Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1858-03-04


admits that the term people" as here used,
means what it says, the people themselves in
their sovereign capacity (aS cOntTadistinguished
from conventions) in voting for or against the
ratification of a State Constitution. But he
says the term domestic institutions, in the
plural, means only one institution, namely, that
of Slavery. But the terms ''TnEIR domestic in
situations" most clearly include them ALL be-
cause extending in words and letter to all the
Territories of the Union, whether bond or free.
The President regards this Kansas and Nebraska
bill as an enabling act, but enabling whom, or
what, or how? Why enabling the people TO form
and regulate their domestic institutions through
a State Constitution. The word 'Jora" is here
significant Who ever spoke of forming the in
stitution of Slavery! This word most clearly
implies the forming of State Constitution and
If it does not mean this, it is not enabling act,
for that is the great object and purpose of such
an act These words, then, do enable the peO-
pie to frame State Constitution, and by which
alone they shall form and regulate their institu-
tions; and the President comedies that the
word ''people" as here used, means, as it says,
the people themselves, as conStradiStinguished
from Convention, by direct vote for ratification
or rejection. This, then, being an enabling act,
an act as construed by the President, enabling
the peoll to frame their own Constitution, this
term, the people, cannot have two interPreta-
tons one meaning the people themselves, and
another also, rs the President insists COnven-
Il
but one Specification, as applicable to all their
domestic institutions, and it never lie inter-
preted to mean, as the President would cOnstrue
ii, in what he calls an enabling act, the people,
so far regards the question of Slavery, and
Conventions only, regards all other subjects.
No; this great act, decaratory upon its very face
was intended to recognize the lgth of seifgOv-
eminent in its broadeSt and most comprehensive
sense, as vested i'll the people themselves, ex-
tending to all their domestic institutions in rat
| flying rejecting their State Constitutions,
whose provisions could only be known and act
ed on by them when submitted for their decision
/ by the Convention. And thus it was that the
Kansas and Nebraska bill was a recognition of
that great fundamental principle of public liber-
ty, embodied in the Federal Constitution, re-
serving all sovereignty to the people of the sew
eral States admitted or InchOatc, and not as
vested in Conventions who possess sover-
eiguty (Which cannot be delegated or divided),
but arc servants of the people only and not their
masters
Such is the true meaning of tho term people
in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, as now and
always advocated by its distinguished author.
Such was the Interpretation given to this act
by both Houses of Congress in the Minnesota
act (Which is but supplemental and in execution
of the Kansas and Nebraska hill,) in requiring
the Constitution itself to be submitted for rati-
fcation or rejection, TO the vote of the people
And why should this odious distinction be
made between Kansas and Minnesota? Why
should the people of the latter be permitted to
vote for or against the ratification of their
State Constitution, and this great sovereign and
constitutional right be withheld from the pco-
pie of Kansas? Is the one sovereign and the
other subject State? Where are We and in
what direction are we drifting? Are we upon
the banks of the Bosphorus or Danube, or upon
soil consecrated to popular sovereignty by the
| blood of the Revolution? Is it Executive edicts
or sovereign rights that constitute the liberties
Of our country! Are we free men ''who know
| our rights, and knowing dare maintain" or
are we vassals, Serfs, or slaves, palace slaves,
that will cringe or change at the stamp of the
foot of master? Is it the people and the
States, MS represented in the Senate and House
of Representatives, who are to record their
votes as indicated by their unbiased judgment;
or are they merely to register Executive edicts,
under penalties for refusal of denLnciatiOn and
prescription? Is the President the master or
the servant of the people, that he should thus
dictate to them their representative, under
threats of exclusion from the party of their
choice? Is Democracy name and shadow,
or substance? 1t means the TOU0er Of the pe0-
| pie. This is its vital essence. Or has it lost
its true ignification, or are moving from it
with viewlesS but rapid strides toward dcspOtic
power, TO make and unmake the rules of pOliti
cal faith under pains and penalties abhorrent to
the souls offreemen? Is this the eighty-secOnd
year of our independence, or is it the first year
of american Monarchy, that is dawning
Let the peOple-let the masses composing the
true Democracy-ar from their Slumbers.
Let them break the chains which would fetter
their free thought and free opinion, and assert
their blood-bought rights, and especially the
great indeienSble sovereign right of self govern
memt
! We have fallen upon evil times; the liberties
OF the country are in danger. Let the people in
every town, county and State, rise in their ma
IJeSty to the rescue Let the timid or corrupt
taltcr as they may; let the Democracy of India
ma, now in mass meeting assembled, proclaim,
in togues that shall echo throughout our Repub.
lie, that the spirit of the Revolution is not ex
tinct in their bOsoms but that from the lakes
of the North to the lovely valleys of the Wabash
and Ohio, you, the Democracy of Indiana, will
stand, as one undaunted column, by the great
principle OF popular sovereignty, SUSTAINED by
them at the polls in 1856, as embodied in the
submission of the Constitution for ratification
or rejection by the unfettered vote of the people
of Kansas and of >very other Territory.
| Thanking you for the kind manner in which
the committee, through you. have been pleased
to speak of my humble services in behalf of the
great Democratic doctrines Of state opd