The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-12-17
THE POWER OF TERRITORIAL CoNvEN.
TON.

The President in his Message assumed that
the act by which the Lecompton Convention
was called, was legitimate act of legislation.
He seems to regard the Convention itself as
having legal authority. In tie short debate in
the Senate, on the 9Th instant, to which it gave
rise, Mr.. Davis of Mississippi indirectly claimed
for the Convention a certain kind of sover
eighty; and Mr.. Mason of Virginia asserted
that there was no jurist in the land who could
not demonstrate, as a question of law, that the
Federal Government was bound to respect it
under the existing law-the Kansas-Nebraska
act.
Last summer, in urging upon our friends in
Kansas the policy of voting, we were met by the
objection, that to vote under the Convention
act, was to recognise the validity of the usurp
ing Legislature. Our reply was, that that body
had no authority, binding in law, to call Con-
vention-that the Kansas. Nebraska act did not
invest the Legislature with any such power
Our language was:
"No Territorial Legislature, without author
ity from Congress, can change the Government
of Territory. The Free State men in their
preamble say that the organic act does not
authorize the Territorial Legislative powers,
even when legitimately convened, to pass any
enabling act to change the Government of the
same That is true. A lawfully constituted
Territorial Legislature, or spurious one, may
initiate proceedings for change of Govern
ment; may take the lead in calling Conven
- IL.
ton 80 called may meet, and agree upon tie
plan of Constitution but, unless the whole
action has proceeded under an enabling act of
Congress, the proceedings are of no binding
force-the Constitution is without vitality-the
Territorial Government continues-there is and
can be no change till Congress act. If Con.
gress ratify what has been done, the Territory
becomes State, and the Constitution goes into
effect; if not, not. So the people themselves
might in their primary assemblies or BY con-
vention take the lead; call a Delegate Conven-
ton to form State Constitution, Tor rather the
plan of one,) without any enabling act by Con.
gress. But their action would have no binding
force, unless ratified by Congress"
That our position was the true one, and that
Mr.. Buchanan and his friends in the Senate
have assumed ground utterly untenable, ap-
pears from authorities quoted by Mr.. Trumbull,
in his remarks on the Message, as follows
81 wish to call attention to a precedent on
this subject, for it is no new question. Some
years ago, an attempt was about being made in
the then Territory of Arkansas to get up Con-
vention under the Territorial act. The Gov
ernor of Arkansas addressed the President of
the United States, lat that time General Jack
son. to know what course be should pursue. in
case the Territorial Legislature attempted to
call Convention to form State Constitution.
General jackson referred the communication
to the Attorney General of the United States.
and here is his opinion:
"'The legislative power is vested in a Gen.
eral Assembly, composed of two branchee-the
Legislative Council and the House of Represent
atives-both of which are elected by the peo
pie. The act providing for the government of
the Territory of Missouri, approved June 4, 1872,
and which is adopted in the laws relatins to
Arkansas, as defining the powers of the legis.
ative department, declares "that the General
Assembly shall have power to make laws in all
cases, both civil and criminal, for the good gov
eminent of the people Of said Territory. not
repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitu-
ton and laws of the United States" This part