The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-01

eal aud judicial question, touching the rgh, Of
the people Of sovereign State change their form Of gov
eminent through convention, held without the aufhoh-
~ Of law unless the old government acqueseed and II q
conflict between DE old and the government
and the President called upon for decision bis de-
cision final and conclusive upon all judicial trbu-
| mails.
This the legal result Of the attempt actual ma
jory Of the people of sovereign State peacefully by yon
and without the aid of Shapes riaes make eonsttu
tion in opposition to the existing government held by
minority and the people Of Rhode Island acquesced in
the decision. Now how much stronger does this decision
apply to Territory which has sovereign rights
as State, is net member of the Union and has
ganie law except the act Of Congress establishing terri
toria government Can few many OF the people living
in Territory get together without any law epudiae the
legal government abrogate all laws, make constitution
when there not people enough in the Territory
sttute district to be represented in Congress- and elect
their officers aud legislature under such constitution be.
fore has been admitted into the Union thus set
mob government in opposition to the legally constued
authorities and then call upon the people of other States
to send them arms and to sustain this nsurrecon
That is the Kansas question
The advocates Of the Kansas insurrecon say yes and
nounced the peoples constitution in Rhode Island in ls42
and who vaunt over mob-aw in Kansas the true
Of that Territory and proclaim Robinson as
the governor and send Sharpes rifles to get up
civil in the Territory.
The Rhode Island question presented the sovereignty of
the people ola State having inherent right to change
their form of government and the question Of
ormhow it could be DONE and whether, in fact it had
hnon a A.
old The opponents of Governor Dorr insisted that it
could not be done without the previous sanction of
legislative act calling the convention The advocates OF
the constitution contended that the constitution de-
rived its power not from physical force sustain it. but
from the act of majority Of the whole people, and if they
adopted it it became supreme law whether it
toned by the old legislature emanated from the people
without the sanction of previous act
This is great governmental question 10 the rights
of States not Territories and upon which jurists and
statesmen may honestly differ. The democratic party
generally hold to the doctrine of the right of The people
sovereign State to change their form of when
ever they please by the will of the majority when clearly
expressed whether the legislature gives them the form of
law to call convention they take it into their own
hands Tue old wing party and those who used to claim
to be conservatives have always denied this right even in
anu yet tnefe are the men VINO
then roiced in the defeat of Governor Dor and who
shout Robinson and Reeder the true governor and
delegate of Kansas Territory
Such the inconsistencies to which modern Hnsgro
worship" brings its devotees Not only editors but men,
bers of Congress and governors have gone crazy
it. Chase of Ohio and Clark of New York have taken tue
side Of treason and the governor of Rhode Island has
actually sent In message to the Legislature of that State
asking aid of Rhode Island TO sustain the rebels Robinson
and Lane against the constituted authorities Of Kansas
aud the Rhode Island know-nohings and black republic
ready 10 aid the Instruction. Yet they the
same who, "the law-and-order" party in Rhode
Island in 1912, called upon the President of Tie United
States for troops put down the Dorr rebellion when
the majority of the people who then deprived Of all
right elect their rulers make their laws had peace
fully changed the form Of government and elected officers
and Legislature under 1t.
If those who now justify rebellion in Territory
capable of reasoning it would be interesting hear
their explanation of the absurdiy in which negro nat
cism has involved them.
There is Inconsistency the part of those who main
tanned the peoples constitution in Rhode Island and who
denounce the Reeder rebellion in Kansas They never
claimed the right of setting up government by re-
belon or civil They held to the doctrine that
mob could elect governor and legislature and then
make upon the existing government They contended
for the exercise Of the right Of sovereignty OF the people
Of State TO alter abolish their frame Of government
and establish frame Of government by the ballot
box aone but they coutended that two govern
could exist In State at the same time When
conflict between the two legislatures the political
power Of the President called upon, and decided the
question. The legal question: which the actual gov
eminent carried up the Supreme Court Of the Un
ted States and that court followed the political power and
the decisions Of the supreme Of Rhode Island which
had affirmed the old government the legally reconstructed
authorities and there the matter ended and subsequently
new constitution was made, enarging suffrage and all
the people acquiesoed therein.
Now, II this the result Of the existence OF two
governments in State at the time what is the
application to Territory which has no political ex.
istence except under act Of Congress- It Is not the
question Of the Informal adoption Of constitution by the
people without form Of law and the submission OF that
constitution 10 Congress, and the admission Of the Terri
tory State BY Congress, under such constitution
That the case Of Michigan when Territory but there
conflict between sets Of officers and two legs-
lsurcs at with each other IL the case in Kansas
In Kansas the territorial officers and the territorial episa
ture the only constituted authorities that can be rec
ognised BY the President by Congress by the courts or
the United States Until the Territory admitted a,
~ tha L.. N