Preble County Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1857-1859, 1858-03-18
Letter from semator Puch-

"NS ANA0 Al
GAINESVILLE, Ohio, which endorsed the
Kansas policy of the Administration.
The committee addressed a note of in
vitation to Senator Pugh to be present
and address the meeting. The follow
ing is the reply of the distinguished
gentlemen -
Washington, March 8.
GENTLEMEN: Your favor Of the 18th
ult., requesting me to attend the Dem
ocratlc meeting at GAINESVILLE tomorrow
night, was duly received, and I have to
regret that my engagements here are
such as to forbid a compliance with the
invitation.
10 profess my continued adherence
to the principles of the Democratic par
ty, as declared in the Cincinnati Plat
form, would seem to be almost superhu-
Gus. If the records of my votes and
speeches, ever since 1 attained the age
of manhood, be not sufficient, and even
conclusive in this regard, it is hardly
worth while to make the least protesta-
ton. My hopes and my faith, in all
the future, depend upon tho success of
these principles, and of the .organiza-
ton by which they arc acknowledged.
In the present controversy relative to
Kansas, I believe that the opinions
of Mr.. buchanan, expressed in his
message of February 2, 1853, are
not only in strict accordance with Dem
o~cratic principles, but that the opposi-
ton to them in our own ranks is based
upon a serious and fundamental orror.
I am not one of those who insist that
the opinions of a President on any sub
ject should be followed blindly; but l
will say that, in my humble Judgment,
when Democratic Congressman differ
with a Democratic Administration, they
ought to be we'll assured of the correct
ness of their OWL positions, and withal
to avoid even the semblance of vindic
%tiveness, or f~actious opposition. For
myself, { since the present Kansas con
~troversy was inaugurated, } 1 have felt
it due to Mr.. Buchanan-to his emil
nent station, to his public services, his
great abilities and experience-due, al
so, to the sentiment of the Democratic
party of Ohio and of the United States
$50 cmphatically in November, 1856,
gree to forestall the minds of my CON
stituents against a candid, thorough, de-
libcrate examination of whatever policy
he might recommend.
It is said, however, that the Y
ton of delegates assembled at Lecomp-
ton should have submitted the rhote
constitution of Kansas to 4 vote of the
people, directly, for approval or rejee-
ton, and that the failure to do this, in
the circumstances, amounted to a breach
of duty, and even a violation of writ
ten promises, On the part of some or all
of the delegates. Now this may be so:
I neither deny nor affirm the assertion;
but I do affirm that is no matter for the
Congress of the United States to de-
eide, nor even to examine. Who au-
thorized Congress to control the local
affairs of Kansas; to dictate in what
manner the constitution of that State
should be formed, approved or ratified;
to interpose as a monitor between the
;, people of that State, and their delegates,
lawfully chosen? Such interference, in
my opinion, would be understandable as
we'll as Observation-Disclosures for the
peace of Kansas, and doubly unfortu-
nate for the peace Of the Union at large.
It would be to supersede, forever, the
SONcICiSutJ3 II independence, lhC IT,
served rights of the States, new and old,
as guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States. If Congress could
control to that extent the affairs of a
new State, why not control to the same
extent the affairs of a State already ad-
mitted into the Union? Are not the
new States to be admitted, let ME ask,
upon an equal footing with the original
States?
Those who differ with the President
in respect to the case of Kansas must
claim, as a universal principle, that Con-
gress has the power (and ought to exer-
else it, of refusing the admission of a
State into the Union-upon a constitu-
ton regularly adopted by her owen
ton of delegates, aud republican in form
merely because the constitution was
not ratified by a direct vote of the peo-
pie; and this, although the people, act
ing through delegates chosen by them
selves, have made no such requisition.
If so, what will become of our own State
of Ohio, as we'll as the States of Yer
mont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana,
Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama,
Missouri and Arkansas? All of them
were admitted into the Union with on
situations never submitted to the people.
What will become of the thirteen origin
al States? They, together, formed the
Union, but none of them submitted its
own constitution, or the Constitution of
the United States, to a vote of the peo-
pie. Congress never has required such
a submission before this, in the case Of
any new State-unless, indeed, some ar
gument can be drawn from the "ena-
Bling act" for Minnesota, February 26,
1857. 7 doubt whether five men in
Congress knew that umill contained such
a provision. Certainly. for one, L ulu
not; I supposed it similar to all other
enabling acts. That bill, as it now
stands, passed the House without hay
ing been printed, under the operation
of the previous question. 1t was de-
bated afterward in the Senate, with ref
ereuce to the provision for alien suffrage,
but not a syllable was uttered, 1 believe,
as to any requirements that the consti-
tuition of Minnesota, when formed,
should be submitted to the people. The
case tberefore is not authoritative: since.