The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-03-30
But Il 8 urred ,hat there YES I'D en.


tuition IS to be regarded only in the light
sofa petition to Congress. If the Kansas
Nebraska act is not of itself sufficient,
precedent bas rendered the admission Of
States without such acts sufficient. The
States Of Maine, Michigan, Vermont.
A9kansss, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, Flor,
ida aud California wore admitted into
the Union without them. On the ad.
mission Of California, Mr.. Douglas him
self expressed his opinion against the
necessity of such a measure, and yet,
California made a cons'itution without
even the color Of authority from Con:
Eress, and the Senator from Illinois not
only voted for her unqualified admission
but was one of It's most powerful advo,
Gates. There Mr.. s. read an extract
from a speech Of Judge Douglas, on the
admission of California. in which be
takes snbstantislly the sane ground as
representa- by Mr.. 81
Il Il said, however. that the people of
Kansas have rejected the constitution
l.. fbo1tb orT..-a -.
"a ,ksrsnnon Sth.t = ~ =. con.,;
tuition of her people. Nov, in answer
to this I wish to repeat. that although
tho popular sovereignty principle recog-
nizss the right of the people to regulate
their own internal STAIRS in their own
uav. vet in our representative govern.
ment il is to be done through the organ
lied and recognized forms of Law
Hence, ifthe calling of the convention
was legal aud according TO previously
established law, and / think l have
shown this from the admission of Mr.
Walker, NJ. Stanton and Judge Doug
.as " the election OF It's mem oers was
legal, mao they NOT pienary power del
egassa oy sns people 70 MAKE = cons.ltu-
.l0n nor 'ae osa.et were tney not 10
% 'ns eAoius'ss suoges ~ manner 0'Pus-
.,ng !. mo operation, Toe Time At wnien
sas'.,ous ios om0e's su'o.u 70 ns'e y.
20. enu sssa ue
earry ~ INTO oPefaion ous oy Mna.
~zAsnoliey nas .ne vo.e 81 tue 4se 81
Anualy sAken t,isi Is answered. " An
%. oIssne legislature what antnofit5
nAa the I'g's'esure lor o'aees,ng vote
eP'e .
tou uVsy 70 " ms 'us'su
ment haos been previously delegated 70
the convention. The legislature Of Kan
g. conld no more legally authorize a
Yote for or against the constitution,
than your own legislature could on the
constitution ofthe State of Ohio. Sit me
enquire itto-morrow your own Legisla-
ture we're to authorize a vote upon yonr
constitution, and there should be q ma
jority, large majority il you please, re-
jecting It. whether from such an ex-
preston you should regard that iustru-
ment a~brogated2 rather think you
could not so easily get rid of it. You
must abolish it either bylaw or by rev.
el1tion. and where do YOU find the lag
prescribing the manner of Changing or
abolisbine it? In the BODY of the in.
strument itself. 1t fixes the time. the
mode aud the circumstances, and it can
only be done. by that mode. The Leg.
islature. then. had no authority for re-
-op;r;no ! vote and al,bouob sucb vote
v.s cat Il i NO Indication of the non.
ulsr viii upop the subject
The co~nstiluti,n of Kansas is submit
ted BY The c~onvention to. Congress for
admission under it. Il was framed in
every particular in strict conformity to
law in the manner authorized by the
,-on,s .nd ,nd.r he asnocr..;. A.
tL'nes OF tue N~tne.nnaei riattorm, ana
the 5Kansas-Aebrask act, Congress has
no right to interfere in the mode of its
adoption I question whether any other
s,,ie in The IJn;onaba. ever observed ~
s,r;.,ls IN =. fam. 80 - a. g,
u.,;or - :. ..as,;,n,;oa
Under sneh e;renmsasnes. n.n,l.m.n
-. .;.aha.
s-r.;n.. !, e. -
1e = .a;,.t;on - snh.s.rss -
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. -
al .a.e.;asFsS -
u 10N4IR WIZ