., Walsh of N. Y., Warren of Ark., Westbrook of N. Y., Witte of Pa., Daniel Wright of Miss., Hendrick B. Wright of Pa.. Zollicoffer of Tenn.-115. NAYS.-Messrs. Bull of O., Banks of Mass., Belcher of Con., Bennett of N. Y., Benson of Me., Benton of Mo., Bugg of Tenn., Campbell of O., Carpenter of N. Y., Chandler of Pa., Crocker of Mass., Culiom of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Thomas Davis of R. L., Dean of N. Y., De Witt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of Mass., Eastman of Wis., Edgerton of O., Edmands of Mass., Thomas D. Elliott of Mass., Ellison of O., Etheridge of Tenn., Everhart of Pa., Furley of Me., Fenton of N. Y., Flagler of N. Y.. Gamble of Pa., GIDDINGS of O., Grow of Pa., Goodrich of Mass., Aaron Haslam of O., Andrew Haslam of Ind., Har rison of 0., Hastings of N. Y., Haven of N. Y., Heister of Pa., Honce of Pa., Hughes of N. Y., Hunt of La., Johnson of O., Daniel T. Jones of N. Y., Kittredge of N. H., Knox of Ill., Lindsley of O., Lyon of N. Y., McCulloch of Pa., Mace of Ind., Matteson of N. Y., Mayall of Me., Meacham of Vt., Middleswarth of Pa., Millson of Va., Morgan of N. Y., Morrison of N. H., Murray of N. Y., Nichols of O., Noble of Mich., Norton of Ill., Andrew Oliver of N. Y., Peck of N. Y., Parker of Ind., Pennington of N. J., Bishop Perkins of N. Y. Pringle of N. O., Rogers of N. C., Russell of Pa., Sabin of Vt., Sage of N. Y., Sapp of O., Simmons of N. Y., Skelton of N. J., GERRIT SMITH of N. Y., Hester L. Stevens of Mich., Stratton of N. J Andrew Stuart of O., John L. Taylor of O., Nathaniel G. Taylor of Tenn., Thurston of R. L., Tracy of Vt., Trout of Pa.. Upham of Mass., Walley of Mass., Wade of O., Elihu B. John Wentworth of 111., Tappen Wentworth, Wheeler of N. Y., Puryear of N. C., David Ritchie of Pa., Thomas Ritely of Washburne of Ill., Israel Washburne of Me., Wells of Wis., Y., Yates of Ill.--98. Ala., Dawson of Ga., Dodge of Wis., Douglass of Ill., Fish ot N. Y., Fitzpatrick of Ala.. Foot of Vt., GILLETTE of Conn., Gwin of Cal., Hunter of Va, James of R. I., Johnson of Ark, Jones of Ia.. Jones of Tenn., Mallory of Fla., Mason of Va., Morton of Fla., Norris of N. H., Pettit of Ind., Pratt of Md., Rusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark., Seward of N. Y., Shields of Ill., Slidell of La., Stuart of Mich., SUMNER of Mass., Thomson of N. J., Toombs of Ga., Toucey of Conn., Wade of O., Walker of Wis., Weller of Cal., Williams of N. II., Wright of N. J.-41. This vote cannot be considered a test vote, as the friends of the bill determined to vote down all amendments, so as not to send it back to the House. On the 21st of February, 1857, the bill of the House to authorize the people of Minnesota to form a state government, being before the Senate, Mr. Biggs, of N. C., moved the following amendment to the same: Provided, That only citizens of the United States shall be entitled to vote at the election provided for by this act. The following debate ensued: Mr. Douglas said. The organic act, creating the territory of Minnesota many years since, provided that— "Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the said territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office in the said territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitu tion of the United States and the provisions of this act." That was the organic law of the territory. Under that law the territorial legislature have prescribed the qualifications of voters. The present bill provides that the legal voters of Minnesota may assemble and elect delegates to a convention, to form a constitution and state government for admission into the Union, leaving the qualifications of voters in the territory for this purpose, precisely what they have been ever since the territory was Democrats in roman-Whigs in italics-organized, and as they are now fixed by law. Free-Soilers in SMALL CAPS. So that the proviso shall read: “Provided that the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States." The amendment of Mr. Pearce, the same as the Clayton amendment, was rejected by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard of Del., Bell of Tenn., Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Mo., Clayton of Del., Pearce of Md., and NAYS.-Messrs. Allen of R. I., Atchison of Mo., Benjamin of La., Butler of S. C., Cass of Mich., CHASE of O., Clay of Thompson of Ky.-7. I see no reason why we should change the existing law of Minnesota on that point for this one election, when there is no pretence that any evil consequences have grown out of the exercise of the elective franchise under the present law. If my friend from North Carolina could show me that any injurious consequences had grown out of the law of Minnesota fixing the qualifications of voters, there would be an argument in favor of the change; but there is no objection on that score; no consideration of that kind has been urged. The amendment, therefore, is only to carry out a theory of the Senator, and not to remedy any practical existing evil in the territory. My friend from North Carolina is entirely mistaken in the supposition that it has been the uniform practice in laws enabling territories to become states, to restrict the right of voting to citizens of the United States. I have sent for the laws, and will present them if it be necessary, in the course of the discussion, a citizen of the state of Illinois, and authorized him to vote at our elections, notwithstanding the fact that he had not complied with the law of Congress in regard to