The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1858-04-16
VOL. l, NO. 81.

legally elected, then the constitution under
watch they were elected is legal instrument.
The next question for discussion is, was the
Lecompton convention bound by law, prece-
dent, or otherwise, 10 submit the constitution
there framed TO vote ofthe people for adoption
or reectiona
l confess that would have preferred sub
mission ofthat constitution altogether 10 vote
OF the qualified citizens. / have every reason
TO believe that the President desired that sub
mission and we all know that Governor
Walker preferred it. But, let me ask, what
has my preference to do with the question ?--
What had the desire of the President or of Gov
ernor Walker to 90 with it Just nothing at
all. The convention was independent of all
control, let it be assumed by high or low. Cow
ernor Walker says to the people of Kansas
'.You should not console yourselves, my fellow
citizens, with the reflection that you may by sub
sequent vote, defeat the ratification of the constitu-
ton Although most anxious 10 secure TO you the
exercise OF that great constitutional right and be-
!ieying that the constitution is the and not
the master OF the people, yet have power TO die
tate the proceedings of that body.''
Governor Walker was right. He bad not,
nor had any other human being outside of the
convention, the power to dictate what its pro-
ceedngs should be.
Was there any law requiring the convention
to submit the constitution &c vote of the peo-
ple2 Ifthere was, I have failed in my search
for it.
The territorial act, under the authority of
which the convention assembled, is in the words
following
'The delegates thus elected ITO the conventionI
shall assemble in convention at the capital of said
Territory on the first Monday Of September next,
and shall proceed form its constitution and State
government, which shall be republican in its form,
tor admission into the Union, on an equal footing
with the original States in all respects whatever, by
the name of the State of Kansas.''
II will be observed that there is not one word,
either in the organic law organizing the Terri
tory, or in the territorial act calling the con-
vention, requiring submission of the consttu-
tion to a vote OF the people, before it should
become binding on them as the fundamental
law of the State. BY what law, then, was its
submission required BY no law whatever.
Indeed, it is but fair TO argue that the people
of Kansas were opposed 10 the submission, for
the reason that the act which was passed, calling
the convention, was vetoed by the Governor
because il did not require the convention 10 sub
nit the constitution to a vote ofthe people, and
II was afterwards passed, over the veto of the
Governor, BY vote of two thirds of the mem
hers oIthe Legislature. II The nelnbssrs ofthu
Legislature represented the views of their con-
s,ituents, and it is generally supposed that leg
Slators do so, the enactment of a law under
such circumstances would be strong evidence
10 prove that the people were averse 10 sub
mission OF the constitution, for adoption or re-
Jection, 10 vote OF the citizens.
Did precedent require submission of that
constitution TO vote OF the people of Kansas
Not one of the original States ofthis Union had
to vote of the people its constitution
before entering INTO the Union. Not one half
OF the remaining States which have entered the
Unlon since, had their constitution submitted
before they were admitted. Two thirds. at
least, of all our States entered the Union with
out submission of their constitutions. Are all
bese constitutions invalid because they were
not submitted 10 vote of the citizens. Who
will dare assert such an absurdity wish not
o be understood as opposing a Submission of
State constitutions 10 vote. ! am in favor of
I. But | assert here that a constitution is valid
Gd binding without it and when the law cal
ing convention to frame or alter a constitu-
ion does not require such submission, the con-
'ention is not bound to submit it.
The last subject TO which | shall direct the
ttenion fthe House, is the question so much
here and elsewhere that is, wheth-,
r or not the people OF Kansas can alter, amend,
hange, or abolish the Lecompton constitution
t any time they may see proper SO TO do2
l hold the doctrine, Mr.. Chairman, that If
Kansas is admitted into the Union under the
.ecompton constitution, the qualified citizens
I that State can alter, amend or abolish that
onstltution whenever they proper / am
1rther of the opinion that the citizens Of State
nay change their constitutions in any otherway
han that prescribed in the constitution itself;
nd that if they do, it will be binding upon the
eople OF the State until it is changed again.
n this opinion am at least sustained by pre-
edeni, and ! think by common sense. The
eople of the State of Maryland are at this hour
orerned by constitution framed and adopted
difereat time, and in a different mode,
rom that prescribed in the constitution chang
The constitution of;hat State provided as fol-
)ws :
''That this form of government and the declara-
on of rights, and part thereof, shall be altered
hanged, or abolished, unless bill so as 10 alter
hange or abolish the same, shall pass the General
ssemby and be published at least three months be-
IRE new election, and shall be confirmed by the
enefal Assembly after new election of delegates
the first session after such new electon.'
1t will be observed that this provides that two :.
onscecutive Legislatures shall approve the law Y
rovdng for the alteration of the constitution.
he Legislature at single session passed an act
the people 10 decide by vote
thether convention should be called to amend
be constitution. The people decided that
should be called the convention
ssembled amended The constitution the a.
lended constitution was adopted by the people;
nd they are now living under, and observing
5 valid and binding, its provisions. Who dare