The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-12-05

and make itself responsible for the conyen-
t on; otherwise, without the authority OF
law. Congress has done this in two instaEc-
es, at least; but then there was no question
that the whole people OF the territories con-
cerued approved the constitutions formed
and desired admission under them. The
case here seems to be quite different. The
constitution Is not submitted TO the people
and no reason can be given for the omission,
except the apprehension that it might be
voted DOWN. VIII the other states run the
risk of dragging state into the Union that
does not wish to come in on the conditions
proposed: They cannot do il :; and we may
safely predict they soiH not do ii.
! From the Richmond Enquirer.
| Admit, for the sake of the argument
that those who elected tn" convention, in
vested it witt. full authority to frame the
constitution and present 1t TO congress,
without their ratification, but is it fair is it
Just: is it in accordance with democratic
principles that the will of minority should
control, simply because by chance il has the
opportunity to do so! Can it be claimed
that constitution expresses the opinions
and wishes Of tie people of Kansas, when
/ there are thousands of those people who
have never voted even for the men who
framed il? The convention has the right to
submit the constitution for popular raiifica-
ton or not, we are told. Senator Hunter
supports this dogma by the deduction, that
. because the convention was elected without
any Limitation of authority, any proviso or
condition requiring i, either to do one thing
/ or the other to refer the constitution to them
: or not, the intention of the people was to
} leave that matter entirely 10 the option of
the convention. We doubt il. The more
reasonable inference we think, il that the
members OF the convention were shio To- d-,iIn
ther to complies th Iffn leave it to the neonie
| for the finishing touch. And when it is re-
dUccd to this, is there not every reason to
believe that the people positively expected
thei. agents to account to them, to show
them the work they were employed to exc
cute, and ask if it suited them, before they
could insist on its acceptance! They have
neither said to the convention, you shall or
you shall not refer the constitution to u.s.
The Nebraska Kansas bill says the people OF
Kansas shall decide upon their own ins: itu-
lions. TIE pri eipie ef popuLGr sOCereignty
demands tie same course. The convention
may violate the wishes Of the people, but
the people cannot misrepresent themselves.
Much of evil may result from the refusal of
the convention to allow the popular voice an
opportunity to ratify or reject the constitu-
ton, but none can result from the opposite
mode of proceeding. Now LET us ask, which
is the more probable, that the people in
tended the safe, or uncertain course! that
the convention should submit the constitu-
ton TO them; or that it might not, if it
thought proper not 10 do so. Which, We
ask, is the more plausible hypothesis. If
that convention is beyond the authority of
the people, il may make any provision it l
pleases, and the people will nc obliged, ac-
cording to the doctrines of Senator Hunter,
TO accept it as part and pare, OF the organic |
lsw-thc constitution of the State Is that |
leaving the institutions Of the new State to
the will of the people? Is there anything
democratic in it? And yet these same gen
tlomeD, who are encouraging the convention
in Kansas to take unto themselves the sole
authority to determine upon the institutions
Of the new State, are shocked at the idea
that Congress has the right to return tile con-
If IL has not been ratified By tile
people. They contend that it would be an
act of federal interference with the sove-
regnty of the people and the rights of the
states, and in violation Of the Nebraska
Kansas bill, which excludes the federal go
from all influence in the determIn-
alton Of the question, whether slavery shall
or shall not be received into the new State
IL |
presented to Congress, not only without any
evidence that it expresses the
will Of the people, but under circumstances
inducing serious doubt, aooud Congress not
be conniring ut and encouraging an innora-
ton upon tie principle Of popular sorereiyn-
" and departure from tie provisions Of tile
hansas- Nebraska bill? The rights OF the !
States demand that the federal government
shall not interfere with the will Of the people
# the Territories regarding their own do ,
nestle institutions. But do they demand al ,
70 that it shall not protect them in the cxer- ,,
Use of that will? The people OF Kansas
,dre the right to cote upon their own affairs.
But was the federal government undesirable /, q
n sending troops there to see that the popu.
ar will was fairly expressed? By returning
he constitution to he dpprored 6g the people,
congress mouM he endearOring to enforce the
rinciple Of popular s0rereignty. 1t would n
e protecting instead of invading the rights f
{ the States. Kansas cannot become Q
tate until Congress admits it into the
Inion. As long as it is Territory it is the d
uty of the federal government to protect its u
eople in the exercise Of their rights. n
In addition to the above, as expressions Il
ON influential quarters At the south, we ii
ave also seen letter from Gov. Wise, of
ireinia, (Which We have unfortunately mis-
i'd in which he takes decided and unequi. b
'cai ground against the action of the Kan d.
S convention, and urges the return of the ~
by Congress to be ratified by . =,
ajority OF the legal voters, before admitting /
ansas into the Union. 81
gaI - ----- -A he
To MAKE SILK HAT LAsr.-.Don't ha