The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-02-20

against. Stung bp insult and then distrar
| chised, go away, mahdened to violence b
| injustice, inequality, and insult and injury
Is that my act and deed? Is that rcpuhj
can: If Caglignla was tyrant for pos,n
laws too high to be read by the Roman pee
pie, what docs this deserve to be called
which puts the whole country and a par
together, SO that minority for the Who'll
may prevail over a majority for or agains
he part? Is it not the very hocus- pocu
and legerdemain Of keeping the promise I
the ear of the people and breaking to thei
hopes? l tell you that no proud, free pco
pie will stand insult and outrage like this
and such despOtism is enough to driv
peaceful and good citizens to violence for
redress of grievances. But the question il
not whether the Lecompton Constitution
has been opposed unIawfully, but is it tn,
act and deed Of the sovereign people, whose
it purpOrts to be-and is it republican in il!
submission by the schedule of the Lecomp
ton Constitution? And mark, too, tha
this test oath is applied when the Constitu
ton is to be sent to Congress frem Terri
tory for approval. After taking this oath
the casuist may determine whether he could
fore Congress, though he voted against it a,
the polls.
But it is urged in the message that the
people, if opposed to slavery, might have
voted it out of the Constitution on the 2lsr
of December. | deny that they could have
voted for or against slavery under this sche
dule, unless they voted also for the Consti
luton As have said, nine hundred and
ninety nine might have gone 20 the polls and
voted for or against slavery, and yet have
been out-voted by one man, if they voted
against the Constitution and the one voted
for it. la a word, no one who voted against
the Constitution could vote at all How un-
fair then, to urge that those who were op-
posed to the Con>t tuition, though for or
against slavery, stad away from the polls on
the 2lst Of December, and let the election 60
by default. Coud they hare roted at al if
they were Ggdnst the Constitutions Could
they be counted for or against slavery unless
they voted for the Constitution! Why hold
the people responsible for not attending the
polls, when, if they had attended them, they
were not allowed TO vote but in one way, not
all allowed to vote their own way, and the
minority Of one was given the majority OF
one over thousand: Do you call this cleo
ton. Election has which Of the ttco Z" at
least to choose" But here there was NJ al
ternative, but IN reapect to slavery, and that
was not allowed uni, S. you voted the one
way on the Constitution. Such monsirous
injustice and inequality never offended the
moral sense Of freemen before in this coun-
try. ! cannot agree with the President,
therefore, when he says: at is impossible
that any people could have proceeded with
more regularity in the formation of Con
,ttution than the people of Kansas have
done" The people of Kansas have no been
allowed TO bold a fair, free, and full election
al all, though the whole Constitution was
pretended to be submitted 10 them. No,
not upon the part which the President says
was alone submitted to them.
You see, gentlemen. that arrive at these
facts fran the face of the record-from the
schedule itself. don't go into Kansas for
evidences of fraud or any other fact.
ion't 90 behind the schedule which is an
nexed to the Lecomp,on Constitution itself.
Il shows on its face fact stronger than any
r .i.' the neODle .3jd. - 'ote-'
show that It was impossible for them to vote
heir sovereign will in a fair, free and full
election. Such an election csnnot possibly
be held under such a schedule. This, Con-
yress is bound tc look at. am bound in
certain cases to cause the seal of t is State to
be affixed to papers for the purpose of au
hentiCat on. | have no election. II the
paper is proper to be certified, must afliX
he seal. But suppose that in the act Of au-
by attxing the seal, il appears
10 me that there is doubt even whether
he paper is the act and deed of the party
whose act and deed it parports to be: Must
not inquire whether it be the act and deed
IF the party: If aifix authorization to
what is not his. may do him irreparable
ianage. But suppose that i, appears on the
ace of the paper itstlf that it couldnt be his
lct and deed-that be was not left a free
gent, am | bound to certify that to be his
Ict and deed, which not only is not, but
,ould not be his &C: and deed9 Now, as |
,aid in November, if the Convention had
proclaimed this Constitution, and sent it to
Congress, mithout submitting ii at all to the
Deople, then Congress would have had SIM
ply the evidence of the Convention, the re-
and agent, that this was the au
horized instrument of their principals-the
people. Eviience to the contrary wouldn't
nave appeared in the record and on the re-
urn itself. And we wouldn't have been au
Ihorized, if you please, to go behind the re-
urn of the Convention, or to have taken
evidence dliunde, or admitted plea to mat
er debars the record. But the Lecompton
Convention submitted their Constitution to
popular approval or disapproval, ratification
" rejection. 1t purports to be the act of the
,eople-not of the Convention ly, but Of
he people also. The Convention did not
ully and finally adopt it, and this schedule
hows that the people did not, because they
could not, as it was proposed. 1t is, then,
neither the act Of the Convention nor OF the
people. 1t is, in fact, adopted by neither,
md couldn't be by the latter.
If Congress received and adopts it as
State Constitution for Kansas unner these
will not Congress be inter-
,ening to impose Constitution upon peo-
le which is not theirs? Will they not ar
Ditrarily intervene to decide question
which belongs to the people Of Kansas alone
Ito all and all alike allowed by law to vote?
Have all and all alike been allowed to vote?
W ere those who did vote allowed to vote
,gainst the Constitution as well as for it?
We are told that we are to shut our eyes
10 the record. What evidence have we,
hen, that it is Constitution at all? We
ire told. then, that this is not the time to
raise the question, de .tacto, whether it is the
act and deed of the people of Kansas
When would be the time, when was the
lime, if it be not the time now, to inquire
this is genuine Constitution oi
The people of Kansas, and whether it is or Is
not republican. when these, and these only,
are the questions before Congress!
Why, it is asked, has the issue ot iac,
been DELAYED so long? Ian>wer, how could
The issue be mado up before the retuns were
made, and the evidence appeared on the re-
cord submitted to Congress:
All. but we are told that it is nerpedieat
10 raise this question at all that expediency
requires Congress to decide the question:
when was it morally determined that the
policy ef this nation should be governed by
rather than by justice or right!
}nt what right has Congress to set up its de-
rees of expiency over and above the sove-
eign rights of people to free and fair
lection? Is expediency to be carried so far