The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1857-12-31
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT.

intended to subvert the governmen, without
the consent Of Congress.
If their object was 10 subyert il without
the consent Of Congress, j, was an act Of re-
bellion, which ought to have been put down
by force. II il was q peaceful assemblage
simply TO petition and abide the decision Of
Congress On the petition, il was not an UNI
lawful assemblage. hold, however, that il
was an unlawful aSemblage. ! hold that
this Lecompten Convention was not an I'M
lawful assemblage; but on the other hand,
hold that they had no legal power or auth
GRITTY to establish government. They had
right TO petition for redress Of grievances
They had right, in that petition, to ask
for the change Of government from a Terri.
torlal to State government. They had
right to ask COsgress TO adopt the instru-
ment which they had sent 10 us a. their
constitution and Congress if it thought
that paper embodied the will of the people
OF the Territory, fairly expressed, might, in
ITS discretion, accept it as constitution, and
admit them into the Union as State or
II Congress thought it did not embody the
will Of the people Of Kansas, il might reject
it; or if Con ress thought il was doubtful
/ whether 1t did embody the will Of the people
/ or not, then 1t should send it back and sub
init 1t to the people to have that doubt re-
moved, in order that the popular voice,
whatever it might be, should prevail in the
constitution under which the people were to
live.
So tar as the act of the Territorial Iegis-
lature Of Kansas calling this convention
was concerned, | have always been under
the impression that it was fair and Just in
its provisions. have always thought that
the people should have gone together en-
mace and vote,i for delegates, 90 thai the
voice expressed by the convention should
have been the uDquestioned and united voice
of the people of Kansas. have always
thought that those who staid away from
that election stood in their own wrong, and
should have gone and voted, and should have
furnished their names to be put on the reg
lister list, 20 as to be voters. ! have always
held that it was their own fault that they
did not thus 20 and vote but yet, if they
chose, they had the right to stay away.
They had right to say that that conven.
ton, although not an unlawful assemblage,
is not legal convention to form govern.
ment, and hence we are under no obligation
70 20 and express any opinion about il.
They had right to say If they chose, We
will stay away until we see the constitution
they shall frame, the petition they shall send
to Congress and when they submit it to
us for ratification we will vote for it If we
like it, or vote it down if we do not like it."
| say they had the right to do either, though
thought, and think yet, as good citizens,
they ought to have gone and voted but
that was their business and not mine. liav-
ing thus shown that the convention at Le-
compton had no power, no authority, to form
and establish government, but had power
to draft petition, and that petition, il it
embodied the will OF the people Of Kansas,
ought to be taken as such an exposition Of
their will. vet, if il did not embody their
will ought to be rejected-having shown
these facts, let Inc proceed and inquire what
was the understanding of the people Of
Kansas when the delegates were elected ,
understand from the history of the
transaction, that the people who voted for
delegates to the Lecompton Convention, and
those who refused TO vote--both parties
understood the Territorial act to mean that
they were to be elected only 10 frame
constitution, and submit it TO the people
for their ratification or rejection. | say that
both parties in that Territory. at the time
of the election of these delegates, SO under
stood the object Of the Convention. Those
who voted for delegates did SO with the un.
derstanding that they had no power to make
a government but only to frame one for
submission: and those who staid away did
so with the same understanding. Now for
the evidence. The President of the United
States tells us, in his message, that he had
unequivocally expressed his opinions. in the
form of Instructions to Governor Walker,
assuming that the constitution was to be
submitted to the people for ratltication.-
When We look at Governor Walkers letter
of accep,apce of the Office of Governor. We
find that he stated expressly that he accept.
ed il with the understanding that the Presi-
dent and his whole Cabinet concurrd with
him that the constitution, when formed. was
10 be submitted to the people for ratification.
Then look into the instructions given by the
President of the United States, through
General Cas-, the Secretary of State. TO
Governor Walker, and YOU there find that
the Governor is instructed 10 use the mill
tary power 20 protect the polls, when the
constitution shall be submitted 10 the people
Of Kansas for their free acceptance OF rejec-
ton Trace the history a little further, and
you will find that Governor Walker went TO
X KANSAS and proclaimed in his Inaugural and
in his speeches at Topeka and elsewhere, that
it was the distinct understanding, not only
of himself, but of those higher in power than
himself meaning the President and his
Cabinet-that the constitution was TO I've
submitted to the people for their free ac-
cep,ance or rejection, and that he would
use all the power at his Command 10 defeat
its acceptance by Congress, If it were no,
thus submitted TO the vote OF the people.
Mr.. President, am not going TO stop and
inuuire how far the Nebraska bill, which said