Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1858-01-26

entire constitution ought to have been
submitted to their lawful voices at the
u polls, The power was not delegated to
the convention to proclaim and establish
la State Constitution it had 10 be ap-
proved by Congress, and much more had
I it 70 be approved by the sovereign prin-
cipals for whom the mere agent. the Con-
vention, acted. 1t was nel, mere statute
law, repealable at will. by Legislature
TO sit yearly, and TO be chosen by the
precincts annual elections. 1t was the.
great Fundamental organic law under
which titles and tenures and fraacbises
were to.be held and Judges and Legis-
lators were to sit, and Executive ahthorf-
jty WAS TO WELD the arms of Stats and
offices were to Be filed !: and justice was
TO be administered and law was to be
lenacted and confederate station was to-
be assumed and sovereignty itself was
TO BY assumed and it was to be irTepeal-
liable by Legislation and to be, il a word,
| the Supreme Constitution Of Stale. un-.
1 der which she was to be received into
the most glorious Unionlof Statesgwhieh
lever protected and fortified the liberties
i Of mankind /! What tell Us that an
instrument of this dignity that sRepub-
lican Government itself. was not ito be
Submitted its form and plan proposed,
to the only lawful soverelgns-the organ
lied people--not mere mass Of persons,
1 but The bona tide inhabitants and legal vo-
tiers Of the State to be governed. for their
L election. to adopt or reject il De jare.
say, thought to have been so submitted.
Pure and undefled Repnblicanisn, con-
seryatise Democracy. required Chat It
SHOULD be SO submitted There is no
mobocracy in that idea. II is even, just,
steady, organized, free Republican action;
the law Of popular liberty, de6ped by
citizenship and the rule of election, and
lid the trueyexample ofessentiaf sovereign
/ ity in the people. Instead Of so submit
ting this proposed Constitution by the
mere agent, the Convention. deferentially
i Ito the principals, the organized sovereign
i People, there was asnsurpation. awith-
holding from them Of i fair. free. fall and
fequal election to choose or not "a choose
! their own Constitution Of self govern
, ment. 1t was er parte it Was an On one
side il was. in gambling phrase. the
! foul Heads / win, and tails you bse =
|, the Constitution was obliged,to be adopt
| ed. with the clause or without the clause
i the vote was bound to be for TIE Con.
stitatioa !" it was all pro and mo- con.
| and VA say that was no submission to al
/ election at all. Election IS choice IF al.
/ ternatiyes, to adopt or reject; tp reject
as wsllas adopt, to adopt as wellas re,
& ject.
. There was no choice in this case, and
no equality Of voters In the case! Three
: men went to the polls: "a said II vote
) for the Constitution. with or without the
) clause; z but B and c. said We vote
: against it with or without the clause,
i AS vote Was counted. BIS and C's were
4 not to be counted, and this ono was
made not only to offset two, but TO be
| sole substitute in fact for three against
/ the majority oftwo 10 one out Of three
4 Now this was but the unveiled trickeFy
! and shameless fraudof 4 so called sche.
lfdule, There was neither right nor JUS
!, tice id It. The Democracy Of Virginia
i at least scorn title Of any sort founded
] on a fraud, occult, or palpable like this.
!, We SAY that as between the CONVENTION
j Of Hecompton and the people of Kansas,
f the question was one de Skre;; the whole
1 Constitution in all its parts. ought to
L have been submitted to all the legal yo,
! tiers, pro and con, and The two voters
s oughtEto have been allowed their voices
/ against it, as we'll as de one voter his
/ voice for it, And SO far as slavery is
!; concerned, it made the case worse agains
d that species Of properly 10 submit the
/ slavery clause alone to The election 81 The
d people. Why discriminate in respect t.
4 that peculiar institution ?'' Is ii be-
! causeit was peculiar? If we contenf
tffor anything especially, it IS not That oul
& property shall not Be- distinguished d
j Disseminated from other property ii leg
d tislation. 1t stands On tho same footing
1 Of right to protection and preservation
! which Is claimed for any other descrip
5 ton Of thing owned or possessed by 9th
s. ers as property. Why was this singled
1 Eout fol- the chances ofprohibition Wa
?.Fit not enough that the Badger amend
ri ment Of Kansas. Nebraska bill had enact
: ed that all laws protecting it and estab
,tnishing it prior to | 10 20 should be re
81 pealed ? Why repeat Discrimination
! against slavery ii this schedule of sub
ii mission This was ground enough /,
d maks Pro Slavery lpariisans reieetsit
,-l In fact, and Of right. If the Consultation
I'LL had not been submitted at all. in Who'll
h Tor in part, to the people, it would lhay,
d been more impartial and more just to tn,
! STAKEHOLDER than as itiwas submitted
j there was any mistaken, and misguidec
; and misguiding parties ilrthe Soullfwh
= would be guilty Of arraying against iii,
e equal rights Of slave property, the irre
) Esistible and indisputable rights of popu
/ lar sovereignty, we would save our prop
: erty from the guardianship Of such lolly
i and rely as property and protection mus
D always most safely rely, rather upoh Law
!, and order and the rule Of justice and fai
4 dealing--to task nothing but what j
d fright, and to submit to nothing which i
y lWrong.'' Onithe ground of policy then
a ss well as de jure, the whole Constitution
% ought to have been submitted to all th
t. legal voters, without fear. favor, fraud o
.eI force. So much for the case de jurS.
- = - =.