citizenship. That is all Virginia has done, and I believe it is only in limited cases. to show that he is entirely mistaken in that | United States; in other words, we made him respect. The rule is rather the reverse, if there be any rule on the subject. The fact is, that there has been a variety of laws on that point. In some territories where there was no contest about it, the right was confined to citizens of the United States; in others, all the inhabitants possessing certain qualifications were allowed to vote. In all the N. W. Territory, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, aliens, under certain conditions, were permitted to vote, not only while those states were territories, but when they became states; and this provision was not peculiar to the North-Western States, as has been supposed. Mr. CLAY. It has not been done at the South. But, sir, I did not wish to open a debate on this subject. I referred to the Virginia case only for illustration. The simple question here is, shall we authorize the present legal voters of Minnesota to vote for the election of delegates to form a state constitution? I hope the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. BROWN. I do not know that I quite concur with my friend from Pennsylvania on the point that you have no constitutional power to do this; I do not know that I am Mr. DOUGLAS. My friend from Alabama is prepared to go quite so far as he goes on that mistaken in saying that it has not been done question; but on the point of its expediency, at the South. I remember well that I served in every possible sense in which the question some years ago on the committee of elections can be presented, my mind is entirely free in the House of Representatives when there from all doubt. A man who votes in reference was a contested seat between Mr. John W. to the organization of a state—who settles the Jones and Mr. John M. Botts; and it turned institutions of an infant state just coming into out that Mr. Jones had received some eighty- the Union, affects not only the rights of that nine votes, I think, of foreigners unnaturalized state, but the rights of all the other states; he according to the laws of the United States, but adds a new member to the confederacy-he aids who were legal voters according to the laws in bringing two more votes on this floor. If of Virginia. There certainly was a class of he does not think well enough of the country persons in Virginia, who, under her laws, to have shown his allegiance to its constituwere allowed to vote, although they were not tion and to its laws, what business has he, and naturalized citizens of the United States, and upon what principle ought he to be allowed they did vote in that election between Jones to take an active participation in moulding the and Botts under the law of Virginia, authoriz-institutions of a new member of the confe ing them to become voters, although they were deracy? If he desire to vote, let him make not citizens of the United States according to the laws of the United States. It was under some special law. The impression is on my mind firmly, because I was on the committee that investigated this question. Mr. HUNTER. Virginia, as you well know, Mr. President, has a naturalization act of her own, making citizens of Virginia, or prescribing the qualifications on which persons shall be citizens of the state of Virginia; but the provisions of that act are quite as stringent as those of the United States. Mr. DOUGLAS. There is the very point. Virginia prescribes who shall be citizens of Virginia, and in some cases has not confined the right of voting to citizens of the United States. That is just what Michigan did when she came into the Union with a constitution, providing that all citizens of the United States should be permitted to vote, and also, all other persons who were inhabitants of the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution. By that constitution, Michigan made those other inhabitants who had not been naturalized, but possessed certain specified qualifications, citizens of the state of Michigan, although they were not citizens of the United States. That is precisely what we did in Illinois under the old constitution. We allowed an unnaturalized foreigner who possessed certain qualifications to vote in that state, although he had not become a citizen of the himself a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the laws passed in obedience to your constitution. If his heart is in fatherland-if he is so much devoted to the land of his birth that he will not take the oath of allegiance, and will not take the preparatory steps to make himself a citizen of the country, I maintain that he ought to have nothing to do with this government, the making of its laws, or the shaping of the institutions of infant states. Mr. MASON. Under the laws of Virginia, as they existed prior to 1850, there was a mode by which alien friends might become citizens of the state of Virginia. It was a part of her domestic policy. It was an old law, passed in 1792, the purpose of which was to invite emigration of valuable citizens either from without or within the United States to reside in Virginia, and certain privileges were given to them. Under that law, according to my recollection (and I have recently looked at it), it was provided only that, in addition to citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, such as the state of Virginia in her own good pleasure might deem proper to consider as her citizens under her laws, should