The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-02-10

State, native aud adopted we have a
large majority-the exact humber | Will
not state-of all tie States of this Union,
whose constitutions were formed by the
people, through their agents, ard without
submission of them to a vote of the
people; and III a mlsno7ity of distances
only, have the constitutions Of States been
submitted to the people for their approba-
ton or rejection. More than thati;; we
have the Senator's own commit TAI in his
support of the Toombs bill at the last
Congress. The Toombs bill WIS taken
by the honorable Senator, who was then
chairman Of the Committee on Territories,
pressed by hini, aud passed through the
Senate. That bill did not contain any
clause requiring the constitution to be
submitted TO a vote of the people. The
bill which he had first introduced did con-
tain such requirement.; and yet, when
the two were put side by side and be was
called on to choose between them, he took
that which had no such provision In it,
hus leaving it for the convention of the
Territory to decide as they might deem
proper. IL
If the Senate of the United States, and
if the father of the Kansas Nebraska act
If the great advocate of popular sover-
eighty could introduce, support, and cause
to be passed, an enabling act permitting
the convention of Kansas to make their
constitution, and TO make 1T final, to or
dain and establish it without submitting
it to the peo lie, surely, when the people
of Kansas, through their territorial gov.
ernment, came to act on the same sub
ject, if they i;nitated the honorable zSena-
tor, and.passed a similar bill, they ought
not to be held up to public scorn and IN
dignation. TGey had an nillustrious pre-
decessor;" they had very distinguished
example in the person of the Senator
from Illinois, and if they but followed
that example, they ought not to be held
up to public scorn and indignation. I
think they acted wisely in submitting the
matter to the convention which represent
ed the people. It is better for the people
of Kansas to be heard through their rep-
resentatives than for the people of Hi
nois to interfere in Kansas matters through
the able Senator from that State, or the
people of Missouri through myself or my
colleague.
We have heard much of popular sover-
eighty and popular rights, but they seem
to. be frittered away and cut down, limb
after limb. First you. cut off one, and
then another, until you leave nothing
whatever to boast of hen you go before
the people of the country and speak of
the great merits of the Kansas Nebraska
act. If you can tie up the peoples hands,,
and say to them, you shall do .this,ns
are you carrying out the principles Of the
Kansas act? The act says they. may de.
it in any manner they pleHse. They did
please to adopt constitution finally in
convention, as did Tennessee, Illinois, and
Vermont. Now it is gravely proposed
that the Senate and House of Represep-
tatives shall say the people of Kansas did
not please to do it in way which Con-
g-ess is pleased to consider right, aud,
therefore, it shall be undone, thus tramp.
ling under foot the very principle which
the Senator said had been sanctioned In
the bill, that they might do as they
pleased; that they might adopt eonsti-
tuition in any manner and form they
thought proper; that they might establish
their domestic institutions in their own
way. The express language Of, the bill
is, "dn their oscn q0ay the way L
might advocate, not the way the Senator
from Illirois might advocate, not the way
the North, or the South, might like, but
the language, the spirit, the principle,
the essence of the bill, is g in their o1cn
way The people of Kansas have adopt
ed their og0n way, and that "way' is in
strict conformity with the example set
when the Senator from Illinois supported
| the Toombs bill. It was to let the con-
ventioD, as the representatives of the
people, do as they pleased on the subject
i presented to them. That convention did
as they pleased on the subject, and now
4 it is formally proposed to revise, reform,
remodel, and recast, all the action that
has taken place, although the people of
| Kansas, through their convention, nave
done their work only "in their own way"
can see 30 consistency in this. Blu:
| do see in it principle set up in opposi-
ton to what we have been told was the
| principle of the Kansas Nebraska act.
| It has, however, been intimated by the
honorable Senator from Illinois that the
Kansas Nebraska act itself required the
constitution to be submitted to the people
of Kansas after its completion by the
convention. On that point, join issue.
The act makes no such requirement. 1t
contains no such obligation. On one
point, / confess did not distinctly un-
derstand the position of the Senator, and
1 hope, therefore, he will not consider me
intrusive if | ask him how am to under
stand him on the subject of the Govern
er's interference in regard to submission
or non submission of the constitution?
Mr. DOUGLAS. 1 declined to dis
cuss that, because the Governor had acted
under the instructions of the President
Mr, GREEN. Then understand the.
Senator as taken no position on the point,
whether the executive Of the Territory
did right or wrong when he proposed that
the whole constitution should be submit
ted. My view is, that, if he sayes the
Governor did right, it conflicts with the
principles Of the Kansas Nebraska act,
and let's the agent Of the Federal Govern
ment Interfere to do what he said the poo
pie of the Territory might, uninfueuced,
and of right, do ''in their oaos way" IF
the Senator says the Governor did acro,ag;;
if the Senator says the Governor Of the
Territory had no right to advise on this
point, that is an admission that the Gov
eFnor'a conduct ia not iuatlfied by the