The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1858-04-08

/
Kansas, and dOdbIj unfortunate for the peace.
Of the Union at large. ItwOuld be to super.
sede, forever, the sovereignty the indepsnd.
ence. the reserved rights Of the States, ,snew
and OLD, as guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States. If Congress could
control to that extent the stf4irs Of new
State, why not control to the same extent
the affairs OF q State alrcsdy admitted into
the Union! Are not the States to be admit
ted. let me ask, upon an equal footing with
the original Statesl -.s.-.
Those who differ with the Administration
in respect 10 the case of Kansas must claim
as a universal principle, that Congtess has
the power (and ought to exercise it) OF refus
ing the admission Of State Tito the Union
upon q constitution regularly adopted by
her convention Of delegates, and republican
in form merely because the constitution
wsS not ratified by direct vots of the peo.
Pile; and this, although the people acting
through delegates chosen by themselves,
have made no such requisition. IF 30, what
will become Of our own State Of Ohio, as
well as the States Of Vermont, Kentucky,
| Tennessee, LouisiSns, Indiana, Mississippi,
Illinois, Alabama, Missouri and Arkansas?
| All Of them were admitted into the Union
with constitutions never submitted to the
people. What will become Of the thirteen
original Statesl They, together, formed the
Union, but note Of them submitted its own
constitution, or the Constitution of the
United States, to vote OF the people,
Congress has never required such q submis
sion before this in the case Of any new State
F--unlcSs, indeed, some argument can be
drawn from the "enabliDg act" for Minneso.
to, February 26, 1857. doubt whether Ave
men in Congress knew that bill contained d
such provision. Certainly, for one, / did
not; supposed It similar to all ether enab.
ling acts. That bill, as it now stands, pass
ed the House without having been printed,
under the operation Of the previous question.
It was debated afterwards in the Senate,
with reference to the provision for allen suf.
fruge; but not syllable was uttered, be.
lieve, as TO any requirements that the con-
s!ltution of Minnesota, when formed, should
be submitted 10 the people. The case,
therefore, 10 not authoritative; since assured
ly no percedent can conclude question not
argued, nor even noticed, by those who decid.
ed it.
Indeed, gentlemen, the distinctive excel.
lehce Of our Government in America has
ever been their representative character
The people do not act directly, but through
delegates, representatives or other agents,
chosen in due form of law. This practice
Of submitting constitutions to the people for
approval or rejection, Is entirely modern; 1t
never occurred to Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, Jackson, or any other Of those
great men who laid the foundation of ''popu.
ar sovereignty" before the Kansas Nebrask,
Bill had been invented. The Practice extend
ed, at one time, much further; and 1t wa:
quite fashionable, when had the honor o.
, membership In the Ohio Legislature, many
years ago, to submit acts Of legislation Il
the people. But the practice was found t.
be Objectionable, and because nobody cou
be made resposible for euch legislation
| Accordingly, otir present constitution. ndop
. tsdin September, 1851, declares that no Law
3 (exeept in relation to common schools ant
banking companies) shall ever be submitted
t to a. poPular vote, You are citizens Of
State, therefore, which has, unequivocally
, and even contemptuously, trodden the new
/. version Of "popular sovereignty" under foot
: and still your Senators and Representative
in Congress are instructed to compel it's &C
}, ceptance by the State Of Kausa6. a..
call this nsD version, (at least,> ths
Congress can compel the States to form
. adopt, or ratify their constitutions or thei
laws in manner different from that whici
! they have themselves provided. ] neve
heard Of 1t till Robert J. Walker became tn
3 Governor Of Kansas Territory; and Wi
4 no more agree to il, as one member Of th
D Democratic party. than would vote for hi
celebrated Bankrupt Law. This doctrine i
not to be found in the Kansas Bill. III hO
{ so understood four years ago, I should Have
d denounced the bill as warmly as then sup
{ ported 1t. lily opinion was, and still Is, tho
: in respect as we'll to the Territories as Il
the new States, we had an alternative be-
i. tween "popular sovereignty" and Congress
. sional dominion--the Black Republican:
upon on eide asserting the unlimited power
3 OF Congress 10 prescribe the domestic insti
4 tutions of the new States and Territories; an'
: the Democratic Republicans-the follower
n Of jefferson, Madison and Jackson assert
/. ing that no such power had been eonferre'
. on Congress. and, therefore, remained will
. States and the people. Now, as it seems
:. we have to learn that "popular sovereignty
L is not opposed to, but identified with, Con
d gressionsl domination; and that Congress
+ ought to prescribe in what manner. BY wha
i sanction, the people Of , new State mus
0 adopt their constitution and form Of govern
q ment. r. .~s s@%@ a29
!. Gentlemen, this can never bea d emocrat
i ic doctrine. 1t Is doctrine Of Federalism
! Irsviysd--oi unlimitsd Congressio author
i | ity over the States and Territories. Itwa
Z X aaa;,,aS syoro fhef Kansna M AhynakA Ri