be entitled to certain privileges, but not to all the privileges of citizens. It was provided, for instance, that any alien friend, who could give evidence of good character, migrating into Virginia for the purpose of residing there, and who would ka and Kansas to vote for delegates to form a take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth state constitution; and the organic act authoof Virginia, should become a citizen of Vir-rized persons who had declared their intention ginia for certain purposes; but until he had to become citizens of the United States, and resided five years after that oath, he was de- had resided in the territory for twelve months, clared ineligible to any office, judicial, execu- to vote. The Senator from Mississippi moved tive, or otherwise; nor could he hold any to strike out that provision, so as to confine office until he had given some evidence of the qualifications of electors for members of the permanent attachment by intermarrying with convention to citizens of the United States. a citizen of Virginia or a citizen of the United A discussion was had on that amendment, States, or purchasing a freehold estate of a and by the vote which I have before me it certain value. was adopted. That was the last bill adopted by this body in relation to this matter. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi was adopted by a vote of twenty-two to fifteen. The votes were: That was the law of Virginia; and such people were entitled to vote in the state of Virginia, under the laws of Virginia; a right that I hold pertains to every state, and which it is not in the power of the Federal Government to qualify or take from them in any way. The Constitution of the United States has reserved to the government a power to declare uniform rules of naturalization; and the only effect of that is, when under those laws of naturalization an alien is made a citizen of the United States, to entitle him to what? To such privileges of citizenship as the Constitution confers, but no further; nor does it derogate in the slightest degree, in my humble judgment, from the right of every state of its Sovereign will and pleasure to declare who shall be citizens, and who shall not be citizens, within its own limits, subject, of course, and subject only, to so much power as the state may have parted with to the Federal Government. Upon the particular provision now before us, I shall vote certainly for the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, because I deny absolutely that there is any power, or ought to be any power, delegated to any territory, or to the people of any territory, to declare who shall, as citizens of the territory, vote to erect themselves into an independent state, and by association with the states in the Union, to take their share in the administration of the government of the United States, and their partition in the policy of the United States. When the territory become a state under the Constitution, she is placed upon the footing of all the states, and has all the power that any other state has; and then, if in the pleasure of the state she chooses to admit any persons to citizenship, or to vote, who are neither naturalized by the laws of the states, nor the laws of the United States, well and good; it is her power and her pleasure. YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Tenn., Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Clay, Clayton, Collamer, Crittenden, Fessenden, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Foster, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Mallory, Mason, Reid, Thompson of Ky., Yulee. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Dodge, Douglas, Jones of Ia., Pugh, Seward, Stuart, Slidell, Toucey, Weller, Wilson, Wright. I put it to the Senator from Illinois, now, whether there was any authority by the law creating the Territories of Indiana and Illinois, or authorizing them to form a state constitution, to allow any but citizens of the United States to vote? Mr. DOUGLAS. Clearly. Mr. BIGGS. I do not so understand. Mr. DOUGLAS. The organic law of Indiana territory was the ordinance of 1787; the organic law of Illinois territory was the ordinance of 1787; and so with all the northwestern territories. The ordinance of 1787, which constituted the organic law of those territories, expressly provided that citizens of the different states residing there and having a certain amount of property should vote; and it expressly authorized unnaturalized persons to vote, as well as naturalized citizens, provided they owned property. If my friend will look into the matter he will find that there is no question that, under the organic law of those territories, unnaturalized foreigners could and did vote while they were territories; and then the acts authorizing those territories to form constitutions and state governments, provided that all citizens of the United States could vote, and also, all such other persons as were qualified to vote in the territories by existing laws, showing clearly that there was an express recognition of the rights of unnaturalized foreigners to vote who were authorized to vote under the territorial laws. That brings those cases exactly within the limits of the bill now under consideration. Mr. TOUCEY. Mr. President, I do not rise for the purpose of debating this question; but as I differ from some of my friends on this point, I wish to state the grounds of my own action. Mr. BIGGS. It will be recollected that a discussion took place here