The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1857-09-10

voting in the original capacity, for or a.
gainst, the Constitution, which the dele
gates may adopt. The people of Ohio
~ 1859, voted for and against the New
Constitution, for such is not only the
usage but the Law Of the Land.
Yet modern Democracy, now claim
that if the Delegates elected to the
constitutional conventions frame q
constitution with slavery clause and i
is presented to Congress, Kansas shall
come in slave State, whether the con
stitution is submitted to the people 70,
their ratification or not. That such is mo-
the usage OF other States, that it is not pop
ular Sovereignty, that it is not Law, viii
be readily seen. Our Constitution was
submitted to the direct vote of the people
1t is not impossible that majority O
Free or Slave State delegates may be e.
lected, by receiving small majorities il
the greater number ofdistricts, and the op.
posite party, may receive sufficiently
large majorities. in fewer number o.
districts, SO that the largest number Of
delegates of either party is not always
the exponent of the popular BILL Such
things not only have occurred, but may
occur again.
The true principle is, that the Consti-
tuition Of State being the written will ol
the whole people in their original capaci-
ty, that is by direct vote, becomes there
by the Supreme Law of the State. Such
is the theory of our form of government;
and any departure therefrom is viola
tionof the rights of the people, whom
the Democracy say should rule and yet
won It let them do it in Kansas. True it
is that Gov. Walker. says that all his in-
fuence shall be exerted to have the new
Constitution submitted to direct vote of
the people. If this right were secured to
them by virtue of the Kansas Nebraska
Bill, by virtue of popular sovereignty
1t would matter little what Gov. Walker
might think about it. But the wish Of
the Governor, in this case, is an implied
admission that the right of the people Of
Kansas to vote on their constitution is not
one secured to them by virtue Of the
Kansas, Nebraska Bill, and by virtue of
Law, fundamental right--but contin-
gent and dependent on his influence as
Governor. Such then is the end and op-
Grafton of the Kansas Nebraska Bill. -
Such the falling off from the broad
grounds Of the loudly boasted popular
sovereignty to the doubtful influence of
one man power.
That the admission Of Kansas as a
Slave State, whether her constitution be
submitted to the vote Of the people or not
would be violation, not only of popular
sovereignty, and old fashioned dem
ocracy, but of the law of the land, we Of
fer an authority to eminent to be now
questioned.
THE Constitution is the oct Of the people.
speaking in their original character.--
Kents Commentaries Vol. 1-449. Yet,
Modern Democracy, say that the people of
Kan shall not act in their original capac-
ity that thepower of the delegate is co-equal
with that Of the people-the power of the
agent. is equal with that of the princi
pal--without authority on the part of the
people, finally to reject or adopt in their
sovereign capacity, the work Of their SER
wants. And this in the name of Popular
sovereignty, Liberty and Law--.SucA IS
Democracy.