The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1858-04-01


you i5 that it is an instrument signify
ing their will and declaring chat general
and permanent law upon which they
wish their government 10 be founded2-
Unless you shut your eyes to the vote
taken on the 4th of January, here is a
direct popular evidence and protest
against the Constitution; and even sup
posing the whole of the 5000 votes
which we're given for il on the Dist Of
December to be true and real votes,
fairly expressed, it shows that there
we're 10000 other people in the Terri
tory Of Kansas who are opposed to this
instrument, aud who have legitimately
declared their opposition. Here is the
solemn act of the Legislature Of the
Territory protesting against it.. These
are recorded evidences, as much so as
che Constitution itself is q record, hav-
ing the same legal sanctions and the
same legal title to our faith and our
confidence. How are you, in law, to
make any difference between these tes-
timonials; to say that you will give ef-
feet to one and will reject the other;
chat you will give effect to that which
testifes for the minority of the people
and will reject that which testifes for
the majority of the people; that you
will accept that which was first given,
and reject the last expressions Of the
popular will2
It is these last expressions of the
popular will that ought to govern on
every principle, just as much as that a
former law must yield to q subsequent
law in any point Of conflict between
them. The last evidence, then, is the
vote of the people on the 4th Of Jan.
uary, of 10000 against it; and the evi
dence nearly cotempoaneous with that
is the resolutions Of the Legislature of
Kansas, protesting and imploring yot
not to accept this instrument, that i
is a fraud and imposition upon them
, I want to know why it is that thi
evidence is not entitled to our consid
Grafton and to have effect2 The Presi
dent, itseems to me, has given us amos
D unsatisfactory reason The Prcsiden
says that in recommending the adop
? ton of this Constitution to us, as i'm
piled in the admission of the State, h
f has not overlooked the vote of 10, OO
c against the Constitution given upon tn
S 4th of January; he has considered i
10 but he holds it, and he holds the la,
c of the Territorial Legislature unde
G which that vote was taken, to be mer
o nullities. Why2 The law was passe
n by the regularly elected Legislature o
n the Territory providing that vot
should be taken on that day, and VIII
J.. not? Is there anything in the organi
n law, is there anything anywhere tho
f forbids it-that more torbids it than tn
It passage of the act for calling a conver
1t tion bp previous Legislature?
j. THE COURSE OF THE PRESIDENT RI
e VIEWED.
70 The President had anticipated thi
j. the Constitution itself, in whole, and NJ
II in part, was to be submitted to the pct
% pie. The Governor had so contemplj
e ted, and so ASSURED and promised Il
f people. The President regrets that
l. was only submitted in part He regre
that the entire Constitution was not sui
mitted. Though he accepts as an equi
alent the partial submission, he regre
- that it was not submitted as a whole
~ The Territorial Legislature, after Il
4 Constitution was published, immediat
=, ly afterwards passed a law to have a vo
~ taken upon the entire Constitutio
. which the President had preferred, az
=, which Mr. Walker, the Governor, h,
y preferred. What do they do but carr
~ out and act in perfect accordance wi
n the wishes and opinions of the Pres
W dent and Governor? And yet the Pre-
70 ident, who was for a general submissio
,t and would have preferred it, says Il
20 act Of the Legislature in accordan
!, with his opinion, is mere nullity.,
E Why? Because he says, by the previo
fs acts of the people and of the Territ
a rial Government the Territory was
II far prepared for admission into the U
. ion as a State. That is the reason. ]
70 gives no application Of it but announC
~ as a reason that it was so far prepar
80 because the Constitution had been mac
- ready to be offered to Congress, thou
- that Constitution had not yet been su
M mitted to the people when this law W
II passed. That was her condition; I'll
/, was the preparation she had made.
ne The only preparation was, that und
70 the authority Of a previous Territor
h Legislature, a Convention had been he
.is and a Constitution made and publisht
IOWA AND KANSAS COMPARED.
,f In my Judgment we have a precede
~ on our books which shows am right
- this view, in the case of Iowa. She p
On sented herself here with a CONSTITUTE,
r. and asked for admission according
'ot the boundaries which she had assum
of and declared in that Constitution. ca
IN gress admitted her, but admitted
is. conditionally only, Congress object
on to the boundary. 1t included port
Of territory which Congress thous
be properly belonged to the State of NJ
an souri,. 1t admitted her, however, as
.n State conditionally; on condition d
~ she should hold another Convention q
,,Pot assent to the new boundary that G,
he gress prescribed; and upon that asst
bo being thus given, the President was
In proclaim it, and without further proce
,st ing, she was afterwards to bo a State
.Lo the Union. What did the people
,ot Iowa do? Did they proceed accord
,os TO this act Of Congress and call @
nv veuton simply for the purpose as