Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1858-01-21


to frame constitution for State govern
ment. That convention was, therefore, de
jure, legitimate. 1t formed constitution,
and had right to form it. That was its
function, and there its power ended, except
to submit it, as proposed organic law, to
,he fair and free election of the sovereign
people, TO be adopted or rejected by them.
They. in their organize being of legal vo-
ters, are alone sovereign. The entire con-
stitution ought TO have been submitted to
their lawful voices at the polls. The pow
er was rot delegated to the Territorial
convention to proclaim and establish a
Sta constitution; it had to be approved
by Congress, and much more had it to be
approved by the sovereign principals for
whom the mere agent, the convention, act
ed. 1t was not mere statute law, repeal
able at will by Legislature to sit year
ly, and to be chosen by the precincts of an
nual elections 1t was the great funda-
mental organic law, under which titles, and
tonures, and franchises were to be he held,
and judges and Legislators We're to sit, and
executive authority was to WELD the arms
of State. and offices were to be filled, and
Justice was to be administered, and law was
to be enacted, and confederate station was
to be assumed, and sovereignty itself was
to be assumed--and it was TO be irrepeala-
BILE by legislation, and to be, in word, the
supreme constitution of State, under
which she was to be received Tito the most
glorious Union of States which ever pro-
tected and fortified the liberties of man.
kind! What! Tell us that an instrument
of this dignity. that republican govern
ment itself, was not to be submitted lii its
form and plan proposed, to the only law
full sovereigns-the organized peeple--not
a mere mass of persons, but the bona .tide
inhabitants and legal voters of the State to
be governed. for their election, TO adopt or
rnjeclit! De ejure, | say it ought to have
been submitted. Pure and undehled re-
pubicanism, conservative democracy. re-
uured that it should be so submitted
There is no mobocracy in that idea. 1t is
even. just, steady. organized. free repuo-
lican action; the law Of popular liberty, de-
fined by citizenship and the rule of elcc-
ton. and is the true example of essential
soverei ignty in The people. Instead OF SO
submitting this proposed constitution by
the mere agent, the convention, deferertial
ly 10 the principals. the organized sovereign
people. there was a usurpation--a with
holding from them of fair, free, full and
equal election to choose or not to choose
their own constitution of lf-gOvernment.
1t was er parte; it was all on ore side; it
was, in gambling phrase, the foul Heads
win tails you lose;" the constitution was
Obliged TO be adopted, with the clause or
without the clause; the vote was bound to
be for the constitutions" it was all pro
and no con; and we say that was no submis
sion TO an election at all. Election is choice
of alternatives--to adopt or reject; to re-
ject as well as adopt, to adopt as we'll as re-
ject There was no choice in this case
Three men went to the polls: A said, 81
vote for the constitution. with or without
the clause" but and G said. eve vote
against it, with or without the clause. -
AS vote was counted, BIS and C's votes
were not to be counted, and thus one was
made not only to offset two, but to be sole
substitute in fact for three against the ma
jority OF two to one out Of three. Now this
was but the unveiled trickery and shame
less fraud of so-cal'ed schedule. There
was neither right nor justice in it. The
democracy of Virginia at least, scorns IL
tie of any sort founded en- fraud, occuH
or palpable, like this. We say that, as be-
tween the convention of Lecompton and
the people of Kansas, the question was one
de jure, and de jure the whole constitution
in all its parts ought TO have been submit
ted to all the legal voters, pro and con. and
the two voters ought to have been allowed
their voices against il as well as the one
voter his voice for it. And, SO far as slave
ry is concerned; it made the case worse
against that species of property. 10 sub
nit the slavery clause alone to the election
Of the people. Why discriminate in res
pect to that peculiar institution?" Is 1t
because it was peculiar? five contend for
anything especially. it is. that our property
shall not be distinguished or Disseminated
from other property in legislation. 1t
stands on the same footing of right to pro-
lection and preservation which is claimed
for any other description of thing owned
OF possessed by others as property. Why
was this singled out for the chances Of pro-
hibition? Was it not enough that the Badg-
er amendment Of the Kansas -Nebraka bill
had already enacted that all laws protecting
and establishing itprior to 1890 should
he repealed? Why repeat discrimination
against slavery in this schedule of submis-
sion? This was ground enough to make
pro-slavery partizans reject it. In fact and
and of right, if the constitution had not
been submitted at all. in whole or in part.
to the people. it would have been more i'm
partial and more just to the stakeholder
than as it was submitted. If there be any
mistaken and misguided parties in the
South who would be guilty of arraying
against the equal rights of slave property
the irresistible and indisputable rights of
popular sovereignty, we would hlssve our