Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-04-01
SPEECH OF GOV. JOHNSON, ON THE IN
STRETCHING RESOLUTIONS.
looxTINUEDl

futiou he had heard. am at fault here again. It
Is nv misfortune, presume, not his fault. did
not understand myself that way, and how he can
make such an application Of my argument is mat
ter Of profound astonishment to me. What was it,
said that could convey, in the slightest degree,
the idea that was against the Lecompton eonsti-
tuition; or what position did take that would
demonstrate that 1 was against she Lecompton con-
stitution It would require a man with magnifyiDg
glasses, it would take microscope that would
multiply millions Of tines to discover anything 10
the remarks have made to-day which would seem
to indicate opposition TO the admission Of Kansas
under the Lecompton constitution No sir, aRd IN
continuation Of what was saying on that point
will occupy the Senate but a few moments longer,
for have spoken three times as long as intended
II shall vote to let Lscompton in; not because my
Legislature has Instructed me to do So but because
Lbeieve It is right and the most eeotual means to
settle and put down the agitation that IS now per
Vsding the whole country.
What is il that have said which would come il
conflict with my going for the admission Of Kansas
into the Union as 8 State? Because 1 argued thai
power WAS with the peoplel Does that make al
issue with the admission Of Kansas Not in the
slightest degree The only question for Congress
to determine when Kansas applies for admission is
is it State? Whether it has got TO be State By
regular process or by irregular process so the enc
is reached that it is State and has a republican
form Of government tits entirely competent for Con
lsrities or infOrmalities. Many States have beer
admitted into the Union in this way, and ta'
chances are that others will be.
What is there that I have said SIS to sovereignty
abiding with man thSt comes in conflict with the
admission Of Kansas now? Go to the organic Law
and you find that the power is conferred on the PEG
pie Of Kansas to legislste. Was the passing Of 6
law under the territorial government in conflict will
the Constitution of the United States, which provided
for the calling Of convention Go back to the
bill reported the Senate during the last Congress
emitting the provision that the constitution should
be submitted to the people Who reported that bill
The honorable Senator from Illinois, chairman Of the
Committee on Territories. Hereported bill to the
Senate authorizing the adoption Of constitution
/ without being submitted to the people. That bill
when it first went to the committee had in 1t clause
providing that the constitution shOnd be submitted
and it was reported back without that clause Was
it not intended by this enabling act, or whatever
name you may properly call it, that the people may
meet in convention, and when in convention may
form constitution, and may or may not, oircum
stances may require, submit It to popular vote a
the polls or adopt It constitution, without sub
mission That is what the committee must have
intended. We find the Minnesota enabling ac
requiring the constitution to be submitted TO the
people. That bill came from the same committee
The committee must have understood the subject
They reported bill requiring it to 60 to the peO
pie; the other bill came back from the committee
with that clause out oft The bill was lost in the
other House, and then Kansas proceeded through
her Legislature, to pass law authorizing the con.
ventiOn TO be called and the people elected delegates
know the question is to up here, and when il
does, will show gentlemen who make these insinua-
tiOns, whether there is any conflict with my posi-,
ton.
Whence does the convention derive is power
Some say from the Legislature and some trace it to
one source, and some to another. say the Legis-
lature took the regular steps, in orderly, peace
able manner, for the election of delegates to the
convention. The people elected delegates. The
delegates being elected, met in convention, deriv
ing their power from the people that elected them
and not from the Territorial Legislature. The con-
vention the representative of the sovereignty Of
the people; 1t Was, in fact, the people assembled ID
their highest political attitude acting in convention
to prescribe the nature and character Of their in
situations. That convention being the people as
sembled in their highest political attitude had the
power TO submit 8 constitution back to the people
for ratification, the power to adopt it at once
20 submit part Of it. This was discretionary with
them. If had been q member of that convention,
lam free TO say should have been in favor of the
submission Of the whole constitution to the popular
vote; but the people were present in convention,
and they determined this point for themselves. In
tb at constitution they have made an express reser-
walton Of the right to alter or amend. In my judg-
uIent, without that reservation, they would have,
In the language Of the Declaration of Independence
the power TO alter, amend abolish their form Of
government at any time, in such manner as they
may prescribe. But to make the point clear, the
constitution Of Kansas, in the bill Of rights ex-
pressy reserves to The people the right Of atera-
ton.
