The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-04-22

united 10 the vote OF the people ior ratinca-
ton or rejection. That is supposed to BE- in
PREVENTION When We passed the Minnesota
act last year, We required the constitution
which her convention might form to be sub.
mitted to the people for ratification or rejec.
ton as condition OF presenting it here for
admission and it never occurred TO Us that
| by so doing we were intervening. that we
were violating the platform, that We were IT.
| pudiating the doctrine OF popular sovereign.
ty.
Besides, the Prcsiden, of the United
/ States told us in his annual message that by
the h ansas. n ebraska act the slavery qucs-
ton was required TO be submitted to vote
Of the people for their decision. The Presi.
dent then, docs not consider a requirement
by Congress, that constitution shall be
submitted to the people, to be Intervention
for he says that tie organic act required the
submission OF the slavery question; and he
thinks that all future enabling acts should
require the submission of the whole consti-
tuition, in all cases whatsoever He told us
in his message that the provision in the Min.
nesota bill requiring the whole constitution
to be submitted TO the people was wise ex.
ample, and should become the general rule
IN all time to come never TO be- departed
from in any instance. Does the Senator
from Pennsylvania consider the Presiden,
as having abandoned the Democratic party
AZ having violated popular sovereignty, US
having resorted TO the doctrine Of intcryen
ton when he made that recommendation in
his message that this wise provision Of the
Minnesota bill should BIZ the universal and
invariable rule Of. action in all lpiurc TYNE.
so that no Territory should ever come with
an application for admission as u State
until her constitution had first been submit.
ted TO and ratified by the people
Mr.. Bigler WIN she ff,,etasos .ssl.ow n.o
to interrupt him?
Mr.. Douglas Certainly.
Mr.. Bigler. The Senate will remember
that made u distinction between case
where Congress takes the initiative and in.
vites State into the Union, and this ease,
where the people had gone on under their
organic act, and made constitution and
State government, aud sent it up here. II
is Intervention, because il proposes to set
aside what they have done. or 10 demand il.
Mr.. Douglas. The distinction is between
your right TO deal with man who enters
your house by invitation, and one who in.
trudes into it without being welcome 1t
is admitted that il Congress had taken the
initiative, and invited Kansas to come into
the Union, and authorized her 10 form a
constitution and State government, il would
be proper and right TO require her constitu-
ton to be submitted to the people, in order
to ascertain whether it was their act and
deed but. inasmuch ~ Kansas proceeded
without the authority Of Congress, having
neither our assent nor our permission, Con
gress now should not examine the question
whether the constitution presented il the act
and deed OF the people What is the ob.
ject OF requiring IA submission OF the consti
tuition 10 the people Simply To ascertain
whether it be their act and deed and this
amendment expressly declares that object:
"Inasmucb as II Is greatly disputed whether
the constitution framed at Lccompton. on
the eth day Of November last, and now
pending before Congress was fairly made
or expressed the will Of the people there.
fore il shall be submitted II il not your
duty to know whether the people Of X ansas
have sent this constitution as their will be.
fore you put it in operation and make it
their fundamental law The object oi sub
mission is 10 ascertain the fact whether it il
the net and deed Of the people OF Kansas
whether it embodics their will II it be
their act and deed, ] hold tina, you cannot
change it or alter it if IT be- not their act
and deed, you have no right to give it the
force Of law binding upon that people. The
object Of this provision, therefore, IL, to as-
certain the fact whether this IIcompton
constitution is the act Of the people Of X an.
sas whether II cmbodies their will.
The Senator from PENNSYLVANIA does not
deem it u matter OF any consequence whether
constitution BE- the act of the people.
whether it cmb0dics their will or not. when
he votes 20 admit them into the Union. and
he su,tains that position by citing the case
Of Florida, which iormed n constitution IN
1888, ant il here in s3J, aud was received
into the Union on the 18th Of March. 1915.
according to my recollection Of the date
Because AK years elapsed between the time
oi Der making tina, constitution aud The time
Of our accepting it, be draws the inference
that 1t was not the will Of the people at the
time W. acted upon II, and hence that it is
proper IN other cases 10 declare an instru.
ment the fundamental law of q people which
Is known not 10 b. their will, which IL known
to De repugnant 10 their wishes. because he
infer that that was done IN the Florida
ca-e
Sir, if It was done in the Florida case. il
should never BE- done over again am not
willing 70 have Florida cited a. a precedent
10 show that constitution il not expected
nor dssired 10 be the embodiment Of the
popular sentiment, aud then X absas added
as another precedent, found Il on the Florida
ca@', TO establish tbe doctrine that cOnsti
tuition il not 70 be the will Of the people
The Florida caye, as prrce'ient for X ansas,
proyes too much IL shows an attenp, 10
in'roducr q new doctfite into oar political
system; ,ha, the organic law IL not 70 be-
the embodiment oi the popular will. that
the wishes 81 the T<sople have nothing to do