The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-12-15

I were established in business n Paraguey'
have had their property seized ana taken
from them, and have otherwise been treat,
+ ed hv the authorities in an insulting and
arbitrary manner, which requires redress.
A demandfor these purposes will pc mace
in a firm but conciiiatory spirit. inns VIA
the more probably be granted it the Exc
cntiye shah have authority to use other
means in the event of refusal. This Ii
accordingly recommended.
s.r--s~-,~- KANSAS AFFAIRS.
IL is unnecessary to state in detail the
alarming condition of the Territory of Kan
| sas at the time of my Inauguration. The
onposing parties then stood in hostile array;
AGAINST each other. and any accident might
have relighted the flames of civil war.
Besides, at this critical moment, Kansas
was left without governor by the resigna-
| ton of Gov. Geary.
On the 10Th of February previous, the
territorial legislature had passed law
providing for the election of delegates on the
| Sd Monday of unei to a convention to meet
| on the FIRST Monday of September for the par-
pose of framing constitution preparatory
,, to admission into the Union. This law was
| in the main fair and just and it is to be re-
GREETED that all the qualified electors had
not registered themselves and voted under
| its provisions.
At the time of election for delegates, an
extensive organization existed in the Ter
ritory, whose avowed object it was, if need
| be, to put down the lawful government by
| force, and to establish governments of
their own under the so-called Topeka con-
stitution. The persons attached to this
revolutionary organization abstained from
taking any part in the election. =.
The act of the territorial legislature had omit
| ted to provide for submitting to the people the
constitution which might be tolmed by the con-
vention and in the excited state OF public feeling
throughout Kansas an apprehension extensively
prevailed that design existed to force upon
them constitution in relation to savery against
their WILL In this emergency 1t became my
duty. as it was my unquestionable right, having
in view the union of all good citizens in support
of the territorial laws, to express an opinion OH
| the constructions of the provisions concerning
slavery contained in the organic act of Congress
| of the Both of May, 1854. Congress declared it
| to be "the true intent and meaning of this act
| not to legislate slavery into any territory or
| State nor to exclude it therefrom. but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg
| ulate their domestic institutions in their own
| way Under it, Kansas, ''when admitted as
State twas to be 'received into the Union, with or
| without slavery, as their constitution may pre-
| scribe at the time of their admission"
Did Congress mean by this language that the
delegates elected to frame constitution should
have authority finally to decide the question of
slavery, or did they intend by leaving it to the
| people that the people of Kansas themselves
| should decide this question by direct vote
! On this subject confess had never entertain
ed serious doubt aud, therefore, in my instruc-
tons to Governor Walker of the 2Sth of March
| last, | merely said that when 50 a constitution
shall be submitted to the people CT the Territory,
they must be protected in the exercise of their
right of voting for or against that instrument,
and the fair expression OF the popular will must
| not be interrupted by fraud OF violence.
| In expressing this opinion it was far from my
| intention to interfere with the decision Of the
| people of Kansas. either for against slavery.
| From this ] have always carefully abstained
Entrusted with the duty of taking 'care that the
laws be faithfully executed, my own desire was
that the people of Kansas should furnish to Con-
| gress the evidence required by the organic act,
| whether for or against slavery; and in this man
ner smooth their passage into the Union. In
emerging from the condition ofterritorial depen-
| dence into that of sovereign State, it their
| duty, in my opinion, to make known their will
by the votes of the majority, the direct queS-
ton whether this important domestic institution
should continue to exist. Indeed, this was the
only possible mode in which their will could be
| "-.h~~+i"ally ascerta""d
The election OF delegates to a convention must
necessarily take place in separate districts. From
| this cause it may readily happen, as has often
been the case, that ma JOrity of the people OF
State or Territory are OH one side of question,
| whilst ma ority of the representatives from the
several districts into which it is divided may be-
| upon the other side. This arises from the fact
| that in some districts delegates may be elected
by small majorities, whilst others those of diff
| fcrent sentiments may receive maiorities suffi-
GENTLY great not only to overcome the votes
given for the former, but to leave large MAORI
ty of the whole people in direct opposition to a
| majority OF the delegates Besides, our history
proves that influences may be brought to bear on
the representative. sufficiently powerful to induce
him to disregard the will of his constituents.
The truth is, that other authentic and salts
factory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a
majority of the people of any State OF Territory
on an important and exciting question like that
of slavery in Kansas, except by leaving il to a
direct vote. How wise, them was it tor Con-
gress to pass over all subordinate and interme-
date agencies and proceed directly to the source
of all legitimate power under our institutions
How vain would any other principle prove in
practice This may be illustrated by the case of
Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union
with constitution either maintaining or abol-
ishing slavery, against the sentiment Of the peo-
pie. this could have no effect than to continue
and exasperate the existing agitation during the
brief period required to make the constitution
conform to the irresistible will of the majority
The friends and supporters of the Kansas and
Nebraska act. when struggling on a recent &C.
casion to sustain its wise provisions before the
great tribunal OF the American people, never diff
fered about its true meaning on this subiect
Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly
pledged their faith and their honor that they
would cheerfully submit the question of slavery
to the decision of the bona fde people of Kansas,
without any restriction or qualification whatever.
All were cordially united upon the great doc
trine of popular sovereignty. which is the vital
principle of our free institutions. Had it then
been insinuated from any quarter that it would
be sufficient compliance with the acquisitions
of the organic law for the members of a conven-
ton, thereafter to be elected, to withhold the
question of slavery from the people, and to SUBJ
stitute their own will for that of legally-ascer-
tanned majority of all their constituents, this
would have been instantly rejected. Every
where they remained true to the resolution
adopted on a celebrated occasion recognizing
''the right of the people of all the Territories
including Kansas and Misunderstanding thro'
the legally and fairly expressed will of major
ity of actual residents, and wheneve the num-
Der of their inhabitants justies it, to form con-
stitution, with or without slavery, and be ad-