The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1854-08-09
THE NERRAskAn ILL

particulars il is widelysaiferent. 4fuel
has been said in defeace of the BIN be
cause of the principle of "pbprlai
sovereignty y being ii il, and that i
Balm of Gilead"s su1hcient to miti
gate the violation of the Missouri Com
promise. A writer in the Shield anc
Baaney-Mr. KIRKwooD we think
speaks as follows, of the popular sover
eighty"
Popular sovereignty meaus supren,
poorer IA the Pe9ple, and IN order to it,
existence requires the concurrence of til,
people in institating nd'organizing til,
frame work of a government, as we'll al
in carrying out that organization in de
tail. In the Kansas Nebraska bill /:
power outside of the people to be gov
erned has not only instituted and or
ganized the frame work of a government
for the people of Kansas and Nebraska
but has also shaped and fixed means Of
its details beyond the power of the peo-
pie to change-for instance, a Governor
is provided for, his powers and duties are
defined, his term of service is fixed, all
beyond the power of the people to alter
and yet the people whom he is to govern
have no voice in his election, nor car they
in any way hold him responsible for his
acts, although among the powers con6ded
to him is that of vetoing all laws passed
by the legislative power of the territory,
unless two thirds of each branch of the
legislature vote for the proposed law.
This is a power the people of Ohio have
refused to grant to their governors al
though elected ty and directly RESPONSE
BILE to themselves.
Again. Courte are provided fer the
territories, the manner of the appoint
ment of the judges, their terms. of ser
vice, and the extent Of the jurisdiction
of the several courts are fixed and de-
termined so infinitely as eyen to point
out the mode for the appointment of the
clerks of the several courts, and to de-
fine in some particulars the extent of the
jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace.
I might give many further instances
did space allow, but these are sufficient
to show that Congress, in this particular,
bill, has claimed and exercised the pow
er o only to create the outline of a
government, but also in some instances
to carry out its details.
1t may be said here that these pro-
visions exist In Hcrmer territorial bills.
I reply, that is no answer-when those
fermer territorial bills were passed,
Congress had fer years exercised the
power to legislate on the subject of sla-
very in the territories. Since the doc
trine of popular sovereignty has been
preached, its advocates should be CON-
sistent in its application.
But it may be said the provisions
above cited do not involve the domestic
Institutions of the people, and it is only
to domestic institutions" the doctrine
of popular sovereignty is applicable
Without any further remark ON this claim
other than this-that a supreme POU-
err in the people to regulate their 'domes-
tic institutions and a supreme POaoer
Somewhere else to regulate all else per-
to their government, IS a very
queer popular sovereignty'-let us for a
moment examine whether Congress has
power to regulate the domestic iDstitu-
of the people of the territories.
Among the domestic relations," are
those of husband and wife, parent and
child, master and servant-these and
the laws regulating them make what are
domestic institutions" with
which the advocates of the Kansas-Ne-
braska bill claim that Congress cannot
interfere. Now, the question whether a
man shall have one wife or fifty wives is
a domestic question, and the people of
Utah fwho, l think are entitled to a pa
tent for the application of this popular
sovereignty doctrine,) have in their wis
dom set aside the teaching of Jesus
Christ on the subject of the marriage re-
and have set up among them
another ''patriarchal" institution
of poligamy. The Mermons will
soon apply for admission as a State with
poligamy as one of their domestic in
and the very grave question
arises, shall we admit her? What say
4ou, Mr.. Editor ? If the doctrine of
the friends of the Kansas-N Nebraska
bill be correct, the Representatives of
our free and HChrizian people arc
bound to admit into our Union. as a
sovereign and independent State this
thus reeking in gross iicentious-
ness and vile debauckery. Again, in
a domestic institution"
growing out of the marriage relation, or
out ofthe institution of poligamy,
and called 'tsutteeism, prevails: This
requires that upon the death
a husband, some or all of his wives
shall be burnt alive upon his funeral
pile. Should the Mormons add this
to the already existing peculiar
domestic institution" existing among
them, are we still bound to receive
VIII it be said that this is put
ting an extreme case? That sutteeism
can never gain a foothold among us1I
I answer-who twenty years ago would
have dreamed that poligamy could have
been planted, been nourished have grown
and been established and defended
among as, and that at this day it would
be a practical question whether or no
were bound to accept and adopt it as
one of the peculiar Institutions of our
free and glorious republic.
But it may be said that Congress has
the power to reject a state when apply
ing for admission into the Union, al
it has not the power to interfere
with the +" domestic institutions" of the
people while a territory. This, in my
opinion, will not do. If it be admitted
that Congress may refuse its assent to
the admission of a state on account of
her domestic institutions, of Utah, for
instance, because poligamy prevails and
is legalized there, then Congress must
have power to prevent the growth of