The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-03-11

tuc III Ws ulu CoIStttuttou Va VIC Y hi-
ted States. The Governor says:
"The Convention which framed
the Topeka Constitution originated
with the people of Kansas Territory.
They have adopted and ratified the
same twice by u direct vote, also in.
directly through two elections for
State officers and members Of the
State Legislature; yet 1t has pleased
the Administration to regard the
whole proceeding as revolutionary"
This Topeka Government, adhered
to with such reasonable pertinacity,
is Government in direct opposition
to The existing Government prcscrib-
ed and recognized by Congress.
1t is usurpation of the same char.
acter as it would be for portion of
the people Of any State to undertake
to establish a separate government
within it's limits for the purpose Of
redrcssing any grievance, real or i'm.
aginary, of which they might COM
plain against the legitimate State
Government. Such u principle, il
carried into execution, would destroy
all lawful authority and produce un.
iversal anarchy. From this state
ment Of facts, the reason becomes
palpable why the enemies Of the GO
vernment authorized by Congress
have refused 10 vote for the delegates
to the Kansas Constitutional Convcn.
ton, and also afterward, on the
question of slavery submitted by it
TO the people. 1t is because they
have ever refused to sanction or re.
cognize any other constitution than
that framed at Topeka. Had the
whole Lecompton Constitution been
submitted to the people, the adher-
ents Of this organization would
doubtless have voted against il, be-
cause, If successful, they would thus
have removed the obstacles out Of
the way Of their own revolutionary
constitution; they would have done
this. not upon the consideration Of
the merits Of the whole or part Of the
Lecompton Constitution, but simply
because they have ever resisted the
authority Of the government author
lied by Congress from which it ema.
mated.
Such being the unfortunate c0ndi.
tion Of affairs in the Territory, what
was the right "a well AZ the duty
Of the law-biding people. Were they
silently and patientlyto submit 10 the
Topeka usurpation, or TO adopt the
necessary measure to establish Con.
stitution under the authority of the
organic law Of Congress That this
law recognized the right Of the pco-
pie Of the Territory, without an en-
abling act of Congress. to form n
State Constitution il too clear
for argument. For Congress "to
leave the people of the Territory
perfectly free" in framing their Con
stitution, to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only TO the Consti.
tuition Of the United States and
then tO say that they shall not bc
permitted to proceed and frame
the Constitution in their own way,
without express authority from Con
gress, appears 10 be almost a con.
tradiction in terms. II would be much
more plausible 10 contend that Con.
gress had no power TO pass such an
enabling act, than to argue that the
people Of Territory must be- kept
out Of the Union for an indefinite
period, and until it might please
Congress ~ permit them " exercise
the right Of selfgovcrnment. This
would be - adopt, not their own
way, but the way which Congress
might prescribe. II is impossible
that any people could have proceeded
with more regularity in the founda-
ton Of Constitution than the peo-
pie Of Kansas have done. Ii was
necessary, first, 70 ascertain whether
it was the desire Of the people 10 be
relieved from Territorial dependence
and establish a State Government.
For this purpose the Territorial L.
gislature in 1855. passed law for
taking the sense u the people Of the
Territory upon the cxpediency Of
calling a Convention TO form State
Constitution at the general election
70 be held in October, 1856. The
sense of the people was accord
ingly taken, and they decided in IA
vor Of Constitution.
II 10 trns that At this election the