Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-12-25

for there is not single power granted by the
Constitution to this governmental aTerritory "hch
IS not granted in a State, except the power "
admit new States into the Union, which, as SHOWN
by the Madison Papers, the trainers OF the Con-
stituton las first demonstrated in my Texas letter.
refused to limit TO our then eriStlog IeTTltoTseS
In the Territories, then, we'll as the states
Cor Gress possesses TO sovereignty, ana can eA-
eIci7c only the powers delegated by the consul
tuition and all the powcrs not thus granted are
dormant or reserved powers belonging, in CONS
territory. 10 all the States, as co-'qnal Jo'V
tenants there Of that ighest political power ca'T
led sovereignty"
Il will be perceived that this doctrine that"sove-
ereignty m kes constitutions" that sovereignty
rests exclusively with the people Of each State,
that Sovereignty cannot he delegated that II
is inalienable indivisiblr - "a unit incapable OF
partition" doctrines ever regarded by me a.
fundame nAl principles OF pu lie liberty, ana OF
Federal Constitution It will b" seen that these
views which 7 have ever entertained, were not
framed to suit any emergency in Kansas. but were
my lifelong principles, and were published and
promulgated by me, in an elahorqt" ar uUent over
my own signature, twelve months before my de
parturr to that Territory, and when never thought
of going to Kansas. These rights have ever =
garded as fully secured to the peopls OF "all the
Territories" in adopting their State constitution,
by the Kansas and Nebraska bill. Such is the
construction given to that ret by Congress IN pas
sing the Mime ota bill so justly appauded by the
President. Such Is the construction of this Kan
by its distinguished author, not only in his
late most able argument, but in addresses made
aud published by him long antecedent to that date,
showing that this sovereign power of the people,
in acting upon a State constitution, is not confined
to the question of slavery, but includes all other
subjects embraced in such instrument Indeed
/ believe the Kansas aud Nebraska bill would have
violated the RIGHTS Of sovereignty reserved to the
people of each State by the Federal Constitution,
if it had deprived them, or Congress should now
HaEr han Of fHn r0hf Of fOEp
their State constitution. The President, in his
message, thinks that the rights secured by this
bill to the people, in acting upon their State cou-
stitution confined to the slavery question, but
think, as shown in my address before quoted,
that Sovereignty is the power that makes const-
buttons and governments" and that not only the
slavery clause in State constitution, but all Others
must be submitted. The President thinks that soVe-
reignty can be delegated at least in part. I think
sovereignty cannot be delegated at ALL The Pre-
sidenJ believes that sovereignty is diVsible between
conventions and the people, to be exercised by the
former on all subjects but slavery and by the latter
only on that question Whereas, l think that SOY
ereingty is 'nalienable," ''iudiVisble," "a unit
incapable of partition" aud that it cannot be de-
egsted," in whole or 10 part.
It will not be denied that sovereignty is the only
power that can make State constitution, and shat
it rests exclusively with the people, and if it is in
alienable, and cannot be delegated, have shown
then it can only be exercised by the people them
seves.-Under our government We know no soVe-
reigns but the people. Conventions are compO .
ed of delegates" They mere agents or
trustees exercising not a sovereign but delegated
power, and the people are the principals. The
power delegated to such conventions can properly
opIy extend to the framing of the constitution, but
it's ratification or rejection only be performed
by the power where sovereignty alone rests, name
~, the people themselves. We must not coniound
sovereign with delegated powers. The provision
al Of
ton, and submit it to the people, 10 a delegated
power; but sovereignty alone, which rests excu-
sively with the peOp, can ratify and put in force
that constitution.
And this is the true doctrine OF popular sove-
reingutv, and ! know of no such thing nor does
the federal constitution recognise it, as delegated
or conventional sovereignty. The Presi ent, IN a
very lucid passage of his able ssage, gives IN
ans rabe reasons why the people and not cOnVen-
tons should decide the question OF slavery IN
freming a State coEsttutiOn-He says very truly,
that from the necessary division of the inchOate
State into districts, a majority OF the delegates
NAV think one wy, and the people another, and
that the delegates (as was the case IN Kansas) may
violate their pledges fail TO execute the will Of
the people And why does not this reasoning APP
DIV with equal force all other great question ems
bodied in State constitution, and why should the
question of slavery alone override and extinguish
the doctrine of popular sovereignty and the right
of self-gOvernment? Most fortunately this Is no
sectional question: for it belongs alike to the States
admitted inchoate, of the South as OF the North
Is is question of slavery, but of State and po~
pu4r sovereignty, and my objections to the Lee
compton constitution equally strong, whether
Kansas under it's provisions should be made free
or slave State. My objections are based upon
violation of the right OF seifsgovernment aud Of
State and popular sovereignty, and OF forcing any
constitution upon the people against their will,
whether it recognised freedom or slavery. Indeed
the first question which the people ought to eide
IN forming a.government for au inchoate State, is,
whether they will change not from TeTTJOr-
ial 20 a State government. Now "a mo who,
with me- denies Federal Territorial soy reignty,
vii cOutend that Territorial legislature is sove-
reign or represents ignry or that such egisa-
ture Ia mere creation Of COugress) can transfer
rereignty which il do not possess, to Territorial
convention, this change from a T rritoIial to a
State government can only be made by the power
where sovereignty rests-namely, the people. Yet
a State government is forced upon the people Of
Kansas by the LecomptOn constitution, whether
they will it not, for they can only vote for the
constitution, and not against IT, But besides the
change from Territorial TO State government
which the people alone have a right to make in
framing a State constitution, there many other
momentous questions included in that instrument.
Il involves all the powers OF State government.
There is the Bill Of Rights, the magma charta of
the liberties OF free people; the legislative exs
ecutve, and judicial functions; the taxing power;
the elective franchise; the great question of edu-
cation; the sacred relations of husband and wife,
parent and child, guardian and ward; and all the
rights al, citing life liberty and property. There
is also the question of State debts, Of banks and
paper money, and whether they shall be p rmitted
or prohibited. As all free governments, stated
by Mr.. Jefferson in the Declaration of Iudepen-
drrce depends upon "the consent of the govern
ed, how can It be- known whether the people would
assen TO the constitution unless it Is submitted
their vote for ratification rejection3 But il ac-
quescence can be presumed in any case, surely it
cannot be in that OF Kansas, where so many OF che
delegates violated their pledge 70 submit the con-
stitution itself TO a vote of the people, where the
delegates who signed the constitution represented
scarcely tenth OF the people, and where nearly
Que half the counties Of Territory distranehis
ed aud, (by no fault Of theirs,) did NOS and could
not give Il single vote at the election for delegates
10 the convention
have heretofore discussed this subject mainly
on the question that nventons not sovereign,
and canEot Tiehtfully make a State constitution
without submission TO the vote OF the people for
ratification rejection; yet surely even those Who
differ with me & s point must concefe especial
y under the Kansas Nebraska BILL IL is only such
conventions be called sovereign as have been
truly elected by the people and represent their
i'll. On reference, however, 10 my address OF
the 9Th September last, the tax qualification
question: copy Of which was Immediately trans
mttrd TO YOU for the information of the President
aud Cabine.--t is evident that the LecomptOn con-
vention was not such a body. That vention
had vital technical def Ct in the very substance
Of it, oraauz tticn under the Terttori 1 law which
could only re cured, 10 nv judgment, - set forth
N my Inaugural aud other address 5, by the sub
mission Of the constitution for ratification or jec.
ton by the people. On reference 20 the Terrific
rial Law under which the convention sus assembled,
thirty-our regularly Organized cOuoUles we're nan