Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1858-01-05

stii2inn sti Il 2innnaMiensble, III indisisible," unit in
capable 'oSlf PARTITION" are doctrines ever
regarded BY me as fundamental principles
of public liberty. and of the Federal Con-
stitption. It win be seen that these views
which / have entertained were not framed
TO suit any emergency, in Kansas, but were
my lifelong principles, and were pub
lisbed over my own signsture twelve
months before my departure TO that Ter
ritory, and when 1 never thought of going
to Kansas. These rights have ever. res
garded as fully secured TO the people Of
Tall tils ,lsrritories,Y in ahopihg their
State Constitution BY the Kansas and Ne
braska bill. Such Is the CONSTRUCTION given
to that act by Congress in passing the Min
nespta bill $50 Justly applsuhsdb the Presi7
dent. Such is stlieegilBtFuctiono Of this Kan.,
sas act by its distinguished author. not only
in his late most able argument, ,butsin adj
dresses made and published by him long
antecedent to that date, showing that this
sovereign power Of the people in acting
upon State Constitution is not confined TO
the question of Slavery, but includes all
other subjects, embraced in such an instru-
mem. Indeed, believe the Kansas and
Nebraska bill would have violated the right
of sovereignty reserved to the peopls of
each State by the Federal Constitution, if
it had deprived them, or Congress should
now deprive them of the right of voting
for or against their State Constitution
The President, in his message, thinks that
the rights secured by this bill to the peo-
pie, in acting upon their State aConstitu-
ton, are contued to the Slavery question:;
bat think, as shown in my address be-
fore quoted, that ''sovereignty is the power
that makes Constitutions and Govern
merits" and that not only the Slavery
clause in State Constitution, but all
others, must be submitted. ,,.... .-'., p.
The President thinks that sovereignty
can be delegated-at least in part; l think
that sovereignty cannot be delegated at all.
The President believes that sovereignty is
tdiyisible between conventions and people,
to be exercised by the former on all sub
jects but Slavery, and by the latter only on
that question; whereas, l think that SOW
ereignty is inaiienab'e. indivisi6ie, unit,
incapable of partition, and that it cannot
be delegated, in whole or in part. twill
not be denied that sovereIgntyi the only
power that can make State Constitution,
aud that it rests exclusively with the peo-
lple, and if it is ihalienable and cannot be
i delegated, rs i have shown, thehit can onl,
be exercised by the people themselves,
under, our Government. We know nc
scvereigns but the people, Conventions
are composed Of delegates" They are
mere agents or trustees, exercising not Z
sovereign but a delegated power, and the
people are principles. The power dele
gated to such Convention can properly
only extend to framing the Constitution
but its ratification Or rejection can only b.
performed by the power where sovereignty
alone rests-rnamely, y, the people themselves
We must not contound sovereignty with
delegated power. The provisional author
ity OF the Convention to frame Constitu
ton, and submit it to the people, is dele
gated power butsovereignty alone, which
rests exclusively with lhe people, can ratify
and put in force that Constitution. Ant
this is the true doctrine of Popular Sow
ereignty, and l know of no such thing
: nor does the Federal Constitution irecog
nize it as delegated or conventional soyer
eignty.g The President in Avery lucit
passage in his able message, gives unan
swerable reasons Why the people and no
conventions should decide the question
Z of Slavery. He says, very truly, tina
: from the necessary division Of the inchoat'
State into districts, a majority Of the dele
: gates may think one way and the people
! another, and that the delegates, as was tn
case in Kansas, may violate their pledges
or fail to execute the will of the people
And why, does not, this reasoning appl,
+ with equal force to all other questions en-
t bodied in the State Constitution, and VIII,
; should the question Of Slavery alone over
! ride and exlinguish the doctriHe Of Popu
lar Sovereignty and the right of self-gov
ernment? Most fortunately this is no sec
Z tional question, for it belongs alike to tn
States admitted or inchoate, Of the Soutl
as of the North. 1t is not a question o
Slavery, but Of States'a Rights, of Stat
: : and popular sovereignty; and my objec
tions to the Lecompton Constitution ar
equally strong, whether Kansas, under it
!. provisions, should be made q Free or Slav
!. State. My objections are based upon tn
violation, Of the right of self-governmen
, and, popular sovereignty. ard of forcin!
any Constitution upon the people agains
their will, whether it recognizes Freedom
: or slavery Indeed, the first question
which the people ought to decide in forming
Il a Government for ian incboate State is
: whether they will change or not from.
) Territorial to State Government. Now
? no one who with Inc denies Federal o
t Territorial sovereignty, will contend tha
a Territorial Legislature, is sovereign, o
represents sovereignty, OF, that such Leg
+ islsture, a mere creature Of Congress, cal
transfer sovereignty, which it does not pos
t sess, tOSa Territorial Convention. Thi
, change from a Territorial to State Gov
;. ernpent can only be made by the powe
where sovereignty rests, with the people
: Yet State Government is forced lpon tn
t people Of Kansas by the LeeOmptoh Con
stitutiop, and not against IT.. But, hesid
the change from Territorial to a Stat
| Government which the people alone haV