Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1858-04-03


he people Of Kansas arc against the adop-
ion of this constitution. Here lies, in my
view the most plausible Of all the arguments
which have been urged against it. We
must remember that the very existence of
popular government itseafsequires that VIC
should take no evidence n regard to the
popular will save that which is presented
to the proper forms Of law. That
principle Is necessary to protect the right
81 self-goYernment in a representative sys-
tem: and | think | have shown you, sir,
that according to that evidence which has
been take n in conformity with the forms of
law this constitution is to be considered as
the valid act Of the people Of Kansas. But
put aside that for the present; and come
to this other argument, that whatever may
be the legal presumption. here is positive
evidence that majority Of tie people are
against this constitution.
Mr.. President, pass over the ciream-
stances that this yete on the 18th of Janaary
was an &C pa,te proceeding that it has not
been exposed to the wholesome test Of an
adverse SCRUTINY; that circumstantial cyl
dence has been adduced to show that more
votes were cast in certain places than could
possibly have been fairly given there. i
pass oyer all these considerations, and ask
whether this fact itself docs present conclu-
sive evidence that the people of Kansas are
against this ceisstit ution? What is it that
is expressed by this vote in which the ten
thousand majority was given We are not
to infer from it that this majority were not
allowed to carry out their win in regard to
the constitution, and that therefore we are
tossiiord them some redress for that grievance;
we arc not to infer that, because it is plain
Eslscy ces,d ssayc carried out their will had
they chosen SC 81 so. IF, this majority did
exist, they could ilage prevented eng COR
vcntion. If it did exist afteraa convention
was called, they could have elected their
own members, and made the constitution
what they pleased. If, after the constita-
ton was formed and submitted, they had
chosen to do SO, they could have stricken
out that feature of slavery which presented
to their minds the only real objection to it.
They come here. therefore, not to complain
that their will was defeated; fs, ia that
event, they would haze been entitled to the
respectful consideration Of Congress; they
make no such complaint, because such was
not the fact ;,but they come here to complain
because we will not agree to say that ma
jority Of tie people, under representative
government, shall, by refusing to vote, and
~ refusing to discharge their duties under
the law, create state of anarchy and con-
fusion, and put an end to al government
ia the ceantry to which they belong Is
such demand as that entitled to respect ?
Can there be any equity which should In
duce us to regard such claim? IF tkcy
came here to say that majority had not
been allowed to vote on the question of the
convention If they came here to say that a
majority bad not been allowed to elect the
members to this convention there might
be something in the complain indeed,
there would be good cause of remonstrance !;
but that is net their objection, as | under
stand it. Their complaint, L repeat, is that
We will not agree that they, by refusing to
act at all, shall produce state of anarchy,
Of chaos, and confusion, in that Territory.
But, sir, suppose that we were to lay aside all
law, ali the Prescriptions as to legal evidence. and
endoavor to ascertain the natural equity of the
case, in order that we might conform to til do
not say it would be safe, or proper or riglt to do
shat but will suppose we were endeavorno 81 to
.act-shat wouk' be tie equity which we should
consult? The equity is, that The will ola 1aaioli
Sly OF those who bona tide inhabitants Of Kan
sass who intend to make common fortune ~ til
that Territory, and who are guided in reference to
its constitution by view It's Interests should be
respected. Bat suppose it were proved Will
make the case a supposed onc-that NEST Of those
composing t..is majority consisted of persons who
did not cast their rotes in reference to the inter-
ests of Kansas, but in reference to undue outside
INFLUENCES in Massachusetts Missouri; suppose it
we're pro- ef thst4this nunber was not composed Of
bona fde residents, who Intended to I've perma-
ncntIy in Kansas but that many OF them were
persons who would leave the moment affairs were
regularly settled suppose it were proved, too
that many Of them were maintained by money fur
nished from without the Territory Of ansas, for
the III pose of Keeping up state of disorder and
confusion would any man say that, in eqrity, the
votes OF such persons were entitled to any more
respect here, because tey happened to be cast in
Kansas, than if they had been given by as -emba-
ges in Massachusetts, or in Missouri2 Surely not
Is there not strong, circumstantal evidence to
rovesthflt such nfgst hare aaen theoase With many
OF those voters2 If their desii to settle the
matter in reference to Kansas interests, and they
did as't 'coastitate majority, why did they not
Fnte fer members of the. convention? Why did
they not make the constitution conform to their
wishes? They had the power to do SO uneer the
laws Why did they fail? How are we to account
for it, unless suppose that they desired to keep
this question open with all its agiations, matter
what might be the expense the injury to the peo-
rie OF Kansas to the destruction OF the interests
Of that Territory Il we can suppose that, ask,
as did Deiose, they entitled to respect up
on any consideration OF equity which may be al
legged ?
But, Mr. President take another view Oft
Snpposc that this wrong was about to be per-
petrated suppose that in the admission of Kansas
we,wcre gcing to bring into the Union people,
ton under which ii il admitted, it sa wrong
which carries its own remedy with it. It viii .ear-
~ its own remedy Immediately and swiftly, because
the main subject Of gri, vance, as we ali know is
that OF slavery, and the Lecompton constitution it.
majority ef the Legslatu re to emanci-
pate the slaves, provided they VIII paw fertll em
and is there any civilized Government the worls
which veal emAncipate slaves without paving for
them? Did not the English and French Govern
ments compensate t. e OWIere Would the Legis-
lature OF any State emancipGte the negroes without
paying for them What woplj be she burden on
that Territory OF paving for some enc hundred or
two hundred, or perhaps thee hundred negroes >
Is it d matter to be considered when they could
titus accomplish their wishes and give peace to tie
country at SO small aneapersc2 And shall we say
that We will keep up all the complications and agi-
tatlons OF this question because they unwilling
to make even that small exerton in order to carry
out their wishes? This matter, it seems to me,
cannot be considered BY gentlemen who have been
complaining that the wall of TIE people of Kansas
has been disappointed, Ia the second section OF
the seventh article the Lecompton constitution pro-
vid:s that 1.-THE Legislature shall have Z power to
pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without
the consent OF the owners, without paving the
owners, previous to the emancipation, full equiv
alent IN money for the slaves emancipated.' Is
,AAt 1,y