Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-12-24
KANSAS MATTERS.

In the United States Senate on the 10th inst, Mr.
GREEN, Of Missouri delivered very able speech, il
reply TO Judge DOUGLAS. Is giving clear view o.
the question, we present the following cOndenseo
statement of the points made by Mr.. GREEN;
The objections inimeted by Mr. DOUGLAS agains
the provisions Of the Lecompton Constitution with
respect to the qualifications for off e, the system
banking revenue, taxation, &C., Mr. GREEN held t'
be irrelevant the present discussion, which should
be directed to The single question Is the COustitu
ton of Kansas rpubliean? That it was so in its
terms could not be denied, and that no defect a.
taehed to its formation he would endeavor to show
by variety Of considerations. In the first place
this Constitution was framed in conformity with the
Louisiana treaty, with the Kansas Nebraska act and
with the Constitution of the United States No en-
abug act Of Congress necessary to initiate the
the proceedings of Territorial Convea alton assem-
bled TO form State Constitution. Established pre-
cedent and sound theory were alike opposed to any
such rule, since sight of the Territories of the Uni
ted States had proceeded to form constitutions with
out any such enabling acts, while the dangers that
might possibly arise from constitutions formed in
pursuance of Congressional authority, but yet not
Immediately accepted by Congress, were strikingly
illustrated in the case of Missouri State thus
formed was endowed with the attributes of indie
pendence and sovereignty before admission into the
Union, while in the case of constitutions formed
without express Congressional sanction it remained
for that body to invest them with authority at pre-
cisely the proper time-the moment when the States
entered the Union.
The late Convention of Kansas was legally called
and fairly constituted If it did not represent all
the people Of Kansas, it was because of the contu
macy of those who declined to vote; either from the
consciousness thatthey were in aminorty because
they facticusy recognise the legal authOri
ties of the Territory. In either case they
estopped from complaint. And under these circum-
stances it was to be taken as the presumption Of
law and fact that the pending Constitution fairly
represented the people Of Kansas, since the people
could act well by delegates in their primary
and collective capacity. Indeed, the principle OF
representation WIS characteristic of our American
system Of government, and applied we'll to the
formation Of constitutions to other expressions
0: the popular will. Nor was the Convention under
any legal obligations to submit It's work to the
people for ratification. No provision to this effect
is found in the act of the Legislature authorizing
the Convention, in the organic act Of Congress,
while it is historically true that majority Of the
States have entered the Union with constitutions
that were never submitted the people for rati-
fcs;ion. As to the pledges alleged to have been
N lde by individual members of the Convention OF
by che Federal authorities in Kansas, the speaker
held that they were foreign to the present inquiry
Of Congress-. That the pledges Of the latter were
made with a full recognition Of the power of the
Convention alone to decide in this matter could moi
be denied. Acting Governor STANTON and Governor
WALKER admit this fact in their official mauitestoes,
which, even when speaking in favor of submitting
tie Consultation, are to be understood as having
primary reference to the great distractug question
Of the Territory, the establishment or inerdct OF
slavery.
II now, as a matter of policy and prOpriety, the
Convention chose to submit this latter topic to the
popular suffrage, Mr.. GREEN thought lis members
had adopted the mode best adapted to elicit fu.
aad fair expression Of the popular mind on this
inject, which, in being presented siugly could be
definitely settled, without distinction OF judgment
arising from considerations based other portions
of the Constitution. Moreover, if the question OF
slavery had been mixed up with the rem lining pro
visions Of the Constitution, and the whole ius,ru
men in this form submitted to the people for rejec
ton as well as adoption, many voters might have
chosen to foregO the expression Of their will il re-
gard TO that domestic institution" from q desire
10 procure for Kansas a speedy admission into the
Union, under the Constitution, as framed by the
Convention, whether with or without slavery. As
it is, this question could be decided siugly and sal
isfactOrIly, according TO the unbiased wishes Of
majority; aud for this reason, if for no other, the
Convention acted wisely in Withholding the residue
Of the Constitution.
In view, therefore, well Of the facts as Of the
Law involved in the present case The speaker held
III At the State Of Kansas should be received into the
Union under the pending Constitution, should the
game be submitted to Congress- as was probable |
No public considerations he thought could be urged
against such course, while motives Of civil duty
conspired with the maxms Of constitutional law 10
promote speedy settlement Of this vexatious cor
tr0yersy on the terms now presented. 1t was the |
interest Of fansticism, combined with projects Of
territorial speculation and pecuniary gain, TO keep
this question open as long possible; but TO such |
8 result he hoped the Congress Of the United States
would not suffer itself to be made tributary.