The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-12-18


for the Of constitutional authority in the Terrific
ries we'll the States for there single power
granted by the constitution to this government in Terri
tory which granted in State except the power 10
admit States into the Union, which, shown by the
Madison papers the trainers OF the constitution as first
demonstrated my Texas letter. refused To limit then
existing Territories. Ia the Territories then, well as
the States Congress possesses no sovereignty and can
only the powers delegated by the constitution;
and all the powers not thus granted dormant
served powers, belonging in common territory to
all the States as co-equal, joint tenants there,
o that highest political power called popular sovereignty
will be perceived that this doctrine that soveregnty
makes constitutions thai soyereignty rests exclusively
with the people of each State" that Sovereignty cannot
be deleeated,o that t is inalienable mdivsble" "a
unit incapable of PARTITION are doctrines ever regarded
by fundamental principles of public liberty and of
the federal constitution will be seen that these views
which have entertained not framed TO suit any
emergency in Kansas, but my life long principles,
and published over my signaturetwelve months
before my departure TO that Territory, and when never
garded fully secured TO the people Of a the Terrific
res, in adopting their State onsution by the Kansas
and Nebraska bill Such is the construction given
to that act by Congress IN passing tho Minnesota
bill, justly applauded by the President
Such s the Of this Kansas act by s distn
gushed authorno only in ha late most able argument,
but addresses made and published by him long anecc
den, that date showing that this sovereign power of the
people, in actngupon State constitution. is not confined
TO the question Of slavery but includes all other subjects
embraced in such an instrument Indeed believe the
Kansas and Nebraska bill would have violated the right
OF sovereignty reserved people each by the
federal constitution If IL bad deprived them, 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 constitution are con-
lined to The slavery question: but think, shown in my
address before quoted, that sovereignty the power
that makes constitutions and governments" and
that not only the slavery clause in State
constitution but all others, must be submitted
he President thinks that sovereignty be delegated
gated at an Tho President believes that sovereignty
divt ihle between conventions and people, to be exer
csed BY the former all subjects but slavery, and by
the latter only that question; whereas, think that
sovereignty nalenable ndivsbe unit, incapable of
partition, and that it cannot be delegated in whole in
part will not be denied that sovereignty is the only
power that make state constitution and that II
exclusively with the people and it inalenabe and can
not be delegated as have shown then only be
exercised by the people themselves under govern
ment. We know soveregns but the people Conven-
tons composed Of delegates They agents
trustees, exercising not a sovereign but delegated
power, and the people the principals. The power
delegated TO such conventions can properly only extend
to framing the constitution, but its ratification rejection
only be performed by the power whose sovereignty
alone rests namely, the people themselves. We
not confOuDd sovereign with delegated powers.
The provisional authority of the Conventonto to frame
stuton and submit it to the people, is delegated power:
but sovereignty alone, which rests exclusively with the
people, ratfy and put force that ttuton, and
this the doctrine of popular sovereignty and know
of such thing does the federal constitution recog
nize il delegated conventional sovereignty. The
President in very lucid passage Of his able message,
gives unanswerabe Why the people and
ventons should decide the question of slavery framing
State constitution Hesays very truly, that from the
division Of the inchoae State into districts
ort,y of the delegates may think one way and the people
another and that the delegates the in Kansas
may violate their pledges, or fail to execute the will Of the
people. And why does not this reasoning apply with
equal force 10 all other questions embodied
in the state constitution, and why should the question OF
slavery alone override and exngush the doctrine OF po
puar sovereignty and the right OF self government Most
fortunately this Is no sectional question, for belongs
alike the States admitted nchoae Of the South of
The North IS not question OF slavery but OF states
rights of state and popular sovereignty and my objec
tons 10 the lecompton constitution equally strong
whether Kansas under its provisions should be made
free or slave state Ny objections are based upon the
violation Of the right OF self government and popular
veregpty, and of forcing any constitution upon the
people agans, their w whether II recognized free
dom slavery. Indeed, the first question which
the people ought TO decide in forming a gov.