during the first session of the present Congress in regard to the bill authorizing the people of Kansas to form a state constitution. On that occasion an amendment was offered by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. ADAMS,] differing in That clause in the Constitution of the United form, but in substance precisely the same States which prescribes the body of electors character as this. That bill, as reported by for the election of members of the House of the Committee on Territories, allowed those Representatives, refers it to the constitution persons who were qualified voters by the or- and laws of the several states; so that every ganic law passed for the territories of Nebras-state determines for itself its own electoral YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Tenn., Benjamin, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Geyer, Green, Houston, Hunter, Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Crittenden, Evans, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Reid, Rusk, Slidell, Thompson of Ky.. and Thomson of New Jersey.-27. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch. Foster, Hale, Jones of Ia.. Nourse, Pugh, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Wright.-24. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. PUGH. I do not intend to prolong the discussion; but I wish to correct the Senator from South Carolina, and several other Senators, in what I think is a very essential mistake of fact. He alleges, if I understand him, that this is the first instance in which the act authorizing a territory to form a constitution and state government has admitted alien suffrage. Sir, I can find but two examples to the contrary in the whole history of all the states that have been admitted; and those two are Iowa and Wisconsin. So far as I have been able to examine the statutes, every other state, without exception, came in with body. It is a primary act in sovereignty. In 1849, when you organized the territory of Minnesota, you fixed by the organic law the right of suffrage, leaving it to the people of the territory, in the exercise of the legislative power recognised as in their legislature, to fix the qualification of voters, subject to a restriction that no alien should be admitted to vote until after he had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and the organic law. You conferred on the people, or recognized as in the people of the territory, all proper legislative power under the Constitution, subject to that organic law. In the exercise of that power thus recognised as being in them, upon which they have acted-upon which they have passed every law that now governs the territory, fixing all the rights of persons and property in that territory, they have settled for themselves who shall be lawful voters, and the power has been exercised by them, subject to the Constitution of the United States and to the organic law. Now, then, this bill leaves the body of voters as fixed by the organic law, and by the territorial law; and the proposition here is to interfere with that. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 27, nays 24; as follows: it. Mr. BUTLER. Did Alabama come in in that way? Mr. PUGH. Yes, sir, with alien suffrage; and will show it to the Senator. The ordinance of 1787 expressly allowed it. It required a property qualification both for citizens and aliens. After requiring that citizens should have resided a certain period of time, it went on to say that other persons having a certain residence, and certain property qualifications, should be allowed to vote for members of the Territorial Legislature. That was the ordinance of 1787. Under it, the law authorizing Ohio to be admitted, provided that the qualification of suffrage for the election of members of the convention should be the same as for members of the Territorial Legislature. So in Indiana; so in Illinois. The ordinance of 1787, except the anti-slavery clause, was extended over Tennessee, and Tennessee came in with it. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him whether, in 1787, there was any question about aliens? Were not all inhabitants then regarded as citizens? Mr. PUGH. I do not know whether there was any question; but it was allowed. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. The question was not made, I think, until the case of Michigan. Mr. BUTLER. Never. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. The honorable Senator from Michigan perhaps can correct me, but I think I recollect many of the circumstances under which the question came up then. It was under the very influences alluded to on Saturday. It was a contest between parties for ascendency, and so it was afterwards in Illinois so long as alien suffrage prevailed there. It was allowed in order to give the Democratic party the ascendency. Never before was any question made, that I know of, or recollect. Mr. PUGH. I agree with the Senator that the question was not made; and what I object to is the making of it now. