Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-04-16


fraud. and illegality Of any kind, it If incon-
ceivable how fair men can raise an objection
to it.
In pursuance of this law the enumeration |
of the inhabitants. and registry of the voters |
were taken, as far az practicable. The voters |
registered numbered 925l, falling but little |
short of the largest vote, up to that time, ever !
cast in the Territory. The apportionmentw was |
made by the acting government and on the |
Sd of June, 1857, in pursuance of the law. |
the election Of delegates took place. The con- |
vention assembled at | ecomptOn, on the first |
Monday Of September 1851, l believe and
the constitution now before us is the result of
its labor.
Upon the face of the record all is fair: and
the question recurs, shall Kansas be admitted
as a STATE, under this constitution?
1t is opposed by some gentlemen first: be-
cause there was not an enabling act passed by
Congress while others as strongly opposed,
take the ground that an enabling act was not
necessary. l apprehend the grounds of the
opinion Of both classes, are alike inconsistent
with the right of admission under the Lecomp-
ton constitution.
hold that the act of the Territorial Legis-
lature, authorizing the election of delegates
and the holding Of convention, based as 1t
was upon the previously expressed will OF the
peopl in pursuance OF law. was the only
enabling act necessary. in addition to the or
y,
an enabling act.
To legisatc slavery into any Territory State, TO
exclude it therefrem but 10 leave the people thereof
perfectly free To form and regulate their domestic in
sttutons in their own way subject only TO the Const
tuition OF the United States. "
This provision, as have already intimated,
| did not authorize the people of the territory.
while in their Territorial pupilage, to decide
upon the question of slavery. Congress has
! no power itself, to establish or prohibit slavery
| in the Territories or elsewhere, as has be n
| d 'cded by the Supreme Court; and. this was
| the broad foundation on which rested the re-
! peal of the Missouri restriction of slavery
| north of SO , 30. Not possessing the power.
| of course Congress could not confer IT else
! where.
! 1t was not necessary to incorporate the pro-
! vision quot, d, in the organic act, merely TO
| authorize the people of the Territory to es-
tablish or prob bit slavery when they came TO
act in their sovereign capacity, as when franz
| ing a State constitution. The right exists as
| an attribute of sovereignty; was not. by the
! Constitution, conferred on Congress, and was
! therefore reserved to the States, respectively,
or TO the people"
| But there was motive, an object to be ac-
! complishcd by this provision of the act and
it doubtless was. to enable the people Of the
| Territory, after the period had arrived at
| which they could cOnstitutiOnally act, in their
| own time and manner. either by the employ
| ment of a convention chosen by themselves.
or by popular vote, TO decide the question of
| slavery for themselves, without the necessity
4 of further Congressional action. How could
they be ."petectlY free TO form and regulate their
domestic Institutions Their ray, subject OHLV
10 he Constitution Of the United .Statesn il it was
! necessary for Congress to pass subsequent act
| to enable them to do it? If the right rested
with Congress, why should it not prescribe the
mode as well as the time? Then one or both
might not accord with their wishes and, be-
ing thereby restrained. they would not be
"pettctly free 10 farm and regulate heiT domestic
institutions an their OlR VGy."
| might refer TO the opinions of distinguish
ed gentlemen. whose peculiar positions at the
time they were expressed. and the relations in
| which they now stand to this subject give
! them unusual point and force. | refer TO the
opinions of Senator Douglas. in his Spring
field speech. of the 18th of June, 1857; and to
the speeches Of Governor Walker and Sycrc-
tary Stanton, 10 the people of Kansas, pend
ing the election of delegates to the cOnven-
ton, in which they all hold that no other ena-
bling act was necessary.
\ majority of the House of Representa-
tives of the 3ith Congress in which RCpubli-
can members were in the asccudaucy, and
many of whom are members of the present
House. did not consider an enabling act by
! Congress necessary IN regard 10 Kansas. The
Toombs bill. carefully prepared. fair and just
in its provisions, authorizing Kansas TO form
n constitution, passed by the Senate ly a
large majority. was lost in the House by the
votes of tae Republican party. IL will be
remembered they then had fIvOrite bant-
ling, known as the Topeka constitution,
framed by convention gotten up without
any law, in opposition to, and in defiance OF
ali lawful authority, and revolutionary in its
Il ,.Is.- -
Ia bring Kansas into the Union as Il sovereign
State. No enabling act was then necessary in
their opinion.
When the territorial act of July 1873, au-
thorlZiug the holding II convention, reached
the 3ith Congress. then in session. and its
fair, just and wise provisions were seen, but
few regrets were rnt rtaiucl in either House,
for the failure of the TOumhs bill; and DOUBTS
were no longer entertained. that in due sea-
son the people of Kansas would form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, in accordance with the strctost
fidelity to the organic act and the Con>titu-
ton Of the United States The late, and the
existing administrations recognized the gal
ity Of the proceeding; and | believe may
say. Il, rc was general acquiescance in all
the apartments Of the Government
Ii mas, in fact, never been considered an
, Indispensable or necessary preliminary in any
case that Congress should pass an enabling
act, though II has some times been done Al
: least half of the States admitted since the
adoption of the Federal Constitution have
come in without an enabling act, my own
State (Teunessec) amongst them; her only
authority for the formation of IL constitution
having been derived from an act of her Ter
ritorial Legislature. But 10, bear to sp city
examples, though they are numerous, and dis
miss this objection.
A second objection is. that large portion
of the fire. State voters were disirauChis, d aud
not allow, Il to vote for delegates to the con
vrnt.ou; that the arrangements for a registry
of the votes were inad, quate 10 the end, OF
that the officers failed to discharge their duty
through negligence, fraud, or some other
cause; and not having been registered they
were prevented from voting.
The law under which the registry made
d-signat, Il competent officers in each county
with power to appoint deputies udder them,
aud allowed one month To perform the duty,
! at the end of which time they were To file
lists in the offices of the probate Judges OF
their resp ,ctive counties. Copies OF the lists
were To be posted IN public places for the in
up elton of all; and one month more was al
! lowed for the correction Of errors. ly str kin 2
oil any names which should be proved Ia
have been improperly rcturnCd, and adding
any which should appear to have been improp-
erly omitted. Here was ample time and OPP
portuHiy for full Justice ia the pr misses. TIE
number registered, 9. L5l. could not have fal-
len very far short, OF all tbe legal votes Ia
the T,rritory. II the election for State OH
GERS in Octon-r 1851, which was warmly con-
testtd and hroGght out the largest vote ever
pollcd there up TO that time, aud which IL b.
lieSed To have exhibited utar, il not quit. the
full strength Of the votin-. population, may
be Regarded as a correct criterion, il may be
safely estimated that not eNeeCdlas = OOU 10
! Xaf..s y,-fst.s omitted r,.lf.f-,.
IL appears from authentic sources official
! docuulrnts-aud in fact | believe il il not d.