The Kanzas news., 1858-04-03
By 2. B. PLUMB.

wavering, tmid, or corrupt, menace and
prescription have no terrors for me. L will
continue to tread the path where conscience
and duty call me. regardless of all conse-
quences or sacrifices, personal or political
But were the case now exempt from these
pledges and their consequences, is it true
that the people, in framing State Consti-
tuition, are only to decide the Slavery ques-
ton? Has it come to this, that the people
in their sovereignty are to decide only the
destiny of such Africans as may be in their
limits, and not upon all those far greater
rights which concern the life, liberty, prop
erty and happiness of free people? Has
the African become so elevated above the
free men of this Union that they, in their
sovereign capacity, may not decide upon all
that concerns their own government, but
only upon the fate of that sable race that
may be within their boundaries2 And is it
true that the people in inchoate Free States
can neither ratify nor reject any part of their
State Constitution, but that this can be done
in inchoate Slave States only, and then only
as regards this one particular institution?-
The Kanzas and Nebraska bill declares it to
be s'the true intent and meaning of this act
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only toithe Con-
stitution of the United States.' Now the
President in his December message admits
that the term people as here used, means
what it says, the people themselves in their
sovereign capacity (as contradistinguished
from conventions) in voting for or against
the ratification of State Constitution. But
he says the term domestic institutions"
in the plural, means only one institution,
namely, that of Slavery. But the terms
etTHE1R domestic institutions most clearly
| include them all, because extending in words
and letter to all the Territories of the I'm
ion, whether bond or free. The President
regards this Kanzas and Nebraska bill as an
enabling act, but enabling whom, or what, or
how? Why, enabling the people to form and
regulate their domestic institutions through
State Constitution. The word '.forns" is
here significant. Who ever spoke of form
ing the institution of Slavery? This word
most clearly implies the forming of State
Constitution; and if it does not mean this,
it is not an enabling act for that is the great
object and purpose of such an act. These
words, then, do enable the people to frame a
State Constitution, and by which alone they
shall form and regulate their Institutions;
and the President comedies that the word
Is'people" as here used, means, as it says,
the people themselves, as contradishnguish-
ed from Conventions, by direct vote for
ratification or rejection. This, then, being
an enabling act-an act, construed by the
President, enabling the people to frame their
own Constitution, this term, the people can
not have two interpretations, one meaning
the people themselves, and another also, as
the President insists, Conventions only
No; these words, the people, in that act have
but one signifcation, as applicable to all their
domestic institutions, and it can never be
interpreted to mean, as the President would
construe it, in what he calls an enabling act,
the people, so far as regards the question of
Slavery, and Conventions only, as regards
all other subjects. No; this great act, de-
claratory upon its very face, was intended
to recognize the right of self-government in
its broadest and most comprehensive sense,
as vested in the people themselves, extending
to all their domestic institutions, in ratify
ing or rejecting their State Constitutions,
whose provisions could only be known and
acted on by them when submitted for their
decision by the Convention. And thus it
was that the Kanzas and Nebraska bill was
ciple of public liberty, embodied in the Fed
eral Constitution, reserving all sovereignty
to the people of the several States, admitted
or inchoate, and not as vested in Conven-
tions who possess no sovereignty (which
cannot be delegated or divided), but are ser.
wants of the people only, and not their mas
tefs.
Such is the true meaning of the term peo
pie in the Kanzas and Nebraska bill. as now
and always advocated by its distinguished
author. Such was the Interpretation given
to this act by both Houses of Congress in
the Minnesota act which is but supplement
tai and In execution of the kanzas and Ne
braska bill }, in requiring the Constitution
itself to be submitted, for ratification or re-
, lection, to the vote of the people. And why
should this odious distinction be made be-
tween Kanzas and Minnesota? Why should
the people of the latter be permitted to vote
for or against the ratification of their State
Constitution, and this great sovereign and
E constitutional right re withheld from the
people of Kanzas? Is the one sovereign
and the other subject State? Where are
we, and In what direction are We drifting;
Are we upon the banks of the Bosphorus OIL
Danube, or upon soil consecrated to popu
lar sovereignty by the blood Of the Revolu
ton? Is it Executive edicts or sovereign
e rights that constitute the liberties of ou
country? Are we freemen ''who know oul
rights, and knowing dare maintain" or ar,
We vassals, serfs, or slaves-palaee slaves
$ that win cringe or change at the stamp o
the foot of master9 Is it the people ant
d the States, as represented In the Senate ans
e House of Representatives, who are to recort
0 their votes as indicated by their unbiased
r Judgment; or are they merely to register Ex
ecut;ve ediets, under penalties for refusal 0
J denuneiation and prescription? Is the Pres
T ident the master or the servant of the peo