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. In 1787 all were regarded as citizens, and so they were until we made the constitution, and prescribed a uniform rule of naturalization. Mr. PUGH. Let us see what the ordinance of 1787 says: “Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; and in either case he shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within the same: Provided, also, That a freehold of fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the states, and being a resident in the district, or the like free hold and two years' residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative." If that is not alien suffrage, I confess myself unable to understand the English language. He may be a citizen of the United States or not; and in either case the property qualification is superadded and a certain residence required-less residence for a citizen than an alien. That is the ordinance of 1787, which I say was extended over Tennessee while she was a territory; and when she formed her constitution, and applied for admission, it was formed by the qualified electors mentioned in that ordinance. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. I ask the honorable Senator again, if, up to the time when the uniform rule of naturalization was passed by Congress under the constitution, aliens were admitted or not at pleasure? Mr. PUGH. There was a uniform rule of naturalization at the time the act constituting the territorial government of Tennessee was passed. There was an express distinction. Mr. BELL, of Tenn. There was no notice taken of it. It was a mere extension of the provisions of the ordinance, with nothing excepted but a single clause. Mr. PUGH. The Senator is right in saying there was no question about it; but it is my purpose to show that the question has been raised of late years. Tennessee came in with it. The same ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the anti-slavery clause, was extended over Louisiana, and she came in with it. It was extended over Mississippi and Alabama, and they came in with it. It was extended over Arkansas and Missouri; and the famous Missouri compromise of 1820 expressly admits alien suffrage. I have it here. Here is the third section of the act of 1820, to authorize the people of Missouri to form constitution and state government: a "That all free white male citizens of the United States, who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and have resided in said territory three months previous to the day of election, and all other persons qualified to vote for representatives to the General Assembly, shall be qualified to be elected, and they are hereby qualified and authorized to vote to choose representatives to form a convention, who shall be apportioned among the several counties as follows." was applied with the anti-slavery clause to Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. It was applied, excepting the anti-slavery clause, to every other territory you had, down, I believe, to the case of Florida; and I do not know but that it was extended to Florida. Therefore, when Senators say, as the Senator from South Carolina has said, that here is a proposition different from anything we have heard of before, I say that, until the year 1846, when the proviso was inserted in the Iowa and Wisconsin bills, I have not been able to find a case in which such a prohibition as that was put upon a new state. That is all I have to say on that point. Now, one word to my friend from Mississippi, Mr. Adams.] He refers to the vote taken in the Senate at the last session on the Kansas pacification bill, and says that the Senate, by its vote, struck out the permission to aliens to vote in Kansas. I voted against that; but I think the Senator will recollect the argument which he himself stated. What thorized aliens to vote at the first election; but thereafter they were to vote or not as the torial legislature, which is said to have repreterritorial legislature provided. The first terrisented the pro-slavery party, voted the aliens out. That was the action of that branch of the people. The Topeka constitution, which the people, voted them out, too, so that it was was said to represent the free-state branch of said to be the unanimous vote of the people of Kansas, on both sides, that aliens should not vote; and, therefore, although I voted against striking it out in the Kansas pacification bill, I did not think it of much import was it? In the Kansas-Nebraska bill we au ance. Mr. ADAMS. It is the vote of sensible men everywhere, in all countries. Mr. PUGH. I do not know that it is. The Senator may think so. In the state I repretion aliens were entitled to vote under the sent, undoubtedly in the territorial organizaordinance of 1787; and the first constitution of the state, by its proper language, would have admitted them, though, in practice, they did not vote to any great extent. By-and-by the legislature passed an election act, and excluded them. The present constitution excludes them. It is not a question in which I have any interest, because there has never been actually alien suffrage in my state since it has been a state. Here is the point: You passed, in 1849, a law organizing a territorial government in Minnesota, and followed nine-tenths of the precedents, overruling the exceptional cases of Iowa and Wisconsin; and you said to everybody: "Go there and settle, and you Who are authorized to vote? All persons may be a citizen of the territory." They who, under the ordinance of 1787, could vote. have gone over, lived peaceably, and elected That was the only territorial law you had. a local legislature. You have had no disturb Your whole territorial legislation was in ap- ance or trouble there. You have not had to plying the general principles of the ordi- proclaim martial law, as in other territories. nance of 1787, excepting the anti-slavery You have never had any disturbance. Still, clause, to all except certain territories. It on an abstract proposition, you propose to |