The Nevada journal., 1858-10-08

| iNNSAAN'y ~
stolen from his colleague-and late
advices represent Douglas as, after hav-
ing robbed Trumbull of his thund er,
stigmatising him as ''craven wretch: y
"No procision IS made in this bill. tor
lis (the Constitution ratification. This
is Objectionable to my mind. / do not
think tie people should be 6oUnd by a
Constitutioa aciMom pressing upoR 1t d.
rect1y Themselves. 1t looks to me too
2 much like the exercise of arbitrary au-
thoritv to vest in the hands Of the fifty
two men who are authorizedto be elected
by this act, the power to fasten any sort
of a Constitution upon the people cf
Kansas, ,cithout Glloaoing them to pass
directly upon 1t. 1t is quite enough for
Congress to call Convention, without
being asked by the people of that Ter
ritory, or consulting them at all but 1t
is going little too far to allow the Con-
venton, when assembled, 10 ,tf.c q Con-
sfif0tioa vrcr0cd6ly upon tie people Of
the Territory. There IS nothing said 1@
this JW, so far as l have discovered,
aJom submiHing the C0astituti0a, which
is to be framed, 10 tie people. for Mei''
saactjoa or rejcctjon."
: Take all this in connection with the
bullying assumption, arrogance, and
demagoeical appeals of Senator Doug
las on the stump in Illinois, and we
imagine his claims to the favorable con-
sideration of honest men will be counted
none of tie best. If he happens TO be
+ right now, let him remain so; but to
plaster him with encomiums at the ex-
pense of others more deserving, for hap
pening to get right once in his life is
going a little too far. The claim of
Stephen A. Douglas on his countrymen
for attempting to "carry out the Kansas
Nebraska bill to all its logical conse-
quences," we trust is now satisfactorily
examined. We shall next see how
! how much of the public eclat showered
, upon him by the connection of his name
with the supposed new principles ofpop-
f ular sovereignty. is Justly merited.
What are the principles of popular
sovereignty that have kept the Ameri
can mind in turmoil many years ? Mr..
Douglas himself accepts the Dred
Scott decision as correct which denies
to the people Of a territory the right to
prohibit slavery while acting in THEN
territorial capacity. The Constitution,
f says that decision, authorizes and pro-
tects slave property in Kansas, and no
Territorial power can prevent it. Pop
ular Sovereignty is thus narrowed down
by the admission of Judge Douglas
himself, to mean that the people of a
Territory Oh coming to form State
Constitution have the right to decide
whether slavery shall be tolerated in
the new State or not. This then is the
E great new doctrine, eliminated from the
fertile brain of Judge Douglas so much
ado has been made about. Tell us, yc
sapient teachers of Democracy, when
this new thing was ever practically de-
2 MED. The people had that right and
exercised it before Judge Douglas was
known in American politics,
In reference to the positions taken
by the wings Of the Democratic party
on the question Of submission of consti-
tutions to the people, in our opinion
neither is strictly correct. As a ger
eral rule it may be best to submit all
constitutions to direct vote Of the peo-
pie. II is, however, useless labor and
expense to compel it where men have
been elected to a constitutional conven-
ton, in whom the people have the ut
most confidence and the fruit of whose
iabcrs receives little or no condemna-
ton or fault finding. But, on the other
hand, it is the grossest Of wrongs to
attempt TO force constitution upon an
unwilling people, and impolitic to say
the least to admit a State into the Union
when even arespectable minority, it
may be, protests against it and asks to
be heard at the ballot box. In brief,
the true doctrine is, that a State may
be admitted into the Union without a
direct submission Of its constitution to
the people whenever there appears no
serious opposition; but never when such
opposition exists, without a direct sub
mission.
But to proceed with our examination
into the doctrines of popular sovereign
ty as expounded by its professors. The
Democratic party maintains that the
constitution of the Uni. ed States makes
no distinction between slave and other
property, and protects the former wher-
ever that Constitution roes. Will some