Weekly American. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1858-1858, 1858-03-27

tuition itself, in WHOLE and not in part, was TO be
submitted TO the people. The Governor had 80
contemplated, and had so assured and promised
the people. The President regrets that II was
only submitted in part He regrets that the entire
constitution was not submitted. Though he ac-
cepts as an equivalent the partial submission, he
regrets that 1t was not submitted as whole.
The Territorial Legislature, after this constitu-
ton was published, Immediately passed a law to
have vote taken upon the entire constitution
the very course which the President had preferred
and to which Mr.. Walker pledged himself What
do they do but carry out and act in perfect accord
ance with the wishes and opinions of the Presi-
dent and Governors And yet the President, who
was for general submission, and would have pre-
ferred it, says the act Of the Legislature in accord
ance with his opinion, is mere nuity. Why?
Because, he says, by the previous acts OF the peo
pie aud of the territorial government the Territory
was SO far prepared for admission into the Union
as State. That is the reason. He gives no ap-
plication OF it. but announces as q reason that II
was SO far prepared because the constitution had
been made, ready to be offered to Congress- though
that con stitution had not yet been submitted to
the people when this law was passed. That was
her condition; that was the preparation she had
made. The only preparation was, that under the
authority Of previous Territorial Legislature,
convention had been held, and constitution made
and published
That was the condition Of her preparation; and,
because of that preparation, the President says
that the Territorial Legislature had no power
whatever to pass law to take popular vote
upon the adoption of that constitution, to see
what the people thought Of it; to collect the evil
dence Of the public will! What could the Terri
torial Legislature do, to satisfy themselves, to
safety the country, to satisfy the just rights of
the people, but to say vote shall be taken on the
<.( 1.al1 oh all
declare their assent to, or dsapprobaton Of, this
constitution as an entire instrument? What is
there in the preparation above referred to to pre-
vent it? What force had the constitution
Could the constitution, unaccepted by you, un-
authorized by you, paralyze and annihilate the
Legislative power whi,h your act of Congress
had conferred upon the territorial government?
Does not that power, and all that power, remain
as perfect as when you granted it? And could
the power which your act gave be diminished or
lessened by any act of mere territorial authority?
1t is palpable that it could not No matter what
act might be done by the people Of Kansas, call it
by what name you please--law of the Territorial
Legislature, constitution made by the people--no
matter by what name you call 1.-THE supremacy
Of the Government of the United States remains
untouched and unimpaired, and all the power Of
territorial legislation which it gave may be exer-
cised by the Legislature.
or what avail is this constitution until accepted
by Congress, and the State admitted upon it
Whom does it hind? Is it anything more than
proposition by the people Of Kansas that 1--WE shall
be admitted with this instrument which we offer
as our constitutions What more Is it? Does it
bind anybody Where does it derive its author
ity? The organic law authorized no legislation by
convention. The convention could exercise no
Legislative power which Congress had given, be-
cause Congress gave its power to Territorial
Legislature, to be elected in certain manner, and
to be exercised in certain manner. The conven-
ton could exercise no legislative power 1t bound
no one 1t did not bind the future State for, until
you accepted it, what prevented the people from
calling convention the next day, and altering or
modifying it according to their own views? Is
there anything Of reason, of argument, or of law,
to support such proposition as that the people
are restrained from making another constitution
because they have proposed one not yet accepted
and acted upon by Congresss / think not.
In my Judgment, we have a precedent which
shows / am right in this view Of the subject. The
case is this Wisconsin, then under a territorial
government, presented herself here with State
constitution, and asked for admission into the
Union as State. Congress admitted her, but on
the condition that her constitution should be SUBJ
mitted to vote Of the qualified electors Of the
Territory-and, if assented to by the people, that
Tie hiluOuuCt tudS iACt Dl pIOCid-
nation, and that thereupon, aud without any fur
ther proceedings on the part Of Congress, her adj
mission should be complete and absolute. This
was the case Of Wisconsin; this her state of prep
arafion. What under these circumstances, did
the people Of Wisconsin do? Did they proceed
according TO this act Of Congress, and submit their
constitution again to the people, as required by
said acts No, sir; they passed that act by, called
another convention, applied to Congress at sub
sequent session, and were admitted into the Union
as State.
Was not their state of preparation greater than
the preparation of the Territory ef Kansas? Here
Wisconsin was not only in a state Of preparation,
by having made constitution, but that constitu-
ton had received the appreciation Of Congress,
and she had been conditionally admitted into the
Union as State. Yet she considered that even
under these circumstances, she was at full liberty
10 avail herself or not 10 avail herself Of that con
difionai admission--and concluding not 10 decline
IT. she made another constitution, and was there
upon admitted by Congress.
If they could do that, IL prepared as they were,
that preparation did not preclude them from making
another constitution how is this less state Of prep
aration, on the part Of Kansas 10 preclude the Ter
ritorial legislature not from performing the high
act Of calling a convention, but simply Of taking
another vote on a constitution which was yet TO
bc proposed 10 Congressf Can any reason be
shownf No, sir, none. That constitution was, In
my judgment, imperative; and Of gentlemen who
think differently / would ask, how long would
Il have operated ns binding on the people Of Kan
sasf Suppose circumstances had occurred which
had prevented any application TO Congress for
years, how long would this instrument have re-
tanned its vitality and retained its vigor and au-
thorityg One yearf Two yearsS Three years.
-Four yearsi How longS Suppose the president,
Calhoun, had put this instrument in his pocket
and kept II there all the days Of his life, would
it all the days Of his life have restrained the people
OF Kansas from taking other steps and calling
other conventions and making other constitutional
II its authority would not have continued life
time, how long could II coptinuef No man can
set limit land the conclusion, therefore, s that IL
never had any binding inAuence--at any rate,
never such binding influence (and that is all am
required 70 show) az TO have prevented the peo-
pie, If they had changed their minds after making
the frst constitution, from calling another con-
vention, and resorting to all means necessary for
the establishment OF another constitution, and then
TO offer Il 10 you IL Is theirs TO offer, and ours
TO dispose Of and they are free up TO the last mo-
ment to make known to Congress what is their
will and What is their determination in relation 10
the fundamental law Of the State which they are
about to establish.
Is not this all perfectly clear to our reason
Arc there any fictions of law are there any tech
-