The Placer herald., 1858-05-01
Sd. Whether the Constitution presented be re-

| That point seems to be conceded on all sides-
Upon the point of legality and regularity no
question can arise. No State ever before apply
ing exhibited greater regularity in her proceed
| ings. On this point there can be no doubt. The
only other one, as to the republican form of the
constitution-that, too, seems to be equally clear
and beyond cavil or dispute.
What are the objections to the recognition of
the constitution, and the admission of the State
under it? These, it is true, arise mostly on mat
| ters outside of the record. But the committee
propose briefly to notice them in connection with
some seemingly founded on the face of the record
ITSELF
The first of the latter class is that urged by
Governor Walker. The main ground of his op-
position is the fact that the entire constitution
has not been submitted for ratification to pOpu-
lar vote. This objection rests upon the assump-
ton that the validity of every constitution form
ed for the government of any people depends
upon its having received such sanction. His
argument, in his own words, rests upon the "prin-
cple that sovereignty is vested exclusively in the
people of each State, and that it performs its first
and highest function in forming a State govern
ment and State constitution. This highest act of
sovereignty, in my judgment, can only be per-
formed by the people themselves, and cannot be
delegated to conventions or other intermediate
bodies.''
That sovereignty is vested exclusively in the
people of each State, and that it performs its
government and State constitution may be grant
ed. But that this first act of sovereignty in making
a constitution can only be performed by the peo-
pie themselves, and that the power to perform it
cannot be delegated to conventions or intermcdi-
ate bodies, is not granted. Such a doctrine is
not only novel but utterly at war with all our
past history. In support of it Gov Walker cites
no authority but his own He announces it as the
conviction of his individual judgment, and the
only authority he refers to to sustain it is that
of previous speeches made by himself, in which
he had expressed the same opinion But the posi-
tion cannot be maintained, either on principle or
any recognized authority. Reason is against it,
and so is precedent When it is admitted that
sovereignty ''rcsides with the people," and that
it is "inalienable," it does not follow that the
right 10 exercise and execute sovereign powers
cannot be delegated by them to others. If that
were so there could be such thing as repre-
sentative government. No law could be passed
except by the people en- masse. This would up
root and Overturn all our systems. 1t is the very
essence of sovereignty that it may act by itself
by any other it may choose to appoint. The
enactment of all laws and the execution of them
require the exercise of sovereign power as neccs-
sarily as the formation of a constitution. A con-
stituton is but law. 1t establishes the modes
or channels through which the sovereignty Of the
people is to be exercised. not 'in propriis per-
sOnis," but by chosen representatives. The for
nation Of such organic law cannot be said to be
the hi hest act or function of sovereignty. There
can he no higher act of sovereignty than the de-
claration of war; for this may put in jeopardy
The existence Of sovereignty itself; and yet in
representative system this is left, not to the
people themselves, but TO their representatives.
Hence thou Oh it be true that the formation of IA
State constitution is the ''first function OF sovcr
eighty" it docs not follow that this may not be
performed by representatives chosen ana clothed
with full power to act for the people in this mat
ter as well as in all others requiring the exercise
of sovereign power.
Logically considered, there is no more reason
why the people cannot make constitution by
others clothed with full power to do so than that
they can in this way put not only their political,
but their individual, existence in hazard upon the
fortunes of war. The formation of constitu-
ton requires, it is true, the exercise of sovereign
power and so docs the cOmmOnest act OF leglsa-
tiOn. If the power to do one be exercised by an
agent or representative, so can the other; and
such has been the uniform understanding in this
country from the beginning of our history. The
Constitution of the United States was not ratified
by popular vote. In all the States it was adopt
ed by conventions chosen by the people and cloth
ed with full powers to act for them. In its pro-
vision for its own amendment it does not contem-
plate any ratification by the people through a
popular vote to give validity to any such amend
ment Such amendments are to be acted upon by
the State Legislatures. In all the old States
with one exception their first constitutions were
formed and put into operation through the "in-
termedate body" of convention. Massachu-
sctts alone submitted hers to popular vote. The
Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, the
native State of Gov Walker, that under which he
was born and reared, and under which that great
and prosperous Commonwealth has grown up and
attained her present high eminence in wealth.
power and renown, derived all its sanction by the
people through their representatives in conven-
tion. The same is true of Mississippi, his once
,%oI avid ,cf Of IorIty
of the States of this Union. If Gov Walkers
Judgment in this particular be light then all these
constitutions are necessarily invalid, null, and
void; and we have neither constitutions nor laws
in more than half of the States of the Union.-
This doctrine is as preposterous as it is monstrous
Its bare statement is enough to consgn 1t to
general retribution and condemnation. The uni
form course of our past history has been, when
new State applies for admission, to see that the
sovereignty of the people has spoken through
it's legally y-constituted organs. The question of
submitting their constitution to popular vote
or not is one for the people, and those whom they
clothe with power to determine this question, as
we'll as others, for them. In the case of Kansas,
in the first act appended to this report, exhibit l,
it was provided to take the sense of the people
upon the question of providing by law for the
calling of a convention to form constitution,
and by laac to define the powers or duties OF the
convention. This will be seen by the section (6)
| or tne act. Inc vote was allnosI ullalIous loi
the Legislature so to call convention and to de-
fine itslduties But few votes were cast against
it. This, apart from the statement of Mr.. Cal
houn, appears from public documents accessible
to all. The Legislature did call convention
They could have required them to submit their
work to the people. This was matter for their
own discussion; but this they did not do This
convention was elected with unlimited and plena
ry powers. That such a convention could be SC
clothed no one can doubt who is acquainted with
the history of similar bodies. They, therefore
had full power at their own discretion to submit
the whole constitution formed by them, or any
part or no part of it, just as they pleased, for
ratification. This the people well understood be-
fore the election of delegates. This Gov. Walker
virtually told them himself. In his inaugural
address he says:
'The people of Kansas, then, are invited by
the highest authority known to the Constitution
to participate freely and fairly in the election o.