The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1858-03-24
Le1ier FROM Ienntor Pugh.

committee addressed note Of invitation to
Senator Pugh to be #esent and address the
meeting. The follow is the reply Of the dis
tinguished gentleman
WAsHISe b, Monday, March s.
GEyTLEMEN:- N:-Yo0ia iavor of the 18th ult,
requesting me to attet the Democratic meeting
at GAINESVILLE, to-morsF night, was duly recei-
we'd, and have to re ~ that my engagements
here are such as forb - compliance with the
invitation. 80
To profess my c6tjnued adherence to the
principles or the De cratic party, as declared
in the Cincinnati nlas fm, would seem to be al
most superhuonss the record of my votes
and speeches, ever fsiissp attained the estate Of
manhood, be not kHfdesent and even conclusive
in this regard it hardiy worth while to make
the least protesta ION. Ny hopes and my faith,
in all the future, d6eend on the success Of these
principles, and olfhe organization by which
they arc acknowledge
In the present cont4tversy relative to Kan
sas, believe that th@ opinions expressed by
Mr.. Buchanan in hisnesSage of February 2,
1858, are not only III strict accordance with
Democratic principle but that the opposition
to them in ourranks8fs based upon serious
and fundamental erra&
| am not one. OF thfse who insist that the o.
pinion Of the Presidsf on any subject should
be followed bIindly; III | will say that in my
humble judgment, wren Democratic Congress-
men diAer from a llemocratic Administration
they ought to be well assured ofthe correctness
Of their own positions and withal, to avoid e.
ven the Scmblance ot3indlctiveneSs or iacetous
opposition. For mysyaf (slnce the present Kan
sas controversy was Naugurated) | have felt it
due to Mr.. Buchanan# ITO his eminent station,
his public services h& great abilities and expe-
ricnce-due, likewiseto the sentiment of the
Democratic party of Ohio and of the United
StateS-So emphati cN3y expressed in November,
1856 that should Not endeayor in any degree
to forestAll the mind OF my constituents against
a candid, thorough, 1eliberate examination oI
whatever policy be night recommend.
1t is said, howeyer that the convention ofdel-
cgates assembled at A4ecOmpton should have SUBJ
mitted the whole constitution Of Kansas to vote
Of the people, directly, for approval or rejection,
and that the failure 10 do this, in the circum-
stances, amounted to breach orduty, and even
violation of written promises, on the part OIL
some or all of the delegates This may be so;
| I neither deny nor affirm the assertion:but do
affirm that it is no matter for the Congress o
the United States to decide, nor even to exam.
inc. Who authorized Congress to control the
local affairs of the State of Kansas; to dictate
| in what manner the constitution of that State
should be formed, approved or ratifed to inter
pose as a monitor, between the people of that
State and their delegates, lawfully chosen?-
Such interference in my opinion, would be un'
warrantable as well as unfortunate unforLu
nate for the peace OF Kansas, and doubly un.
fortunate for the peace Of the Union at large
1t would be to supercede, forever, the sover
eighty. the independence, the reserved right
Of the States, new and old, as guaranteed b,
the Constitution of the United States. II Con
gress could control to that extent the affairs o
a new State, why not control to the same ex
tent the affairs OF a State already admitted into
the Union? Are not the new States to be ad
mitted, let me ask, upon an equal footing will
the original States?
Those who differ with the President in re
spoct to the case Of Kansas mu It claim, as uni
versal principle, that Congress has the powe
(and ought to exercise it) ofrefusing the admis
sion of new State into the Union-upon con
; stitution regularly adopted by her convention
Of delegates, and republican in form-merel,
bacause the constitution was not ratified by
direct vote o. the people; and this although the
people, acting through de 'egates chosen by them
selves, have made no such reQuisition. II so
what will become of our own State of Ohio, a
well as the States Of Vermont, Kentucky, Ten
nessee, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois
: Alabama Missouri and Arkansas? All ofther
were admitted into the Union with constitu
tions never submitted to the people What vii
become of the thirteen original States? They
together, formed the Union, but none Of ther
u,,br &c constitution 0rt thn
ton of the United States, to vote Of the pco
pie. Congress never has required such a sub
mission, before this, in the case Of any nel
State--unless, indeed, some argument can b.
drawn from the enabling act' for Minnesota
February 2G, 1857. doubt whether five me
in Congress knew the bill contained such pro
vision Certainly, for one, | did not; suppose
( 1t similar to all other enabling acts. That bill
as it now stands, passed the House without hav
, ing been printed, under tie operation Of tn
previous question. 1t was debated afterward
in the Senate, with reference to the provsio
} for alien suffrage: but not syllable was uttered
t bel eve, as to any requirements that the cor
, stitution of Minnesota, when formed should b
submitted to the people. The case, Therefore
is not authoritative, since, aSsuredly, no prece
dent can conclude question not argued, nor eve
noticed, by those WHO decided it.
Indeed, gentlemen, the distinctive exce.lenc
of our Government in America has ever bee
9 their representatiue character. The people d
t not act directly. but through delegates, repre-
e sentatives, or other agents, chosen in due forI
: of law. This practise Of submitting constitl
: tons to the people, for approval or rejection,
entirely modern; it never occurred to Washing
: ton, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, or any
those great men who laid the foundation OF "poI
G ular sovereignty before the Kansas Nebrask
: Bill had been invented. The practice extende
@ at one time, much urther; and it was quite fasf
ionatle, when had the honor Of membership
n the Ohio Leg Stature, many years ago, to subm
: acts of legislation to the people. But the prat
t tce was found to be Objectionable, and becaus
! nobody could be made responsible for such legr
G laton Acce erlingly, our present constitution
: adopted in September, 1851 declares that II
S law, (exccpt in relation to common schools an
q banking companies) shall ever be submitted I
|. n popular vote. You are citizens Of a Stat
I therefore, which has, unequvocally, trodden tn
: new version Of popular sovereignty" unde
foot; and still your Senator's and Representative
E in Congress are instructed to compel its acceI
a tance by the State Of Kansas.
call this nep version, (at least that Cor
d gress can compel the States to form, adopt, Z
t ratify their constitutions or their laws in mar
s ner different from that which they have then
o selves provided | never heard of it, until Re
> bert j. Walker became Governor OF Kansi
I Territory; and will no more agree TO it. as or
! member Of tho Democratic party, than woul
j. vote for his celebrated bankrupt law This do,
trine is not to bc foundin the Kansas Nebrash
!, Bill. II ] had so understood iour years ago,
+ should have denounced the bill as warmly as
!, then supported it. My opinion was. and still
c that ia respect as well to the Territories as
the now States, we had an alternative betwee
Q apopular sovereignty" and Congressional dom
) na,ion-.the Black Republicans on the oae sit