The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1857-12-02
KANSAS ConstiiutIonnI Convention.

ing considerable attention from the public, and
has given rise to great many intemperate arti.
cles; or perhap it would bo more proper to say
that the lying telegraph reports gave rise to
tge articles referred 10. For We can scarcely
conceive that the real action Of the convention,
could deserve so much vituperation. Among
these stories written and telegraphed were the
following:
l. That no part of the Constitution was to be
submitted to the people.
2, Then, that only the slavery clause was to
be submitted. and even If that was voted down.
other parts Of the consultation established and per-
pstuated slavery.
g. That provisional government had been
established by the convention, which superced-
ed the regular Territorial government immedi-
ately.
| 4. That the Constitution could not be chang
ed for ssuen years,and we have the Tribune saying
to its hundred thousand readers, to be implicit
Iy believed by them that,
"In any possible case slavery is fastened on
| Kansas, beyond her power to shake it off, provi
ded Congress- can be induced TO accept this con-
Stituton.'
These are serious charges and iftrue, deserve
all the condemnation they have received. But
we think, in all fairness, that before this, or any
other body, should receive such wholesale con-
demnation, that the truth of the charges against
it should be sustained by at least some evidence.
The mist that surround these lying reports is
rising, and the truth begins to appear, and it
is now ascertained that the whole batch ofthese
charges are sheer fabricationsa and false in every
particular.
1t is not now pretended by any one, that the
first charge is true. But there are still some,
who contend that slavery will be established,
notwithstanding majority of the people may
vote for "the constitution with no slavery"
There is not the least foundation Cor any such
statement. The 11th sec Of the schedule set
ties that matter conclusively; for it provides
that if a majority CT the votes shall be ''lor the
constitution with no slavery" then,
"The article promding for @,Uery shall be
stricken from the constitution By The p'esileatof the
convention, ana NO SLAVERY SHALL EXIST
| IN THE STATE OF KANSAS, except that
the right Of property in slaves now in this Ter
rtoty shall in no manner be interfercd with"
| majority Of the votes are so cast Kansas
becomes free STATE, beyond all question:
Where is the other part OF the constitution that
Establishes slavery in spite Of all this? We
10 ;ut hat fbo ipbf
ofproperty'' in the few slaves that are now in
the Territory is not interfcrcd with. But is
there anything wrong in this? 1t appears from
abolition authority, that there are now not
more than one hundred slaves there. And the
right Of property in these is beyond the control
of any convention SO decided by the Supreme
Court Of tho United States. The convention
then could not have done anything else in the
matter if it had been abolition out and out
The charge in reference to the provisional or
revolutionary government, which was TO usurp
the Territorial government is equally false. By
reference to the first, second third fourth, fifth
and sixth sections Of the schedule, it will be
seen that they are well calculated to preserve
Usstel rights under the laws and organic act OF
the Territory. All contracts laws, suits and
obligations shall continue valid, and the suits
are not to abate. All officers EGsfer the Terri
torial government are to hold their Offices, till
superseded by the authority ofthe State, which
Of course will be when it becomes a"State"--
This is all very neeessa.y and proper, and the
reason for it is given in the first section of the
schedule
"That no iaconve,ae'ace may arise bsy reason of a
I change tiOns 1s1fites1Gt, 10 peragane,H State
1 government"
! All existing rights are recognized, and Terri
torial laws, not repugnant to the constitution
continue in force until repealed. This don't
look much like "usurpation."
/ The last or fourth charge, even il there was
any truth orsenss in what is written or publish
cd about it, comes with but poor grace from
black republican, Kansas shriekins "75pekaites.,
The section complained Of is the tenth, and
reads as follows:
SEC. 10. After the year one thousand eight
| hundred and sixty-foT, whenever the legisla-
ture shall think it necessary to amend, alter or
change this constitution, they shall rec
ommend to the electors at the next general ell
ection two thirds OF the m,mbers Of each house
concurring, to vote for or against the calling OF
convention; and if it appear that a majority
lof all the citizens of the Stlte have voted for
convention, the legislature shall, at its next
regular session, call convention TO consist of as
Emany members as there may be in the house Of
representatives at the time, to be chosen in the
same manner, at the same places, and by the
same electors, that choose the Representatives;
said delegntes so chosen shall meet within three
months after said election, for the purpose OF a.
mending, revising, or changing the eoastitu-
ton"
after &he Year 1861, the constitution may be
amended in a certain manner, wfencver the leg
Nslaturo shall think it necessary. Well, not
withstanding this, we say the constitution may
be amended beioye that time, and within six
months that the people Of the State may amend
or abolish. their consultation whenever they
please. This is clearly the law oAe legisla-
ture can make ne law that the next legislature
may not repeal. But rights vested or contracts
made, under the law, while in force, should al
Why's be respected. The people are always
sovereign, and epeople cfonesg generation can
not bindup tie hands Of the next A constitu-
ton caanet be made Interchangeable. Suppose
cur constitution, had init to-day clause de.
claring thatit shonld not bs altered. or amendpd
| for thousand.yaars, is any body sosimple as to
suppose that the people" may NOT amsad il
the next year. and whcnsyer they see fs?