The Placer herald., 1858-05-29
The Kansas Issue as il ia.

The Folsom Dispatch, an independent pa.
per, has the following able and Just article on
the temporary difference in the Democratic
party on the Kansas question:
"There seems to be determination on the
part of many, to either misunderstood or
misconstrue what the real issue is between
Senator Douglas and the Administration on
the Kansas policy. 1t is contended, by those
who denounce the policy of the President,
that he has departed from the doctrine Of
popular sovereignty as promulgated in the
Kansas Nebraska act, of 1854. This is a
mistake. The real question is shall the peo
pie, in mass, have popular vote on their
constitution, after it comes from the hands
of their representatives, the Lecompton dele
gates, or had those delegates certain legal
powers and rights by which to frame a
constitution, by virtue of their having
already been elected by popular vote.
If the Lecompton convention was legal
body at all, land we think the same reason
ing by which Senator Douglas once showed
that the Kansas Legislature was legal body,
will with stronger, reason, show it was, there
was as much popular sovereignty in their
framing and electing constitution, as the
peoples constitution, as there is in any leg
islative body making laws and, as they say.
forcing them upon the people. Suppose a
party should spring up, here in our State,
who should advocate that the laws passed by
the last session should first be submitted
to the people; the issue between that party
and their opponents would be similar to that
between the President and the Douglas par
ties. They could bring strong arguments to
bear. They could tell u.s. with truth, that if
the acts of 1858 were submitted to a vote,
many of them would be defeated. They
could tel us that there was, without doubt,
certain members who were elected by fraud,
and hence that the whole Legislature was
vitiated, as the anti .Lecompton men hold as
to the Lecompton convention. There would
of course, be heavy majority in the State
who would oppose the submission of the laws
to a popular vote, and the main argument
against it would lie just such as the Presi-
dent uses against the further submission Of
the Lecompton constitution. We should ar
que in favor of the laws of 1858 being the
laws of the State, without further submission,
and that we have no right to 90 beyond the
organization of the Legislature to inquire of
the legality of the election of its several
members. That though there might have
been certain members elected by fraud, and
though the people would reprdiate them if
they had to vote again, still, when they met
in the shape Of a lawmaking power, they
had a right to bind their constituents. We
should use the crowning argument of the
Prcsi lent, that the laws of 1850 should le-
main the laws the State without any
further submission. The figure we have
used may be said to be too strong, but we
will submit if we would not he able to obtain
a fairer vote in California. on the laws Of
1858, than the people Of Kansas can obtain
on any question. Now we may ask who
NAV be said to be most in favor of popular
so> ereignty, the party who says, elect your
representatives to make your laws, and when
made submit to them, or a party who declares,
when law does not suit them, that the
people have right to assemble, in mass,
aHd vote it down? This is clearly the dis
tincton between the Admin stration and
Douglas parties, on the Kansas issue. Some
might say the adoption of a State consitu
ton differs froul the adoption of a mere
State law. We have samples of State laws
being submitted to the people after their
passage, as we'll as Of constitutions being
adopted without submission, as was that Of
Kansas. There can be no distinction in prin-
cipe, according to our system of government.
Then where is the great difference in the
policy of the President and Senator Douglas,
that one must be called a Republican, and
the other impeached with departing from
the Kansas ebraska doctrine? The rule Of
submitting all new constitutions TO ratifi-
cation vote of the people is certainly right,
but it is not indispensable on the grounds of
nnnular soycreontY"