The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-12-22
S.S>sA S,\

in his official communication To yourself so far as they
Indicate intention not TO sanction concur in any
legislative other proceedings towards the formation of
State government until Congress shall have authorized
it, also correct"
That is what have understood to be the settled doc
rne 10 the authority of territorial Legislature TO call
convention without the consent of Congress first had
and obtained The reasoning Is very clear and papable
territorial legislature possesses whatever power i
ganic act gives it, and The organic act of Aran
provided that the legislative power should be vested
in the territorial legislature the the organic act
Of Kansas provides that the legislative power and author
y shall be vested In the legislature But what is the
extent OF that Legislative power 1t is legsate for
that Territory under the organic and in obedience to
it, IL does not include any power to subyert the organic
act under which it brought into existence 1t has
se power to protect it, the power to execute it, the pow
10 carry it into effect but IL has power to subyert
none 10 destroy and hence that power only be OBJ
tanned by applying to Congress- the same authority which
created the Territory itself But while the Attorney
General decided with the appreciation OF the admnsa-
ton of Gen Jackson that the territorial legislature had
power To call convention, and that its action
void il IL did, he went further: n
No law has yet been passed by Congress which, either
expressly implicitly gives to the people of Arkansas the
authority TO form State government"
Nor has there been any in regard TO Kansas The two
cases are alike thus far They alike in all particu
lars far this question involving the legality and the
validity OF the Lecompton convention is concerned The
opinion goes on to say
:" For the reasons above stated l am, therefore, of
opinion that the inhabitants of that Territory have not
at present. end that they cannot acquire otherwise than
by an act of Congress- the right to form such govern
lnent.3
the people of Arkansas by the authority OF the terrific
rial legislature, had not the power to hold convention
to form constitution and could not acquire it from any
source whatever except from Congress While, there
FORE the legislative act of Arkansas held to be void
far it assumed authority to authorize the calling of
a convention to form constitution, yet they did not
hold in those days, that the people could not assemble
and frame constitution in the form of petition
will read the rest of the opinion in order that the Senate
may understand precisely what the doctrine this
subject at that day. and what the Committee Terrific
res understood to be the doctrine this subject in
March, 1856, when put forth the Kansas report
imbodying what we Nebraska understood to be
doctrine at that time Here it is. This copied
into that report
But prepared to say that all proceedings on
this subject the part of the citizens of Arkansas will
be Illegal They undoubtedly possess the ordinary prv
eges and mmunitics of citizens of the United States
Among these is the right to assemble and to petition the
government for the redress of grievances In the exercise
OF this right the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceaby
meet together in primary assemblies or in conventions
chosen by such assemblies for the purpose of petonng
Congress to abrogae the territorial government and to
admit them into the Union anindependent State The
particular form which they may give to their petition
cannot be material SO long they oontnc themselves to
the mere right of petitoning, and conduct all their pro-
reediDgs In n peaceabe manner. And the power of
Congress over the whole subject is penay and unlmit
cd they may accept any constitution, however framed
which in their Judgment meets the of the people to
be affected by it, IT, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas
think proper to accompany their petition with written
constitution framed and agreed on by their primary
sembies or by convention of delegates chosen by such
assemblies perceive legal objection to their power
do nor to any which may be taken ocoect
the sense OF the people in respect to it provided always
that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a
petceabe manner, in strict subornaon to the existing
territorial government and in entire subscvency to the
power ofCongress to adopt reject disregard them at
their pleasure -
While the Legislature Arkansas had no power to Gre
ate convention to frame constitution, legal
stutonl body yet if the people chose to assemble
der such an act of the Legislature for the purpose of
ntoning for redress of grievances the assemblage
not illegal it was not unlawful assembagc it
not such assembage the military power could be
used to dspersc for they had right under the consttu
ton thus to assemble and petition But fthey to
themselves the right the power to make government
that assumption act of rebellion which Gen. Jack
son said it was his duty to put down with the military
force of the country.
If you apply these principles to the Kansas convention
you ind that it had power to do any act
ton forming government you find that the act calling
1t was null and void from the beginning you find that
The Legislature could confer power whatever the
convention. That convention simply assemblagc
of peaceable citizens under the constitution the Uni
ted States petonng for the redress of grievances and
thus assembled had the right to put their petition the
form OF constitution, they chose but still it was
only petition-having the force of q petition
which Congress could accept reject dispose of as
itsaw proper That is what understand to be just the
extent OF the power and authority of this convention
sembled at Lecompton. 1t was not unlawful assem-
blage like that held at Topeka for the Topeka const-
ton was made in opposition to the territorial law as
thought intended to subvet the government without the
consent OF Congress- but contended by their friends
not intended to subver the government without the con-
sent of Congress. their object to subvert it with
out the consent of Congress- it act of rebellion
which ought to have been put down by force If it was
peaceable assemblage simply to petition and abide the
decision of Congress the petition it unlaw
full assemblage hold however, that it an unlawful
assembagc. hold that this Lecompton convention was
not an unlawful assembage but on the other hand I
hold that they had legal power and authority to es
tabish government They had right to petition for
redress of grievances They had right in that petition
to ask for the change of government from territorial to
State government They had right to ask Congress
TO adopt the instrument which they sent us as their
constitutions and Congress- it thought that paper i'm
bodied the will of the people of the Territory fairly
pressed, might, in its discretion accept it constt
ton, and admit them into the Union o State or If
Congress thought did mbody the will of the people
OF Kansas 1t might reject it If Congress thought it
was doubtful whether it did imbody the will of the peo
pie not then it should send it back and submit it to
the people to have that doubt removed in order that the
popular voice, whatever it might be- should prevail in
the constitution under which that people to live
80 far as the act of the territorial legislature of Kansas
calling this convention concerned have always been
under the impression that it fair and Just in its pro-
visions have always thought the people should have
gone together and voted for delegates so that the
voice expressed by the convention should have been the
unqucstoncd and united voice of the people of Kansas
have always thought that those who sad away from that
election stood in their own wrong and should have gone
and voted and should have furnished their names to be
fNptp fha sef l,.k