White Cloud Kansas chief. [volume] (White Cloud, Kan.) 1857-1872, 1857-12-10
Voting on the Constitution.

The fire-eaters in the Territory. and
the hire eaters outside, do not at all agree
in their views of what is proper to be
done, in reference to voting on the Con.
stitution. Every body knows that the
most serious objection to the policy Of
Gov. WALKER, avowed by his opponents
in the Southern States, was based upon
the erroneous idea that he was in favor of
submitting the Constitution to every cit
izen who might be in the Territory on
the day Of the election. 1t was in vain
that Gov. WALKER disavowed this inter
probation Of his speeches. His enemies
would listen to no explanation, but in
sisted upon holding him responsible for
this opinion, which in fact he never enter
tanned.
Col. JEFFERSON DAVIS, in his recent
speech in Mississippi city, in the State of
Miss, entered into an argument to prove
that the Constitutional Convention had
10 power to prescribe the qualification of
voters upon the Constitution itself. That
Constitution, he says, will prescribe the
qualification of votes under it, but the ex
isting Territorial laws, must control the
rights of them who claim to vote upon
the adoption Of the Constitution. He
argues that the Convention is not clothed
with tho power of legislation, because the
Legislative Assembly has no authority to
delegate its functions, and the Conven-
ton cannot assume them. Therefore he
insists that nobody will have a right to
vote upon the adoption or rejection of the
Constitution, except those who are quail
fed voters under the Territorial laws,
viz: adult citizens of the United States,
who have resided six months in the Terri
tory.
What will be the surprise of Col. Dav-
is, when he finds that his friends and CO.
adjutors in the Lecompton Convention
have wholly disregarded his opinions,
and have submitted that part of the Con-
stitution, which they were willing to put
to vote, to all the inhabitants of the
Territory on the day of the election?-
What will this prince of free caters do in
this unfortunate dilemma? He cannot
pretend that the plan adopted by the
Convention was dictated by Gov. WALK.
Err, for it is well kno vn that Gov. Walk
Err was and is firmly opposed, not only to
this feature of the submission, but to the
whole plan of evading the true issue by
Withholding the body of the Constitution
from the people.
Col DAVIS and his associates in Con-
gress, must adopt one or two alternatives.
They must either reject the Constitution
in toto, because the Convention have ex-
cee,led their powers, as he understands
them. by submitting a part of that in
strument to those who are not qualified
by law to vote; or they must take the
Constitution Independent of the vote. as
being complete and valid, in itself, by
virtue of its adoption by the Convention.
In this latter case however, an insufera-
bic difficulty will arise from the fact, that
the Convention has not adopted the Con-
stitution absolutely; but has provided
for an illegal vote upon a material part of
it. Here Col. DAVIS cannot vote for the
adoption of the Constitution to be con-
sistent with himself, he must vote to re-
iect it as a nullity. In our Judgment,
that would be the true course, though we
might not concur in the reason given by
that distinguished Senator.-LccomptOn
Democrat.