Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1858-03-24

are exposing 10 Its toes what they conceive
to be its weakness.
1t would be piece of vain presumption
on my part to assume the task of becoming
the defender of the position assumed in the
message of the President | feel happy to
say that he does not need assistance. His
message is its own advocate. Before it ap-
peared [ confess to having felt something of
the same trepidation that was experienced
when we earned that one of our noble Gene
rails. now gone, was advancing into the heart
of Mexico, in the face of a superior numeri-
cal force. But [ feel now as [ did when [
heard of that Generals triumph. 1t is this
power of surprising expectation that distin-
| guishes great men from the common mass,
and that qualities them to be leaders either
iu war or in peace And it may be safely
said that no document ever issued by any
President has wrought more complete
change in the public mind than has been pro-
duced by this identical Kansas message 1t
has carried conviction, not because there was
power behind it, bat because there was pow
er in it, While it scatters to the winds the
arguments adduced against it, there is a
| spirit Of deep and earnest patriotism in the
tone that touches the heart. We feel that
the man who penned that paper was actuated
| by no other motive than that of common
good to all.
That the people of Kansas almost unani-
mously desire admission into the Union is con
| ceded Even before the Territory had ac-
quired the requisite population, before the in
fant State had attained its full developement,
the country was eonvulsed by its efforts to af-
feet a premature delivery. The Free State
men, socalled, claimed admission under the
Topeka Constitution long ago. They still
persist in this claim-still keep up their Or
ganization. Their Legislators sat until few
! days ago like Millerites in their ascension
robes, waiting to be translated On the 9TH
er hand, those who participated in the selec-
ton of delegates to the Lecompton Conven-'
ton, are equally desirous that the Territory
| should pass fro its present condition, Ad-
mission into the Union is demanded in some
, form by the entire population of Kansas; the
! Territory itself is convulsed, while the whole
| country Is IN the throes of labor with the un-
| natural double presentation.-If there could
! be such thing as a Cesaran operation IN the
birth of States Kansas affords striking in
stance of It's legitimate application.
! The mere act of admission then is not OBJ
! iectionablc to any portion of the people of
! Kansas Considered alone, it has given no
/ ground of omplaint The objection is not
/ to becoming a State, but to becoming State
/ with the Lecompton Constitution,
/ The first position assumed against this Con-
/ sttution is one purely technical, destitute of
( foundation either in precedent or reason. 1t
/ is that no enabling act was passed by Con-
! gress to authorise the people of Kansas to
! form a Constitution and State government.
/ Suppose for a moment the objection to have
! any force, whose fault is it that no enabling z
act was passed? In June, 1886, the United
| States Senate, by a Democratic majority,
passed such an enabling bill for the purpose
of settling all the disputes which had affected
the unhappy Territory, and of giving peace
to the country twas fair in its provisions.
| 1t was opposed by the entire Republican force
in the body in which it originated, and never
received the sanction of the House of Repre-
sentatives, where our opponents had deci-
sive majority. On the contrary. their favor
I ite project was the admission of Kansas with
| the Topeka Constitution, adopted without an
enabling act without the sanction of the Ter
ritorial Legislature, and which had been sent
up, and is still maintained, in armed hostili-
ty to the government established by Congress.
| 1t lily becomes the opponents, then, to make
the want Of an enabling act ground of OBJ
/ lection to the Constitution now presented.
But while we may safely say that the Re-
publican party are stopped by their own act
from setting up this objection. however valid
| it has been most conclusiyely established that
no such preliminary measure is necessary to
! give validity to the formation of State Con-
stitution, nor TO justify the admission of a
! State. On this point need do no more than
refer to the message of the President, and to
the admirable speech and report OF Mr.
! Green, Of Missouri. That distinguished Sen
ator has shown, by reference to the admis-
sion of Kentucky, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine
Arkansas, Michigan, Texas, Florida, Iowa,
and California, that for a majority of the
! States admitted into the Union since adoption
| of the Constitution, no enabling act was ever
passed. What does this formidable array OF
precedents show, when taken in connection
with the fact that in the case of eight other
| States, enabling acts have been passed? 1t
establishes this proposition. that an enabling
act is proper as matter of form, but by no
means essential to give validity to State gov
ernment. 1t shows that Congress is the ac-
/ coucher-not the parent of infant Constitu-
! tions.
And is this not equally sound in reason?-
What is the object of an enabling act? It rs
to give an opportunity for the proper syste-
! matte operation Of the inhabitants of terri
| tory in an act which eventually concerns their
! future welfare. 1t Is to give due notice of
| the time, and place, and conditions ofthe G.
lection cfdelegates to form constitution. 1t
is to impose legal obligation on the persons
conducting such election, and place safe
guards on the faithful performance of their
trust. 1t is to prevent the confusion almost
necessarily incident, especially in a time OF
fei ce party conflict, to any effort on the part
of the people scattered over vast extent OF
territory with slight facilities of communiea-
tioni to act in concert without legal and au-