The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-03-30
Nd COUNTY, oH1o TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 80, 1858.

i opposing IOfce was merehail6d on tina
day, and yet it is a significant fact thai
in sevess of the thirteen disfranchisei
counties not q vote is returned agoinsi
the Lecomrton Constitution, nor at the
election for the officers o. the Territory
These were the counties of Godfrey
Greenwood, Hunter, Weller, Butler,
Wilson and Wise Nor was there q
vote at that election in the three unor
ganized counties of Washington, Clay
and Dickinson.
But, gentlemen, there is another view
of this question of disfranchisement,
which wish to present, and that is the
one taken by the select Committee of
Thirteen in their late report which
wish to read. They say
Another significant fact to be no.
ticed from the registry and apportion.
mont, together with the official report of
the 4th January, is this: that the five
counties-to wit: Leayenworth, Atchi.
son, Douglas, DoDiphan, and Jefferson
at that election cast an aggregate vote
of 5.Il8, which is a majority Of the
whole vote reported to have been cast
throughout the entire Territory against
the constitution And yet all these
| counties were registered and represented
.in the convention They had SO of the
so delegates of which that body was
composed. Now, if it be true that the
opponents of the constitution are SO
largely in she majority in those coun-
ties, and are SO violent in their opposi.
ton. as they are represented to be. why
did they not elect men to the convention
who would have formed constitution
more to their liking These counties
alone, by the registry, had within four
votes of two thirds of the convention,
and could have made just such q con-.
stitution as would have been most agree
able to their people. If they refused
to act at the proper time, why do they
complain now? IF others, conforming
to the law, went into the convention and
formed constitution to suit themselves,
was it not their fair, just, and legal
right to do it These complaints come
too late, even if they come from order
ly, law-abiding citizens. As we'll might
the thousands who abstained from the
polls, or threw away their votes, at the
last presidential election, now come for.
ward aud claim that the present admin
istration is illegal, and should be set
| aside, because the iuaugurated Chief
Magistrate did not receive majority Of
all the legal votes of the United States.
as for these people now to complain of
the result of their own ldcltes or illegal
acts, or to seek to remedy it by any
such irregular proceeding as the vote
taken on the 4th January against the
constitution, after it had been legally
adopted
Is it not plainly apparent, gentlemen,
that this cry of disfrauchisement is mere
ly resorted to by the opponents of the
measure as subterfuge-a pretext in
the absence of a stronger argument
against it. There is no man who has
examined the facts for himself, and is
free to exercise an unprejudiced judg-
| m ent upon it, but must arrive at such a
conclusion and whatever others may
say, the charge Of disfranchissment comes
with very poor grace from those in
Kansas, who, not only refused to
vote for members of the convention, but
persisrently did all they could to defeat
the registration of votes.
The people having thus clearly, in my
opinion, delegated the power to the con-
yention to form constitution, with OF
without submission for subsequent rati
fcation; the convention proceeded tc
and did form the present instrumen,
known as the Lecompton constitution
But there was one subject, and one on
lily, which had claimed the attention, not
only of the people Of the Territory, but
of the Union. It had but recently en-
tered into Presidential contest, and
had formed the principal theme of tht
canvass. 1t had been incorporated into
the platforms of each political party, and
for the first time In the history of the
| country gave birth to sectional organi.
cation coextensive with the northern
States. That question was whether Kan
sas should be admitted es q free or slave
State, and whether the people Of the
Territory should be left free to decide
it for themselves, or whether the author
ity for determining it was vested excru-
s,vely in Congress. In the election of
Mr.. Buchanan, the representative of the
popular. idea of the subject, over Mr..
Fremont, the representative of the oppo.
site side, the people of the United States
had first declared that the question of
slavery or no slavery should be left ex-
clusively to the people. And although
il was perfectly competent to the mem
bars of the convention, as they were the
direct representatives of the people, to
have even refused the submission of this
question to popular vote, it having
been understood that the convention
might not SO submit it, yet, oonceiving
it the only distracting question, the on
! iy one deemed of Importance in or out
of Kansas, it was submitted for popular
approval or rejection. And with refer
ence to this point let me refer you to
Mr.. Stanton's address. BE says -
"Tbe government especially recogni-
ses the territeriai aot which provides for
the assembling In convention to frame .
| loonstitutiou with n view of making 80.