Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-04-06

zzzszIzfIs4z.za a ! opposite extreme of popular sovereignty The republicans in Kansas decline the opportunity to right their fancied wrongs on the 21st of De- cember, but two weeks after vote against the whole constitution. They denounce slavery in Kansas, yet refuse to vote it away. They de- clam against their government as Missouri usurpation, vet vote down the State govern ment which was to supercede it; and thus con tlnue the territorial condition where slavery has constitutional existence. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that, with them, there is no purpose to settle this issue, but to keep it open as long as 1t can influence the passions or ieed the excitement of fanaticism
 Another argument, which has, in turn, been enlisted to serve purpose, is that which pre- Scnoes the mode of amending the constitution. It Is worth while to give the exact language of this disputed clause It is contained in the schedule, and provides that
 SEC II. After the year 1864, whenever the Legislature shall think it necessary to amend. alter, or change this constitution, they shall recommend to the electors at the next general election, two-thirdS of the members of each House concurring, to vote for or against calling a convention. and if it shall appear that ma Jorty of all citizens of the State have voted for a convention, the Legislature shall at its next regular session call convention, to consist of as many members as there may be in the House ot Representatives at the time, to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places and by the same electors that choose representatives; sad delegates so elected shall meet within three months after said election, fer the plr pose oi revising, amending or changing the con- stltutlon; but no alteration shall be made to ha ritrn+ of, tl,o slaves"
 This, it is said, is prohibition of all amend ment before the year 1861 Sometimes it has been used as one of the facts arrayed to show disposition upon the part of its framers un- lairly to place their work beyond the reach of reform or innovation, as they at the same time declined to submit the entire constitution for popular approval The Senator from Illinois. (Mr DoUGLAs,) in his minority report, attempts to prove that this provision is a prohibition of all amendment, except in that mode which is revolution If successful, and rebellion in case of failure" He knows no means by which that Overwhelming and fabulous majority of ten thnusdhd 1reo-State men can assert their right eN@rpt by the terrible right of revolutinn;" and argues that the President hol Is out dellsve hopes oi a reform or change in the constitution oy suggesting resort to an impractic ible scheme. It Is to be wished that this provision hal the virtue which'hls been ascribed to it. II would be but a reasonable regulation, and at most, but short postponement of the great right of peaceful and lawful revolution. Many ot the older and earlier constitutions. sprna1ng from period convulsed by the throes of the revolution, or nodded under the auspices ofmen whose patriotism has been elevated above either reproach or suspicion. contained either similar provisions or maintained significant si- lence upon the subject. The time has been when stability of government and of law was considered no mean virtue in our institutions and when the organic law of States was exempt rom the sudden caprceS and ruthless innova- tons by which the institutions of to-day are marred or unmdie on tomorrow The time haS been when these attempts, futile though they often were, to lend d short life to organic law, We're respected, and the consultations which contained them were deemed and accented as repubhcah lu form. But whether such specific provisions, either regulating or partially limit ing the inherent right of altering or aboshing lOrms ot government, be void or valid, it is evil dent that they never seriously stood n the way ot change when the people, acting under the forms of law, have willed it. The President. in hs message has referred to the great State
 
 constitution made iu direct opposition to the form prescribed by its predecessor. The State of Rhode l-land until quite a recent period in her history, had remained under the govern ment ot royal charter, which, am informed contained no provision for its own amendment Under It the people lived and prospered, bore ther part in the revolution, and acceded to the Union. Yet this old charter, venerable for it's anuluty, If not respectable for it's wisd )m was hnaIly sup erseded when the ideas and nece,si- ties of a later progress had outgrown its capl- city for good government. The States of Ohio and Indiana contained prohibitions respectively against amendment, the first for twelve, and the second for ten years; yet the latter was changed within the prohibited period and all of hem in pursuance of atorm prescribed by law, and with- out resort to the "tembIe right of revolution" Indeed in the past history of our State coust- tut.ons, they have probably too often illustrated the views of the President in his late mcssa ge, that the people |" can make and unmale con stituti0ns at pleasure,' and that "the will of the In 'jority is supreme and irresistible when ex- pressed in an orderly aud lawful manner"
 The chairman of the Committee on Territo- ries. (Mr DoullaS,) in his report of March F, 1856, on the affairs of Kansas, in reviewing the history of such of the States as had lolmed constitutions without the previous authority of Congress, redeems them all from ille.dtimacy by the assurance that, l" iu every instance the proceeding has originated with, anl been con- iuc,ed m subOrdination to, the local government Attorney General Butler in the case of the ad mlosl1n oi Arkausas justlhes the proceeding of the Territory in forming a constitution, without the previous assent of Congress- on the ground that such measures be commanced anI prose .l l '
 ordination to the existing territorial govern ment." These were all instauces of chln.e from territorial to state governments; but the principle extracted from them illustrates the efficiency of every appeal for a change of go- verument 10 the sovereignty of the people when prosecuted under the forms of law and in sub- ordination to the existing government These modes of changing constitutions, 50 familiar in our political history, can solve the problem and relieve the Senator's doubts, and enable the people of Kansas to know how they are to exercise that great indeIeasabe right" of which the President speaks when he says they can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure" "- The free State party, so lately denounced by Governor Welker as "iusur5entS, seem to have a keener appreciation of their maIiena- be rights" than the President, and their prac- ucal attempts to assert them have gone far be- yond the suggestions in his mes 'age In their hot haste to reverse the lawful decision of the people on the 21,t of December, and inaugu- rate a reign of terror," they anticipated and outstripped the views of the President They dId not await the action of the State Legisa- ture, after admission into the Union, to inaugu- rate proceedings for change of the constitution, but attempted to accomplish it by surprise, in a Legislature called for specific purpose pre- cipItated into a premature birth by one Gov ernor, and betrayed ntotheir hands by the ex. traoldinary action of the other If it be true that the partisans of free State have this " overwhelming majority" no barrier in the constitution, no safeguards protecting the rights of property will long restrain them in their mad career. Frenzied by their first taste of power, they have, during the short life of their called session, economized the opportunity, and per petrated the greatest amount of mischief in the shortest period of time.
 The Senator from Illinois and the Senator