Then I should like to know how anything have
said conflicts in the slightest degree with the admis
sion of Kansas into the Union as a State? l con
tend that the only question for Congress to deter
mine is, whether q State has been formed, whether
it has republican form Of government. That be-
ing settled Congress is either to admit It keep it
out. If Congress can assume as a cause for send
ing the constitution back to the people, that the
proceedings lave been irregular and informal Con-
Gress may assume a cause that this provision, or
that provision, is not right, and send it back
to the people; and the result IS that Congress
makes the constitution; Congress, not the people,
exercises the power. When the State is admitted
the subject Of her local policy belongs to her people
There may perhaps now be a majority Of the actual
persons in Kansas against Of the provisions of
the constitution; but if So they have the power at
any time they may think proper, to change that
constitution, and change the institutions established
by it. Here desire 10 inquire what will be gained
by keeping Kansas out Of the Union? Do you there
by expedite the proceedings Of the people there In
reforming or altering the constitution Can they
not proceed readily and as speedily after they
admitted into the Union to change the cOnstiu-
ton if is wrong they proceed before its ad
mission? The idea Of Congress forcing a cOnstiu-
ton on the people of q State is an absurdity. Con
gress does not force If on them at ALL Congress does
not make 1t; Congress takes the constitution as an
evidence that State has been formed, and SAYS to
her, ''Walk in with your constitution, and after
wards change it in your own way, and at such time
as you may select and prescribe
What can be the objection to the admission Of
Kansas? This question is more clear as TO a State
than as to Territory No one has right to inter
fere with the people Of State in regard to their
institutions; but nov tie idea is suggested that
when the people Of a Territory have taken the ne
cessary steps towards becoming State. the consti-
tuition they may make is 10 be regarded as a pet
ton, and that they do not become State until Con
gress gives its assent. What does this imply If
it is not State until Congress gives its assent is
not this admission that sovereignty is here If
it cannot be State until assent is given by Con-
gress, Congress has the Sovereignty, and must i'm
part it to the State. say does reside here,
say Congress cannot make State; Congress cannot
impart sovereignty, for il does not possess it. A
State must emanste from the people and whether
they act regularly irreguary, all thati necessa
~ for US to do is to ascertain that State has been
formed, and has republican constitution, and then
to admit If into the Union, or keep it out
l am as unfortunate in understanding gentlemen's
notions in this respect Was in not understanding
precisely the definition which my honorable colleague
gave Of his position; but think l understand my
Sell Ihere is principle IN this matter; and If you
will pursue principle, you will arrive at a proper
conclusion.
Mr.. President have said all that intended to
say upon the resolutions Of the Legislature Of Tsn
lessee, and a great deal more on other matters /
lid not intend TO take the range which have taken;
1ut have been led of into saying thus much with
)ut great order or method Think understand the
principle which lies at the bottom Of this controver-
y. wish to act on that great principle. l desire
o admit Kansas and a-lay agitation and strife |
want the North and the South alike to stand upou
he Constitution. Let US make no COMPROMISES: but /
ct US stand by the Constitution ls il is Though we
nay differ in reference TO a local institution here
nd another there, let act as lovers Of the Con.
titutiOn, In the North and in the south neither con-
eding its rights, but both standing bv the great
principles Of free government. Let US admit States
1to the Union, recognizing the great source of
over by which States are made. Let us admit
-ansas and Minnesota, whether hey come hand in
and or separately, care not Isaud ready TO re-
GIVE them both. L shall vote for the admission of
Iinnesots because believe 1t is right in principle
ecsuse / believe it is for the interest Of the Con
,deracy l shall vote for the admission Of Kansas
ecause l believe it is right to do So As other
tates may be formed in the progress Of this Gov
-nment, l shall vote for their admission when I an
ltis6ed that States have been formed and that their
institutions are republican. hope that l have
loOeeded in making myself understood by my COM
stitOr-
Mr.. BELL. No competitor in any respect or in