The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1858-11-06
LAWRENCE, KANSAS. NOVEMBER 6. 1853.

ohA OOGoChA va ehO OChoSOs Nv" "a "
does the acquisition of territory consist?
"A citizen of Kansas" says it sis moth
ing else than the extension of sovereignty
over it;' and with that position / shall
take issue. What can there be in the
exercise of supreme jurisdiction over
territory that is peculiarly desirable or
remuneratire to government, except what
lies in the right of landlord merely
What was there gained when the treas
ures of this nation were paid out like
water for the acquisition of Texas and the
Mexican States, if it was not that wide
and yerdant expanse Of. acres that would
in the future swell the treasury deposits?
Whatever authority the government de-
riyes over the territory thus acquired,
from the treaty-makiDg power, must be
rigidly within the purview of their dele
gated powers under the Constitution
Treaties can have no supremacy over the
acknowledged elements of international
law, or over the organic law of the nations
that become parties to the treaty. Atresty
then becomes limited contract. Ithas
been decided repeatedly, that because the
Constitution grants an und.fned power to
the President and the Senate, it should
not therefore be construed as an unlimited
power. foF- = +.
l present Mr.. Madison as authority on
this point, who said in closing a lengthy
debate upon the subject of treaties, in the
House of Representatives, in 1874, THAT,
though twas an underlined grant, it was
limited one, and that you could not, by
treaty, exercise any power which was
granted by the Constitution, to the other
departments of the government"
How was it with Texas? By the terms
of her annexation, what sovereignty did
our government secure over her people
beyond that exercised over South Carroll
ma? There was no enslavement, no con-
quest, no subjugation in that act on the
part of our government. As President
Polk is quoted for the opposite position,
he will be good authority in this instance.
In his first annual message, when referring
to the diplomatic interference of France in
the event of the annexation of Texas, he
said: 1--WE may rejoice that the tranquil
and pervading influence of the American
principle Of se!f-gousrnment was sufficient
to defeat the purposes of British and
French interference, and that the almost
unanimous voice of the people of Texas
| has given to that interference peaceful
and effective rebuke. From this example,
European governments may learn how
vain diplomatic acts and intrigues must
ever prove upon this continent against
that system of sslf-government which
seems SO natural to our soil, and which
will ever resist foreign interference"
That event, then, was an illustration of
the success and sanctity of popular sove-
reignty, and the only true sovereignty
remained, afterwards, as it was before,
only with the people, without any change
or reservation secured in the compact of
union. Neither do treaties usually dis
turb the local institutions, or municipal
regulations that previously exist with the
people of the district purchased or an
nexed, therefore it is difficult to draw any
valid argument against popular sovereign
ty from that provision in the Constitution
giving power to acquire territory, but not
to exercise supreme jurisdiction over it.
Again, in the article of October 21st, ii
is said that it is matter of regret that a
gentleman of Mr.. Thayer's ability [refer-
ring to Eli Thayers late speech, should
lend himself to such rude quackery. "He
] proposes that the Republican party shall
go with him in this direction. = We
must suppose that there are few men Of
+ influence in that party in favor of pro.
ceeding SO insane. But if it should
happen as Mr.. Thayer wishes-if that
gallant party should abandon the high
ground of Jefferson and Madison, to adop
an idea so repugnant to common sense, il
needs no prophetic inspiration to foreset
that it would very soon die out of exist.
ence," &c. ss eae zl --3
i Now, without assuming to retort fo
Mr.. Thayer upon "a Citizen" for the very
dignifed and courtly % style of his pro
nunciamento, where he says, "that if il
just possible that Mr.. Thayer does no
know what he breaches" leave tn,
public to judge for themselves of tn,
iRtelhgenes of the two gentlemen, anG
viii recur back again to an examina
4 ton of facts in our past history. 1
, is true that both Jefferson and Madison
J were among the ablest statesmen whit
lived at the period when our independence
was achieved, and the magma charta o
our liberties proclaimed to the world, art
Mr. Madison was member of the Con
vention that framed it The ground i
! taken, that because these gentlemen had
some agency in the construction of tn,
"Ordinance for the government of tn,
j territory Of the United States north-wes
Of the Ohio river" which was adopted b.
the Congress of the confederation on tn.
18th day ofrJply, 1857, therefore they
4 were forever in favor Of Congressional in
terventiOn in the territories. But an i'm
portant points overlooked here. The Con
stitatioa was not adopted BY the Philadel
4 phia Convention until the 18th of Sept o
the same year, and was not ratified by al
4 of the thirteen old States until nearly
threeyeau Afterwards. Underline articles
of confederation ratified July 8, 1878, the