Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-04-03
sas Michigan, Florida, Texas, California and Iowa.

sas, Michigan, Florida. Texas, California, and Iowa,
no such acts were passed.
But, sir, whilst have referred to these preee-
dents, have done so more for the benefit Of those
who rely much on presidents than for the purpose
Of justyfyiDg my own action. As for ny part,
whilst am always anxious % know what has been
the course pursued by the great and good men Of
the past, yet, confess that have but little faith il
what are termed precedents 1 believe that every
measure out TO stand or fall on it, own merits re-
gardlsss Of ell precedents; andI will endervor al
ways to shape my course so as to do what think to
be right and Just and proper, though thousand
presidents may be against me.
Thus, sir, it will be that resistance to the ad-
mission Of Kansas into the Union under the Le-
compton constitution, for the reason that Congress
has failed to pass enabling act is neither iusti
fed by reason and argument, nor by precedents;
and, having said this much with regard to this part
Of the subject pass to the other objections urged
by those who have taken grounds against the Ad-
ministratiOn on this question.
It has been said that because the whole coDstitu-
ton was not submitted TO a vote Of the people for
their ratification or rejection the great doctrine of
popular sovereignty violated; and that for this
reason we ought TO refuse 10 admit Kansas into the
Union. do not agree with those who argue thus;
for sir whilst would not object to the principle Of
allowing the people Of any Territory State to vote
directly on their fundamental law, yet can, by
have seen proper to do otherwise, and delegate to
their representatives the power form their consti-
tuition, the doctrine Of popular sovereignty is viola
ted. Our Governments, State and Federal are re-
preventative in their character Can it be said that
the laws which we enact here do not embody the will
of our constituents, because they not all submit
ted for decentralization, after have enacted them?
And is it true that The Legislatures of the various
States, in regulating the domestic concerns Of the
people, do not represent the popular Judgment Are
not their enactmens in fact the acts of the people
1t may De true, sir, and doubtless it is not true,
that every Law which has received the sanction Of the
Legislature does reflect popular sentiment properly
and entirely but in the meaning of the phrase when
applied to our system it is true in theory, that the
representatives Ofthe people the people. Sir, it
was the business of the people Of Kansas not ours
whether they would have their constitution submit
ted to themselves for ratification They did net see
proper to do 60. If sovereignty resides with the
people, the right to delegate their authority is insep
arabic from their sovereignty. The right to delegate
their power is important 70 the people the right
to act for themselves. The people Of Kansas through
their lawful agents. the delegates, framed their
sttution in their own way and ratified it in their
own way, as was very fOrcibly argued by my friend
and colleague, Mr.. Avery; and, in my humble
opinion, If complain that they have formed their
constitution in their way, they had right to
do under the wise provisions Of the
bill, and demand Of them before they are admitted
that they shall form it in way, may choose
to dictate to them, that they shall rstiy it in
manner prescribed by majority Of Congress, we
violate the great doctrine Of nOn-inervention and
open afresh the wounds which have so long afflicted
the country. A majority Of the States that have
been admitted into the Union since the formation of
the Federal Constitution eamein without having had
their constitutions first submitted to the vote of the
people Many of them did thus vote upon their con
sttutions and ratify them and to that plan offer
no objection, where the people Of the Territories
themselves see proper to take that course.
TTe BE CONCLUDED TOMORROW.