Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1858-09-09
The Democracy Opposed Z.
Popular sovereignty.

III, Ou tuc -oth uit', pio pV1oiV Na'fi
or dispute that not Only Mr.. Douglas, but
all the leaders of the Democratic party are
opposed in practice. let their professions
be what they may, to the doctrine Of Pop
ular Sovereignty. Let every honest man,
who does not wish to be led into Federal
ism. by dishonest party leaders, who say
one thing and do another, read the follow
ing convincing proof of the insincerity Of
the so-called Democratic leaders in their
professions of devotion to popular rights
BY their fruits ye shall know them: -
On the 25th june, 1926. a bill was pend
ing in the Z. S. Senate, to authorize the
people of Kansas to form constitution
and come into the Union On that day Mr.
Toombs offered an amendment, which he
intended to propose to the bill, which was
ordered to DC printed, and. with the origin
al bill aud other amendments, recommit-
ted to the COMMITTEES on Territories, OF
which Judge Douglas was Chairman-
This amendment OF Mr. Toombs. printed
by orderof the Senate, and a copy Of which
| have here present, provided Tor the APP
pointment of hissioners, who were to
take census of Kansas, dividethe terrific
rys into election districts, and supcrintend
the election of delegates to form a constafu-
ton, and contains q. clause, in the 18th sec
ton, which | win read to you, requiring
the constitution which should be formed to
be submitted to the people for adoption
1t reads as follows:f s<as fzfs ~-n2 & 80
THAT the following propositions be, and
the same are hereby offered to the said con-
yention Of the people of Kansas when folm-
Ell, for their free acceptance or rejection.
which it accepted by the convention, and
ratified by the people at the election foi
the adoption of the constitution. shall be
obligatory on the United States. AMI upon
the said State of Kansas" &c.
1t has been contendcd by sonre Of the
newspaper presses. that.this section did not
require the constitution which should be
formed to be submitted TO the people for
approval, and that it was only the land
propositions which were to bc submitted
You will observe that the language is 20
be .'rati6c,l by the people at the election
for the adoption of the constitution. -
Would 1t have been possible TO ratify the
land propositions cat hs ete ton for the a,
doption ofne Constitution" unless such an
election was to be held? 80 - assEeH
When one thing is required by contract
or law TO be done, the doing Of which is
male depcndcntupon and cannot be per-
formed without the doing of some other
thing. is not that other thing just as much
rcquiresl by sthe contact or lsw as the 6rs?
II matters not in what part of the act nor
in what phraseoloy the intention of the
Legislature is expressed, so you can clear
ly ascertain what it is; and whenever that
intention is ascertained from an cxamina-
tion Of the language used. such intention is
part of and requirement of the law. Can
any candid, fair-mindcd man read the see
tion have quoted and say that the inten
tion to have the constitution which should
be formed submitted to the people for thcir
adoption is not clearly expressed? In my
judgment, there can be no controversy
mong honest men upon proposition so
plain as this. Mr.. Douglas has never pre-
tended to deny, so far as am aware that
the Toombs' amendment as originally in
troduced. did require submission of the
constitution to the peoples This amend
ment of Mr.. Toombs' was referred to the
committee of which Judge Douglas Was
chairman. and reported back by him on the
30th of Junc, with the words land ratified
by the people at tie election for the gdoption
of the constitution stricken out. | have
here copy of the bill, as reported back by
Mr. Douglas, TO substantiate the statement
make Various other alterations were
also made in the billsto which shall pre-
scntly have occasion to call attention
There was no other clause in the original
Toombs' bill requiring the submission OF
the constitution to the people, than the one
/ ha We read, and there isno clause whatever,
after that was struck out. in tho bill as re-
ported back by Judge douglas. requiring
a submission ! will now Introduce wit
ness whose testimony cannot be impeachcd.
he acknowledginghimself to have been one
of the conspirators and privy to the fact
about which he testifies. Senator Bigler,
alluding to the Toombs' bill as it was call
ell, and which after sundry amendments,
passed the Senate, and to the propriety OF
submitting the constitution which should
be formed to a vote ofthe people, made the
following statement in his place in the
Senate, December 9th, 1857. | read from
Part l. Congressional Globe, of last session,
p. a: ~ 80
81 was present when that subject was
discussed by Senator'S. before the bill was
introduced. and the question was raised and
discussed. whether the constitution when
formed, should be submitted to vote of
the people. II was held by those NEST In
telligcnt on the subject. that in view of ell
the difficulties surrounding that Territory,
the danger of any experiment at that time
of popular vote, it would be better that
there should be no such provision in the
Toombs bill; and it was my understanding.
in all the intercourse had. that that con-
vention would make a constitution, and
send it here without submitting it to the
popular vote 80
In speaking Of the meeting again on the
2lst of December, 1857, Congressional
Globe. same vol, p. ll3,) Senator Bigler
said
Nothing was farther from my mind than
to allude to any social OF confidential IN
terview. The Meeting wsss pss of that
-