The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1858-02-09

~ But I'D the people Oi kansaey N shc eas
u fneas ef shis Territorial l4s. authorizing
u election Of delegates 70 frame : State const
4 tion, o. o,her~ise, reserve the right ~ ratify
u reject X BY 4 vote at the pofs!ts HsF ss7R
Il Here Is the principal p8ins of divergence
/. tween the supporters 81 the Presidents vie
I snd those sho oppose them % shsE other side
. thel ,Chamber. The 6rst: assume ihat plens
b powers were conferred Ly the people 0i Kan
!, on their delegates, in tie enactment 0f this !
ritorial law; that the right to approve o. rsj'
tho coostitutiontto be framed was NOT rsecsvs
And hence the peepls have agseed, in advans
} to abide " the acts 0t their delegates. HeI
however, tho Scnstof from nlinotA joins isst
land ~ his reas9Hing in support Of bis position
, invite the attention Of the Senate and the con
II He does not claim that this right Of rattle
gf ten = reserved BY the people In the terfitori
II Law anthorixing the election Of delegates; b
that the Kansas Nebraska bin is susceptible
no other legitimate interpretation; that II pre-
vidcs in declaratory clause ''that II isthe tn
5tintens and meaning Of this act neither 70 legi
late slavery into this Territory, nor % legislA'
j. therefrom; but to leave the people there's
perfectly free to regulate their own doulesti
Institutions in their own way" @&e. Fai
This Feguhtion aof their own domestic inst
tntions" 10 supposed 10 include she power
create constitution and enact laws. How els
are they 70 be regulated, il not BY constitutions
and legal provisions! But huuibly submit tha
il does no. seem to me to require, necessarily
the submission OF either to the approval Of th
| electors at the polls. II does not say so in 9,
many words. Il does not say that ''the peopl
thereof are % be LET'S perfectly free 10 regnlat,
tlieir own douAestic institutions in their orl
way By : vote At the polls" Nor il such sub
mission necessarily implied; for We have showi
| that, Ia Z free exercise Of their own will, tht
people may choose to act by Representatives
may choose TO clothc them with plenary pow
ers. Nor is such necessity consistent with
the language used. The language used IL, "bul
to ieare she people perfectly free to regulate
their own domestic insttatiOnsi in their 0wn
way" Then they must be left free TO choose
the means BY which this is to be done; and they
may choose delegates, and clothc them with
pienafy powers for this purpose.
But, yielding that the interpre tation Of the
Kansas Nebraska act claimed by the Sena or is
the only fair one it does not even tend to sstab-
lish the conclusion sought. Il would, on that
hypothesis, be conclusive as 10 the will Of Con-
gress, and II you choose, of the win Of the peo-
pie Of the Organized States, expressed in legal
form BY their representatives in Congress, but
not Of the people ofa Territory outside Of these
States. The Kansas Nebraska Bill was enacted
into law on the supposition that the will OF
Congress might be different from the will Of the
people Of the Territory--that it might be even
In conflict with It, and il antagonism with their
best interests; and hence the necessity Of the
Kansas bill to set them free--to emancipate
thenl--to enable them TO differ with Congress.
Hence we are not to inquire what was the will
OF Congress as expressed on this or any other
fit subject Of legislation: but what did the peo-
pie Of Kansas decree? They put forth the ere
alive act when they authorized the election Of
delegates. What was their decision?
But II is argued again that this power Of !inal
ratification must have been reserved bv the peO-
pie. because the President assumed that the
constitution would be submitted, as is clear
" set forth in his instructions TO Gov. Walker;
because Gov Walker, in his inaugural address,
and numerous speeches, pledged binlself that il
should be submitted; and because Mr.. Calhoun,
and others, during their candidacy for seats in
this Convention, were '.pledged in writing to
exert their utmost influence to secure this re-
suit. ;a4 a5. aa40#
But this ''inaugural address" Of Gov. Walker
was not even an official paper. 1t was not re
quired Of him in the discharge Of any official
duty. II was simply fugitive letter. written
tor the newspapers, and OF no more validity
than his stump speeches. sa s5a sa
But clothe this letter and these stump speech
es, aud this pledge Sin writing" Of Gen. Cal
houn, with all the pomp and circumstance Of
official acts, and they will not tend to sustain
the cosclusion. The Presidents instructions,
the Governors newspaper correspondence, and
stump speeches, and Calhonn's pledges in wri
ting, may be conclusive as to their purposes;
but they do rot even tend to prove, that the
" of had IL, ~
for and against the adoption Of the Lec0mpton
Constitution. You must look for an expression
OF the people in their own official acts When
impartialiy considered, these considerations
prove the converse. Whence the necessity OF
promises and pledges to submit the constitution
to vote OF the people, ii the people had in fact
reserved the right TO ratify or reject tat the
polls! Pledges to secure this for the people
imply that the people had parted with IL, Or that
the power to exercise it, aud that this right was
to be created anew. e#.+t sas44
1t is contended, however, that under all Of
these circumstances, the people Of Kansas did
expect and had right TO expect, that this in--
strnment would be submitted TO them for ap-
proval But this is mere assumption without
the slightest support in facts as they really cx-
listed. The people did not expect the submis-
sion OF the Lecompton constitution to fair
vote OF the electors at the polls; and hence
these pledges OF the President, and Of the Gov
ernor, and OF Calhoun ard his accomplices, to
delndge them into the recognition OF its legal
ity, " voting under the territorial Law author
izing its formation. And the people had no
right to expect its submission, these solemn
pledges notwithstanding. For no previous
pledges OF this Government and its officials in
Kansas to secure the Free State men in the en-
joyment Of their just rights, had ever been re-
deemed. To confide in the pledges Of their Off
cia's, they had learned by sad experience, was
to lean on broken reed, BY which they had
been uniformly pierced; and the result has not
their expectation.
But the honorable Senator from Michigan,
{ Mr.. Stuart, in his able speech made in the
Senate lew days since, argued, if understood
Tim correctly, that the LecomptOn constitution
should be repudiated by Congress, in conse-
quence OF the gross frauds perpetrated in the
execution Of the census and registry laws pre-
ceding the election Of delegates, by which fair
expression Of the will Of the people at that elec-
ton was defeated. That may do him no in
justice quote from his speech, his quotation
from Gov. Walkers letter to the President Of
the United States: @
. "That Convention had vital, not technical de.
fects in the very substance Of its organization
under the territorial Law, which could only be
cured, IN my judgment, rs set forth Ia my inau.
gural and other addresses, by the submission Of
the Constitution Tor ratification or rejection by
the people. ,.5 s.s....' ii
''On reference to the territorial law under
which the convention was assembled, thirty tour
organized counties were named IS
election districts for delegates to the conven-
ton. In each and all Of these counties il was
required BY law that census should be taken
and the voters registered: aud when this was
completed, the delegates to the convention
should be apportioned accordingly. In nine.
teen Of these counties there Was no fcensus, and
therefore there could be no such apportionlneRt
there Of delegates based upon such census,---
And In fifteen Of these counties there Was no
registry Of voters. Those fifteen counties, in
ciuding many Of the oldest organized counties
Of the Territory, were entirely disfranchi.ed,
and did not give, and (by mo- fault Of their own)
could ncs give . solitary vote for delegates 20
the convention. This result was aupesindnced
by the fact that ths Territorial Legislature %.
pointed al the sherlfs and probate i1dgss in I'll
these counties, TO whom wsa assigned The duty
By lav of making this census and reeissry.--
These officers sero political parsisaas, Dissent
ing from the siews and opinions Of the people
Of these counties, - proved BY the election in
October last These officers, from want oi funds,