change not from Territorial TO state governments
Now, onewho with me denies federal or Terrific
rial sovereignty will contend that Territorial Legislature
sovereign represents sovereignty, that such egis
lature, creation OF Congress, can transfer
eirpty which II docs not possess TO Territorial Conven.
ton this change from Territorial 60 State government
only he made by power where sovereignty rests
with the people Yet State government Is forced upon
the people Kansas by the Lecompton constitution and
against H. But besides the change from Territorial
state government, which the people alone havea right
make in framing state constitution there many
other momentous questions included In that instrument.
II involves all the powers Of State government Where
the bin OF rghts-the Magma Charta Of the liberties Of
free ptope-the legislative, executive and judicial func
tous the taxing power, the elective franchise the great
question Of educon the sacred relation OF husband and
wife parent and child, guardian and ward and all the rights
affecting life, liberty and property There IL also tho
question Of state debts of banks and paper money, and
whether they shall be permitted or prohibited AS all
free governments stated by Mr., jefferson, depend
upon .'tho consent OF tho governed" how can il be
known whether the people would TO the constit
ton unless il be submitted TO their vote ratification or
rcicctonf But " acquesecnce can be presumed In any
casc surely il cannot be in that OF Kansas whero go
many Of the delegates violated their pledge TO submit
the constitution tself TO vote Of the people, where the
delegates who signed the constitution represented scarce
~ oncenh Of the people, and where nearly onehalf of
the counties o the Territory were disfanchsed, and
that by fault Of theirs, and did not and could not give
a single the election Of delegates 10 the Conven
ton have heretofore discussed the subject mainly
the question that not sovereign and cannot
rghuuy make state constitution without us submission
to vote OF the people for ratification rejection.
Yet surely those who differ with me on this point
coneede especially under the Kansas Nebraska bill,
Is only such Conventions be called sovercingn as
have been truly elected by the people, and represent
their will On reference, however TO my address Of the
10th of September last the day qualification question:
ccry uf which was Immediately transmitted a. you for
the Information nf the President and Cabinet Is evident
that the fncomptnn Convention was not such a body.
That Convention had valnot tochncal-dcsccts, IN the
very substance Of its organization under the Territorial
law which could ony.bc cured in my judgment, as set
forth my naugura and other addresses, by submission
OF the constitution for the ratification OF the poo
pie. On reference 10 the Territorial law under
regularly Organized counties were named as election
districts for delegates 10 the Convention In each and all
o. these counties was ssarsa Ny law ANU 'a , census De
pleted the delegates N the Convention should be apor
toned accordingly In nineteen OF these counties there
census, and therefore there could be such ap
pontment there of delegates upon such And in
fifteen of these counties there registry Of voters
These fifteen counties, including many OF the oldest or
ganlzod counties in the Territory, were entirely
dkfranchised, and did not give, tby fault Of
their own,) could not give solitary vote for
the delegates the Convention This result super
induced by the fact that the Territorial Legislature ap
pointed all the eheras and probate judges In all these
COUNTESS to whom assigned the duty by law OF max
ing this and registry. These officers political
parans, dissenting from the views and opinions OF the
people OF these counties proved by the election In
October last These officers from want OF funds as they
alleged neglected refused to take any census OF
make any registry in thcse counties, and therefore
they we're entirely disranchiscd and could not
and did give single vote at the election for delegates
the Constitutional Convention. And here wish 10 call
attention TO a distinction which will appear in my In
augura address In reference TO those counties where the
voters fairly registered and did not vote In such
counties where full and free opportunity given 70
gister aud vote, and they did not choose 10 exer.
else such a privilege, the question Is very different
from those counties where there was no census
or registry, and vote given, could be givcr,
however the people might be TO participate in the
election ~ delegates 10 the Convention Nor could be
said these counties acauesced for wherever they endca
vored By subsslul census registry OF their own,
to supply this Assei oceasioned by previous
e L. Taxx llcunrn nin-