The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-12
SUBMISSION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS 10 THE
M PEoPIE


The debates Of last wint-r Ia Congress seem 10
have-broughs the question Of Submission u ssats
constitutions the people into unusual proBinsnes
We apprehend, however that there Il really no Aif.
ference of opinion on the subject Everybody hat
we know, both in aud out Of the deoocratie party i
decided advocate Of the proproty u he PoPalar
ratification rejection Of such instrumenis Il h
belief that they should b. % raihed "a al cases
We would sustain this principle evcTywl.ere within
the scope of our authority. But llsrs are class Il
men, in and out Of the Democratic party, whe taAs
great merit 10 themselves nr advocating saiaassion
claiming that Congress should uapa al eoastiia.
tional State conventions 70 give that aiTscsiea % er
abors. AT this point We separate from them We
would aduise tho conventions 10 sond their works b.
the people for ratification or rejection bas We utter
ly deny the right OF Congress 10 compel them a.
80. The people Of new OF old State, 10 igFus.
ing their organic law, should be careful % sapera
tend its enactment and should reserve the right 10
sit in Judgment upon its provisions. hut when Cess-
gress undertakes TO dictate 20 them how they shah
proceed in a matter which relates wholly 10 them.
selves, their acquiesoenoe therein is practical sur
render to the central federal authority q their
stitutional rights The bred Scott decision distinct.
ly airms the exclusive authority Of The State 10 e.
tlblish their own institutions. II would be absurd
to claim, while admitting the force of that decision
that Congress may control the action Of the people
when in the discharge of clear constitutional duty.
Judge Douglas, as chairman Of the Committee on
Territories, reported back to the Senate the cole
brated Toombs bill with the provision requiring the
:. e n r. n
people, contemplated by it, stricken om. Judge Doug
las could not then endorse the principle ofeongrcsson
al dicaton claiming the right of the people TO settle
for themselves all the questions relating 10 the orgsni
cation of their State government Scarcely two
years have elapsed, and we find Judge Douglas on
the stump not only claiming peculiar merit for in
sistng upon tho right of Congress to dictate that all
constitutions thus formed shall be referred to popu-
lar ratification rejection, but condemnng the
democratic party for not endorsing his new theory
this respect He has fairly set up in business on
the idea that in advising the he suggests in
reference to the propriety of submission he has dis
covered great popular principle; and because we
will go further than to fully in the justice
ofreferring constitutions to the people, and will not
assent to his scheme of congressional dctation he
tells the people Of Illinois that are opposed TO
popular sovereignty. That kind of popular
ereignty' which cannot act for ITSELF but must do as
Congress says against the express judgment of the
Supreme Court, or that other kind of popular SOW
ereignty which would cIothe thousand people with
the power to nullify the constitution, not the
ticles would be understood as endorsing. If
Congress has the right to dictate to new State in
reference to the forming of its organic laws in one
particular, they may go on covering all the details
of its provisions. That is not popular sovereign
ty. Then, again, when handful of people who
know nothing of each other, who yet without de-
berate legislation, strangers alike to social order
and the civilizing influences Of the family,
ganized by Congress into territorial government
we have no idea in the world of running popular
sovereignty into ridicule to claim for them right
to nulify the federal constitution That is not our
popular sovereignty; that is Judge Douglass pop
ular sovereignty"
.