The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-02-10
), OHIO, WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 10. 1855

- .zSz1s
mission Of Florida, there can. be no rea-
son assigned Why he may not vote for Il a !,
Of Kansas. If lie could vote for Iowa,
there can be no good reason why he should
rot vote, under the same circumsi ances,
for the admission of Kansas by his own
deed he is estopped; by his own act he is
forever estoPped from alleging, as a neceS-
Sary prerequisite, an enabling act The
assent Of Congress may be gwen at any
time; either before or after the formation
of constitution.
There is peculiar reason for it in the
case Of Kansas. The Louisiana treaty
defnes al guarantees the. rights Of the.
people living iii that Territory. The law
of Congress, subsequently passed, made
an addilional pledge that the people should
have right to admission. at the proper
time. The authors and advocates of the
great Kansas Nell braska act thought it
had added to the rights, Or reclaimed The
| rights of the people living in organized
Territories Its trainers thought they
had conferred some principles heretofore
denied to them. If SO, under the treaty
of Louisiana, under the law of Congress,
under the Kansas act, the right of the
people, whenever their numbers are suf-
fcient to take preparatory steps for the
formation of a constitutions and present
it for admission into the Union, for con-
ceded. They do not present it is appro-
val; they do not present it in, order to
have it indorsed. They present it, if at
all, for the sake of being admitted into
the Union. If the constitution is repub-
licau, we may admit them if it is not
rapu hl;can oanpot admit thau,
In strict conformity with this doctrine
stands the Democratic platform to which
the Senator referred. Itsays, in emphatic
should, whenever they had numbers suf
6cient, proceed to form their State con-
stitution, and to adopt such institutions as
they should think proper
But the main objection which the Sem
ator has presented is, that while he may
forego these objections, there are other
reasons why we should not forego either
them or any others. Ny position is, that
the mere want of an enabling act is not
ban objection; that lawful proceedings in
an organized Territory, to form eonsti-
tuition, are regular, in conformity to law,
iu conformity to usage, and 1 have pre-
sented clses just such as the Senator has
heretofore indorsed and approved; and,
consequently, they ought not to be con-
sidered in the list of objections that he
raises against the admission of Kansas.
His chief objection, however, seems to
be, that the constitution is not submitted
to the people On that he dwells; and
wherefore Why, that the principle of
popular sovereignty required the eoEsti
tuition to be submitted to the people ? In
! other words, be says that subsequent
vote ought. to have been hadin addition
to what lho convention has done, SO that
the people by subsequent vote might de-
eide this question of constitution or no
constitution Mr.: President, If, as the
Senator from Illinois says, the Kansas
! Nebraska act puts the slave question
where all other questions before were,
then, in order to see what the rights of
the people were under the Kansas act, we
have but to ascertain what their rights
were on all other questions before the
Kansas act was passed.
How were they? Is it true that the
people do not act, in any case, unless they
meet IN mass meeting?-in a tumultuous
blage?-or is it not in harmony with
the genius of republican institutions-is
it not in strict conformity with the Ameri-
canism of government that we act through
delegates, through agents, through repre-
sentatives? The constitution of the Sen
ator's own State was not submitted to
the people of Illinois. The constitution
of his native State, Vermont, was not
submitted to the people of that State,
and yet it is worthy of remark that the
constitution of Vermont uses this lam
guage: 1--WE, the people of the State OF
! Vermont, do ordain and establish" They
ordain and establish By their deLeg2tes, by
their representatives. So with Illinois.
In its constitution the words, "we, the
people," are used and yet the people
never acted upon it, Savc through their
agents, their delegates in convention as
sembled. In the State of Illinois the
constitution says, "alI prosecutions shall
be in the name of the people of the State
of Illinois, not in the name of the State.
The PEOPLE stand as prosecutors l be
leve the first time [ ever had the honor
to make the acquaintance of the very dis.
tinguished gentleman was while he pre-.
sided on. the bench in the city of Quincy.
There was prosecution conducted in the
name of the people of the State Of Illinois.
Was that prosecution by the people, in
Inelr own proper person! NO, Iue peopie
were ably and well represented on the
bench by the distinguished Senator from
Illinois; the people were represented in
the grand jury room by selections made
for their purpose the people were rep
resented by the prosecuting attorney, a
distinguished gentleman selected for that
purpose It was all done in the name of
the people, in behalf of the people, for
the people, but done by the peoples
agents and representatives.
Mr.. President, it is not only SO in these
instances, but, as I before remarked, it is
the great Anse, ic0nisns of Government
more peculiar in the United States than
anywhere else. The people act through
agents; and 1 believe it to be. universal
rule of agency, that where there is a gen.
eral power given, the principal is bound
by all the acts o. the agent, unless there
be reservation of right of submission
to the principal for his appreciation.
have before me list of States, show
/ xunS ,aapIiar tb;s