Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1858-01-07

sive Of that platform upon which he was eIeva
ted TO the Presidency of the United States.
Then, if the President Be right iE saying tha.
Dy l. - Nebraska bill, the slavery question mus
be submIftea 10 the people, it follows inevitably
that every other clause OF the constitution mus
also be submitted to the people. The Nebrasks
bill said that the people should be left perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institu.
tions in their own Way'-not the slavery question
not the Maine liquor law question. not the bank
ing question, not the school question, not tn.
railroad question, bat their domestic institu.
ITEMS meaning each and all the questions which
are LEGAL, not national-State, NOT Federal 1 ar
rive at the conclusion that the principles enun-
cisted so boldly, and enforced with so much abiI.
ity by the President of the United States require
as, out of respect to him and the platform on
which he was elected, to send this whole question
back to the people of Kansas, and enable them
TO say whether or not the constitution which has
been framed, each and every clause of it, meets
their appreciation.
The President, in his message, has made an
unanswerable argument in favor of the princi pie
which requires this question to be sent back. 1t
is stated in the message, with more clearness and
fofe than any language which / can command;
butI can draw you attention to il, and refer you
IN the argument in the messa ge, hoping that Won
will take it as a part of nv speech-as exsress
iuta tn'trt iOfctttN tHan i 2t.le Wy
press it. The President says that a question OF
great interest. like the slavery question, cannot
be fairly decided by a convention of delegatesa
for the reason that the delegates are elected IL
districts, and in districts delegate is elese
ted by a small majority, il others by an over
whelming majority; SO that it often happens that
a majority Of the delegates are one way, while a
majority of the people are the other way; and
therefore il would be unfair, and inconsistent
with the great principle of popular sovereignty
to allow a body Of delegates not representing the
popular voice to establish domestic institutions
for the mass of the people. This is the Presidents
argument to show that you cannot have fair and
honest decision without submitting it to the pop
ular vote. The same argument is conclusive
with regard to every other question well as
with regard to slavery.
But, Mr.. President, it is intimated in the mes
sage that although it was an unfortunate cireum
stance. mitch to be regretted, that the Lecomp-
ton Convention did not submit the constitution
to the people, vet perhaps it may be treated as
regular because the Convention was called by
Territorial Legislature which had been repeat
edly recognised by the Congress Of the United
States as legal body. / beg Senators not 10 fall
in toan error to the Presidents meaningon his
point. He does not say, he does not mFxn that
this Convention pad ever been recognised by the
Congress of the United Sta as legal or yalid..-
On the contrary, he knows aSwe here xaow that
the Comuitiee on. is.Territories to anthSsise thu
people OF kansas tflssembie aSd form a 'consls
t1ffioa Tor thsmsefyes---S Subsequently the Sena-
tor fron, ,Gsazeia sn.nhs} bronzhf fofward
a substit.ssfer my biH witch, afterhaving been
modified by HIM and myself in consult tion, was
passedby the Senate. 1t IS known in thecountry
,.the Toombsbill.' 1t aubh~rfzed the people of
Kansas Territory to assemble IN Convention and
form a constitution preparatory TO their admis-
sion into the union as a State. That bill, it is
well known, was defeated il the House of Rep
resentatires. It matters not, for the purpose OF
this argument, what was the reason Of Its defeat.
Whether the reason was a political one, whether
it had reference to the then existing contest for
the Presidency: Nhether it was TO keep open the
slavery question; whether il was convietisn
that the bill would not be fairly carried out:
whether il was because there were not people
enough in Kansas to justify the formationxof a
Stale; no matter what the reason was, the Hoase
oil Representatives refused 70 pass that bill, and
thus deniedto the people OF Kansas the right to
form a constitution and stale government at TINS
tinEs. So far from the Congress OF the United
States having sanctioned or legalized the Con
xci1tion which Assembled at Lecumpton, it ex-
9r4-ssly withheld its assent. The assent has not
been given, either in express terms by impli-
cations ~snd bsieg witslssld, this kansas eonssi-
tuition bvs just such validity aud just such au-
thorf;y as the Territorial Legislature Of Kansas
position 10 the known viii of Congress.
