Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1858-09-25

SUBMISSION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS TO TIE Poo
PLk-The debates of last winter in Congress seem
to have brought the question of submission of State
constitutions to the people into unusual prominence
We spprehend however, that there is really no dill
ference of opinion on the subject Everybody that
we know, both in and out Of the Democratic party,
is decided advocate Of the proprety Of the poPq-
lar ratification or rejection of such instruments 1t
is our belief that they should be SO ratified in all
cases. We would snstain this principle everywhere
within the scope of our authority. But there are
class of men, in and out Of the Democratic party,
who take great merit to themselves for advocating
submission, claiming that Congress should compel
all constitutional State Conventions to give that d.
rection to their labors. At this point separate
from them. We would aduise the Conventions to
send their works to the people for ratification or re-
lection but we utterly deny the right of Congress to
compel them to do SO. The people of a new or an
old State, in forming their organic law, should be
careful to superntend its enactment and should re-
serce the right to sit in judgment upon its provisions
But when Congress undertakes to dictate to them
how they shall proceed in the matter which relates
wholly to themselves their acquescence therein is
practical surrender to the central federal authority
Of their constitutional rights. The bred Scott de.
cision distinctly afrms the exclusive authority OF
the State to establish their own institutions. It
would be absurd to claim, while admitting the force
of that decision, that Congress may control the &C.
ton of the people when in the discharge Of clear
constitutional duty.
Judge Douglas, as chairman of the Committee on
Territories reported back to the Senate the cele.
brated Toombs bill with the provision requiring the
submission of the constitution of Kansas to the peo'
pie contemplated by it. stricken aut, Judge Douglas
could not then endorse the principle Of Congress.
sona dctation claiming the right of the people to
settle for themselves all the questions relating to the
organization of their State government Scarcely two
years have elapsed, and we find Judge Douglas on
the stump not only claiming peculiar merit for in
ssting upon the right Of Congress to dictate that all
constitutions thus formed shall be referred to popu
lar ratification rejection but condemning the
Democratic party for not endorsing his new theory
on this respect. He has fairly set up in business
the idea that in advising the course he suggests in
reference to the proprety of submission he has dis
covered a great popular principle; and because We
will 90 no further than to fully concur in the justice
of referring constitutions to the people, and will not
assent to his scheme of Congressional dictntion, he
tells the people of Illinois that opposed to
popular sovereignty. That kind Of popular sover-
eighty" which cannot act for ITSELF but must do as
Congress says. against the express judgment Of the
Supreme Court, that other kind of popular SOW
eregnty which would clothe thousand people with
the power nullify the constitution, are not the
ticles we would be understood as endorsing. If
Congress has the right to dictate to new State in
reference to the forming of its organic laws in one
particular they may so on covering all the details
of its provisions. That is not our popular sover.
eighty Then, again, when handful Of people who
know nothing OF each other, who are yet without
deliberate legislation strangers alike to social order
and the civizing influences Of the family, are Or
ganized by Congress into territorial government,
we have no idea in the world OF so running popular
sovereignty into ridicue to claim for them right
to nullify the federal constitution. That is not
popular sovereignty; that is Judge Douglass pop
MAR Sovereipntv Union.