The Kanzas news., 1858-01-16
EMPORIA, KANZAS, JANUARY l6, 1853.

/
sesses whatever power Its organic act gives
it, and no more. The organic act of Ar
kansas provided that the Legislative power
should be vested in the Territorial Legisla-
ture, the same as the organic act of Kanzas,
provides that the Legislative power and au-
thority shall be vested In the legislature
But what Is the extent of that Legislative
power? 1t is to legislate for that Territory
under the organic act, and in obedience to
it. It does not include any power to sub
vert the organic act under which it was
| brought into existence. 1t has the power to
protect it, the power to execute it, the power
to carry it into effect but it has no power
to subyert, none to destroy and hence that
power can only be obtained by applying to
Congress, the same authority which created
the Territory itself But while the AttoT-
ney General decided, with the approbatioa
of the administration of General Jackson,
that the Territorial Legislature had no power
TO call a convention, and that its action was
void if it did, he went further:
''No law has vet been passed by Congress which
either expressly implicitly gives to the people of
Arkansas the authority to form a State govern
ment.''
Nor has there been any in regard to Kan
zas. The two cases are alike thus far
They are alike in all particulars, so far as
the question involving the legality and the
validity of the Lecompton convention is
concerned. The opinion goes on to say:
''For the reasons above stated, am, therefore, of
opinion that the inhabitants of that Territory have
not at present, and that they acquire other
wise than by act of Congress, the ght to form
such government"
General Jackson's administration took the
tLot Il, g IL. 81,
authority of the Territorial Legislature, had
not the power to hold convention to form
constitution, and could not acquire it from
any source whatever except from Congress.
While, therefore, the Legislative act of Ar
kansas was held to be void, so far as it as
sumed authority to authorize the calling of
a convention to form constitution. yet they
did not hold, in those days, that the people
could not assemble and frame a constitution
in the form of petition. l will read the
rest of the opinion, in order that the Senate
may understand precisely what was the
doctrine on this subject at that day, and what
the Committee on Territories understood to
be the doctrine on this subject in March,
1856, when we put forth the Kanzas report
as embodying what we Nebraska men un
derstood to be our doctrine at that time
/ Here it is. This was copied into that re-
port:
''But I am not prepared to say that all proceed
ings this sube the part of the citizens of
/ Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly pos
sess the ordinary privileges and immunitics of
citizens of the United States Among these is the
right to assemble and to petition the Government
for the redress of grievances. In the exercise of
this right, the inhabitants of Arkansas may peace
ably meet together in primary assemblies for the
purpose of petitioninC Congress to abrogate the
Union as an independent State. The particular
form which they may give IN their petition cannot
be material, so long they cOnfne themselves to
the right of petitoning, and conduct all their
proceedings in peaceable manner. And the
power of Congress over the whole subject is plen
ary and unlimited, THEY MAY ACCEPT ANY
| CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER FIR AMED,
WHICH IN THEIR JUDGMENT MEETS THE
SENSE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED
BY 1T. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas
think proper to accompany their petition with q
written constitution, framed and agreed on by
their primary assemblies, by convention of
delegates chosen by such assemblies, perceive no
legal objection to their power to do so, any
measures which may be taken to collect the sense
of the people in respect to it provided, always,
that such measures be commenced and prosecuted
| in peaceable manner, IN strict subordination to
the existing territorial government, AND IN EN-
TIRE SUBSERVIENCY TO THE POWER OF
/ CONGRESS TO ADOPT, REJECT, OR DIS
REGARD THEM. AT THEIR PLEASURE"
If you apply these principles to the Kan
zas convention, you find that it has no pow
er to do any act as convention forming a
government you find that the act calling
it was null and void from the beginning !;
you find that the Legislature confer no pow
er whatever on the convention. That con-
vention was simply an assemblage of peace
able citizens, under the Constitution of the
United States, petitioning for the redress of
grievances, and, thus assembled, had the
right to put their petition in the form of a
constitution if they chose but still it was
only petitiOn-having the force of petit
tion-which Congress could accept or re-
IJect, or dispose of as it saw proper. That
Is what L understand to be just the extent
OF the power and authority of this conven-
ton assembled at Lecompton. 1t was not
an unlawful assemblage like that held at
Topeka; for the Topeka constitution was
made in opposition to the territorial law,
and, as thought, intended to subvert the
government without the consent of Congress,
but, as contended by their friends not so
intended. If their object was to subvert it
without the consent of Congress, it was an
| act of rebellion. which ought to have been
put down by force. If il was a peaceable
assemblage, simply to petition and abide the
decision of Congress on the petition, it was
not an unlawful assemblage. I hold, how
: ever, that it was an unlawful assemblage.-
L hold that this Lecompton convention was
not an unlawful assemblage; but, on the
other hand, / hold that they had no legal
power and authority to establish govern
ment. They had a right to petition for a
: redress of grievances. They had a right in
that petition to ask for the change of gov
ernment from territorial to State govern
ment- They had a right is ask Congress to
: adopt the instrument which tbev sent to US
as their constitution; and Congress, if ii
E thought that paper embodied the viii of the
: -Lr,ol, L. r,f4l l. { i