Now sir, let me ask what is~fhe extent of the
authority of Territorial Legislature as to call
ing a Constitutional Convention without the as
sent OF Congress? Fortunately this is not new
question: it does not now arise for the first time
When the TOPEKA constitution presented to
the Senate, nearly two years ago, it was referred
10 the COMMITTEES On Territories, with a variety
of measures relating to Kansas. The committee
made a full report upon the whole subject. That
report reviewed all the irregular cases which had
occurred in our history in the admission of nSw
States The committee went Oh the suppOsition
that whenever Congress had passed an enabling
act authorizing the people of Territory TO form
State constitution, the convention was regular
and possessed all the au hority which Congress
had delegated TO it; but whenever Congress had
failed or refused to pass an enabling act, the
proceeding was irregular and void, unless vital
ity WAS impaired to it by subsequent act OfCou-
gress adopting and confirming it. The friends Of
the Topeka constitution insisted that although
their proceedings were irregular, they were not
Irregular but that Congress could cure the er-
TOR by admitting Kansas with tha: constitution.
They cited a variety of cases, amongst Others the
Arkansas case. In my report, sanctioned by ev-
cry member of the Committee on Territories, ex-
cept the Senator from Vermont. Mr.. Collamer.)
/ reviewed the arkansas case well as the 9th
ers, and affirmed the doctrine established by
opinion of Mr.. Attorney General Butler, part
of which opinion was copied into the report and
published in the country at the time.
Now, sir, in order TO ascertain what we under
stood on the 21st of March ,lS56-little more than
a year and a half ago-to be the true doctrine on
this point, let me call your attention to the opin
icn Of Mr.. Butler in the Arkansas case. The
Governor of the Territory of Arkansas sent q
printed address to President Jackson, in which
he stated that he had been urged to call togeth
ar the Legislature Of the Territory of Arkansas
| for the purpose of allowing them to call a con.
vention to form constitution preparatory t,
their admission into the Union as a State. Th,
Governor stated, that lin his opinion, the Legis
lature had power to call such & convention
without the assent of Congress first had and OBJ
tanned: but he asked instructions ON that point
The President referred the case to the Seeretar,
of State, and he asked for the advice of the At
torney General, whose opinion was given, an,
adopted as the plan f action, and communiea
| ted to the Governor of Arkansas for his instrue
| tim. / will read some extracts from that opin
| ion.
| consequently, it is not in the power of tn
| General Assembly of Arkansas TO pass any Ia,
j for the purpose of electlng members to form
constitution and State government, or TO do an
other act, directly or indirectly, to create sue
new government. Every such law, even thoug
| it were approved by the Governor of the Territo
notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two third
Of each branch, it would still be equally void.
'If am right in the foregoing opinion, it wi
: then follow that the course of the Governor
declining tacaI together the Territorial Legi:
lature for the purpose in question was such as h
legal duties required; and that the views he hs
; expressed in his public address, and also in h
official communication 10 yourself, SO far as the
: indicate an intention not to sanction or concr
2 in any legislative or other proceedings toward
the formation of State government until Coz
gress shall have authorized it, are also correct?
That is what have understood to be the Sc
e tied doctrine to the authority of a Territori
Legislature to call Convention without Il
consent of Congress first had and obtained. II
reasoning is very clear and palpable. A Terr
: torial Legislature possesses whatever power
e organic act gives it, and no more. The organ
e act of Kansas provided that the legislative po,
+ er should be vested in the Territorial Legislatu
n the same as the organic act of Kansas provid
!, that the legislative power and authority shall
: sested in the Legislature. But what in the. e
il tent of that Legislative power? 1t is to legisa
| .l.s Ta~r nd