Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1858-03-06


wise lhan by legal and orderly modes of
amendment, arc unfit Tor free governments,
and cannot long maintain them.
The lawful and regular character Of the
proceedings for the formation of the Kan
sas constitution, and the validity Of that
instrument, as presented to Congress, hav- |
ing been shown, and the argument illus
trated by our own constitutional history, it
remains TO notice some of the leading ob-
jcctions heretofore made, and to give them
fair reply.
lst. The objection that the constitution
is Interchangeable until. 1864, is fully an
swered by the citations already made from
Pennsylvania constitutional history. We
may conclude that the same power will
exist in the people Of Kansas to change
their constitution through a regular process,
as that exercised by our own people in
changing the constitution OF 1776. The
cases are alike upon the question of power,
and the one is solved by the decision OF the
other. Any one who accepts our Pcnnsyl-
vania practice as regular and lawful, will
not doubt that, upon admission, the people
of the new State Of Kansas will have
power, through convention, to amend or
change altogether their fundamental law,
retaining in any case its republican form.
This power stands upon the solid foundation
where our fathers placed it; and upon
general grounds Of reason where const-
tuition provides for its own amendment, the
mode or time so provided cannot be exclu-
sive, unless others are expressly prohibi
ted.
Every presumption should be made in
favor of popular right in legal instruments
of government, and the power of changing
them must remain entire, unless expressly
limited or forbidden. The Kansas consti-
tuition does not forbid amendment before
1854, and it does contain declaration of
popular power over constitutions similar to
those quoted by our Legislature Of 1888,
in case precisely similar to the present
one.
I'd. Upon the final ad djournment of the
Kansas conven ion without its submission
of the whole constitution formed by it to a
vote, objection was made to it upon that
ground and constitutional philosophy
altogether novel was produced upon the
occasion to sustain that objection, by Rob
ert J, Walker, the Governor of the Terri
tory. 1t may be found expounded atlargo
in his subsequent letter Of resignation, and
it constitutes the material point in the
message Of Mr., Secretary Stanton to the
Territorial Legislature, on the sh Decem.
Der, 1857 1t was this, shortly stated
that the people cannot make or amend O
constitution through agents, sovereignty
being "inalenable, indivisblc, a unit, and
incapable Of delegation" In whole or ir
part. The practical result arrived at b5
Governor and Secretary, from this doctrine
was the invalidity Of the l.ecompton Con
stitution without popular vote upon the
whole of it. Strange as it may seem, al
this is spread out in official documents, ant
constitutes the Loading ground of objection
by Governor Walker TO the constitution, a
stated by himself. Nothing more unteDablc
and more opposed to constitutional princi
pies, as understood and practicod in thi.
country, could be produced
Doubtless under our republican system
the people are sovereign, and constitution.
must proceed from them; but they woult
no longer be sovereign it stripped of tn,
power Of appointing agents or representa-
tivos to act for them. Governor Walker
totes no authority for his doctrine, excep
himself Hesays he stated it in an addres;
in 1888, aud again in pamphlet given t.
the country il 1886. 1t is not perceived
how its reception can strengthen it, in til,
absence OF reason to sustain it, and IN til,
face of authority against it, the mos
weighty and conclusive. Such authority i
furnished by the Constitution Of he United
States, and by that Of Pennsylvania.
The former was prepared by a conven
ton, the members Of which were selected
by the State Legislatures, and it wa
ratified By conventions in each State, cleo
ted for that purpose. No part of it wa:
ever submitted to q popular vote. Th,
amendments proposed to it by Congress il
1889, 1893 and 1903, were ratified by th(
Legislatures of three iourths If the States
pursuant to the fifth article of the constitu
ton, relating to amendments. And now
and hereafter, any amendment whatsoevc
may be ratified b. Legislatures or conven
tions in three-fOurths Of the States, upol
, being proposed by two thirds of botl
, Houses to Congress, or by a convention
called by Congress, upon application @
| the Legislatures of twO-thirds Of tn
, State.
r 1t will thus be seen that the so4eteigl
: people of Pennsylvania acted through thei
| Legislature, in selecting members to th
, convention which formed the Constitution
= of the United States that on three occa
| sions they have ratified amendments to i
, through their Legislature, and that by til
, fifth article, to the execution of which the
: have bound themselves, any future amend
ment may be proposed by Congress, or
| convention, (undor certain restrictions,
and ratified by Legislatures, or conven
{ tions, in threo-fourths Of the States. Th
! only exceptions, from this power of amend
f ment is, that no State can be deprived "A
S its equal representation in the Senate =
Y And in fact, with the exception of Star
representation in the Senate, any and al
4 ,,,,,k, Al ooneI;t,t;,n ,,o,, b,