Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1857-12-31


seen that these views, which have enter
tanned, were not framed to suit any enei
gency in Kansas, but were my along
principles, and were published an promul-
gated by me in an elaborate argument over
my own signature, twelve months before
my departure to that Territory, and when
1 never thought of going to Kansas
These rights l have ever regarded as fully
secured to the people of call the Terrific
ries" in adopting their State Constitution
by the Kansas and Nebraska bill. Such is
the construction given to that act by Con-
gress, in passing the Minnesota bill, SO
justly applauded by the Paessdent. Such
is the construction of this Kansas act by
its distinguished author, not only in his
late most noble argument, but in addresses
made and published by him long antece-
dent to that date, showing that this sove-
reign power of the people in acting upon
a State Constitution is not confined to the
question Of slavery, but includes all other
subjects embraced in such an instrument.
Indeed, 1 believe the Kansas and Nebras-
ka bill would have violated the rights of
sovereignty reserved to the people of each
State by the Federal Constitution, if it had
deprived them, OF Congress should now
deprive them, of the right Of voting for or
against their State Constitution.
The President in his message. thinks
that the rights secured by this bill to the
people, in acting upon their State ConsIi-
tuition. are confined to the slavery question
but l think, as shown III my address, be-
fore quoted, that sovereignty is the power
that makes Constitutions and Governments
and that not only the slavery clause in q
State Constitution, but all others, must be
submitted.
! The President thinks that sovereignty
can be delegated. at least in part. think
sovereignty cannot be delegated at all. The
President believes that sovereignty is di-
visible between conventions and the peo-
pie, to be exercised by the former on all
subjects but slavery, and by the latter only
on that question. Whereas, l think that
sovereignty is 'inalienable,' 'indivisible,
a uni. incapable of partition. and that i
cannot be delegated in whole or in part
1t will not be denied that sovereignty is the
only power that can make State Constitu
tion, and that it rests exclusively with the
people, and it is inalienable, and cannot be
delegated, as 1 have shown, then it can on
ly be exercised by the people themselves
Under our government, we know no SOW
ereiges but the people. Conventions are
composed of delegates are mere a
agents OF trustees, exercising not sover-
eign but a delegated power, and the people
are the principals. The power delegated
to such Conventions can properly only ex-
tend to the framing of the Constitution
but its ratification or rejection can only be
performed by the power where the sover-
eighty alone rests-pamely, the people
themselves We must not confound sov-
ereign with delegated powers. The prov.
isional authority of Convention to frame
Constitution and submit it to the people
is delegated power; but sovereignty alone
which rests exclusively with the people,
can ratify and put in force that Constitu-
ton. And this is the true doctrine ofpop.
ular sovereignty; and know of no such
thing, nor does the Federal Constitution
recognize ii, as delegated or conventional
sovereignty.
The President, in very lucid passage
of his able message, gives unanswerable
reasons why the people and not Conven-
tions should decide the question of slave
ry in forming q State Constitution. He
says, very truly, that from the necessary
division of the inchoate State in districts,
a majority of The delegates may think one
way and the people another; and that the
delegates Gas was the case in Kansas) may
violate their pledges, or fail to execute the
will of the people. And why does moi
this reasoning apply with equal force to all
other questions embodied in the stats Con-
stitution? and why should the question ol
slavery alone override and extinguish the
doctrine of popular sovereignty and the
right of selfgovernment? Most fortuna
te!y, this is no sectional question. for it be-
longs alike to the States admitted or incho-
ate, of the South as of the North. 1t il
not question of slavery, but of State
rights, and of State and popular sovereign.
ty; and my objections to the Lecomptou
Constitution are equally strong, whether