Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-18


FIFTEEN.
ICONCLUDED.1
AS before stated, the Lecompton conven-
ton did submit the slavery question TO a pop
ular vote. This was a matter entirely discre-
tionary with themselves. In doing it, they were
doubtless actuated by the most patriotic mo-
tives. This was the origin of all the strife in
the Territory. This was the sabjcct which
Mr.. Stanton had stated with so much conf
dence would e m some Iody' be submitted TO II
direct vote of the people. On the submission
every bona tide citizen in the Territory entitled
to the elective franchise had full and perfect
right to vote upon it. III any abstaincd from
voting the fault was their own. They have
no Just cause to complain of Congress for al
hitting the State under a constitution with Il
clause which they do not like when they had
2 fair opportunity to vote it down, if they re-
ally have, as they pretend, majority i'll the
Territory The official vote on the ratlca-
tion, when so submitted, will he seen by
exhibit No. 6, was as follows:
institution with slavery & ,226
Constitution without slavery .5o9
Making an aggregate of 6,795 voting on the
question, and Il majority of 1861 for the con
sttution as now presented. This Is certainly
very large majority Of those joining in the
election, if not a majority of all the voters III
the Territory in favor of the constitution as it
doctrine of Gov. Walker, i'll his inaugural
address, 90 those who abstain from the exercise
of the right of suffrage authorized those vino
did vote To act for them, and the abscntceS are
as much bound under the law a if all had
participated in the election" II this view be
correct, then no constitution ever came up
with tronger-endorsementb by popular vote,
and every objection to its validity on the
ground of its wanting even this sanction il
utterly without foundation.
Another objection of the same class is that
no enabling act was passed by Congress, or,
in other words that the legislature of Kansas
did not have the legal right To call the con
vention that formed the constitution. This
objection is equally untenable both on prin-
ciple and authority. The power to call "a
convention TO form State constitution is
clearly within the "righital subjects" of legis-
lation granted in the organic act But even
without that the prccedents are numerous
where conventions have been called without
such u grant. Ont OF the eighteen new States
heretofore admitted nearly half of them have
come in under constitutions formed without
any direct authority of Congress. Amongst
these may be named Tennessee, Michigan.
Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, FLORIDA,
and California. In addition to this, ii may be
added that the most prominent of those who
now urge this objection are estopped by their
own declarations and admissions. Governor
Walker, for instance, in his inaugural address
in relation to the right Of us teTTtor'ai legislature
TO call convention, uses this language:
"But II is said that the convention not legally
called and that the election Will not be freely aud
fairly conducted. The territorial legislature - the
power ordained for this purpose by the Congress Of
the United States and IN opposing II you resist Inc AL
thority Of the general government
And again he says:
This territorial leg stature theu assembling this
convention, were fully sustained by the act Of Con
gress."
Mr.. Stanton expresses similar sentiments in
that part of his inaugural address before quo
ted Judge Douglas, in his Springfield
speech, also quoted, does not intimate. thai he
then thought there was any necessity for au
enabling act. Moreover, his position on the
admission of California Is well known. In
that case a constitution had been sent up
formed by q convention called together with
out the slightest pretext Of legal authority,
either from Congress or any territorial orgall-
ization. A proclamation OF a military com
mander was the sole foundation for 10, and yet
upon that occasion Judge Douglas SAID:
II hold that the pcopic Of California h,d right to
do what they have dole, yea, they s a moral ioIt
ical, and legal right To do all they have done"
How any person could maintain the legsli |
ty of the proceedings in the California case |
and deny them in Kansas, or hold that IA ell |
abling act by Congress was necessary in the |
Kansas case, when it was not necessary in |
California, Is incompre hensible to this COM |
mittee. They DISMISS this point without fur |
ther remark.
But otner objections Of different class and |
character have been started. These relate Ia 1
the fairness Of the election of delegates Go the /
convention. On this head II Is /
said that quite "A number OF counties, 10 IN
all, making more than half Of the counties In |
the Territory, were DISTINGUISHED 10y The Law
Of the 18th Feb v. 1851, and were wholly ul-
In the convention. BY the st~sdtes /
Of Kansas, as all can see by refereHc th'r.
are 81 counties laid Out with names ana
In the Territory. Three Of these
to wit: Washington, Clay and Dickinson