Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-04-12
Kansas-Lecompto Constitution.
SPEECH OF HON. JOHN BELL,

-
ICONCLUDED.1
Rut the President takes the holder ground
that the restriction in the Lecompton Consti-
tuition, though intended TO prevent any amend
ment before 1864, is altogether unavailable.
He asserts the doctrine that the people OF q
State can change their constitution at any
time; aud this he says is fundamental prin-
ciple of American freedom. He refers TO the
second clause of the bill of rights in the Lee
compton constitution, to show that the people
of Kansas have recognized this fundamental
principle In that clause 1t is declared that
ssalI political power is inherent in the people,
and all free governments are founded on their
authority and instituted for their benefit, and
therefore they have, at all times, an inaliena-
BILE and indefensible right to alter, reform, or
abolish their form of government in such
manner as they think proper" This language
is identical with that employed in the bill of
rights to be found in the constitutions of Con-
necticut New Jersey. Tennessee, Alabama,
and Mississippi, and probably in those of many
other States for ] have not had time to eX-
anime them all. What is meant by this de-
claration to be found in the bill of rights of
most or all of our State constitutions? Moth
ing more is meant than to assert the right of
revolution-the antagOnistic doctrine TO that
of passive obedience, at one period so strongly
main tanned in England.
1t will be difficult to maintain, by any sound
process of reasoning, that this recognition of
the right of the people to change their form OF
government has any reference to change OF
their constitutions; for in all of them, their
right to do that is not only recognized, but
the mode in which it can be done is distinctly
prescribed. The principle asserted III bill
ofrights, in any State constitution, Is, that the
people, when their rights of person and of
H. t,rha th,ir
csts interests are disregarded and sacrificed by
an unjust, arbitrary and oppressive govern
ment, they have a right to change or abolish
il nv a resort to the sword, il found necessary.
They have a right, under the circumstances
have described, to establish pure democracy,
and dispense with the use of all organic laws
or constitutions, if they choose. They may
even establish a monarchy, If they believe
that their rights and interests would be best
protected and promoted under such form of
government; but the right to do all this is
clearly a revolutionary one. There is no
danger in the recognition of this right; but
there is danger in the admission of the doctrine
avowed by the President, that a majority of
the people of State may set aside all the
guards in their constitution against sudden
and capricious changes of its provisions, and
change il as often and when they please. Such
a doctrine reduces all organic laws to level
with acts of the Legislature. II such doc
trine shall come TO be generally admitted and
practiced upon, il cannot fail, in the end, to
lead to oppression and anarchy. and make Il
resort to revolution and change OF the form
of government the only means of safety.
l had supposed that the chief merit OF the
great American invention of written constitu-
lions and organic laws was in the protection
thew afforded to the rights of the minority
against the tyranny of an arbitrary aud capri
cious majority The doctrine of the President
strikes down at blow the whole system Of
defenses and guarantees intended for the
security of minOrities. Majorities can always
protect themselves.
But it is said that the great States of New
York aud Maryland have prac tced upon the
doctrine of the President III changing their
If that be true, maintain that
thew acted upon a revolutionary principe;
and the sooner that is understood the better
for the country and its institutions. n general
acauiescence among the people in an irregular
mode of changing their constitutions may re-
suit in no immediate danger; 1t is in the pre-
cedent that the danger lies.
The honorable Senator from Georgia an
some great truths to-day. lie said
that mankind made a long step, great stride,
when they declared that mnorites should not
rule; and that still higher and nobler adj
vance had been made when 1t was decided
that maiorities could only rule through regu-
lar and legal forms He asserted this general
doctrine with reference to the construction lie
to give to the Lecompton constitu-
lion: and to say that the people OF Kansas,
unless they spoke through regular forms, can
not speak at all He will allow me to say,
however, that the forms through which
majority speaks must be provided and estab-
shed by competent authority, and his doc
.rine can have no application to the Lecompton
unless he can first show that the
Legislature of Kansas was vested with legal
authority to provide for the formation Of
State constitution; for, until that can be
shown, there could be no regular aud legal
orms through which the majority could speak.
.ut how do = that Senator reconcile his doc
r;ne with that avowed 10y the President, "a to
he fntility of attempting, by constitutional
PROVISIONS, to fetter the power OF the people
n changing their constitution ut pleasure!
n no States of the Union 50 much as IN some
4 the slaveholding States would such doc
rine as that be so apt to be abused by inceh-
ary demagogues, disappointed aud desperate
oliticians, in stirring up the people 10 assem-
lie voluntarily in convention
IL the restrictions in their consttutloh-ahd
trike at the property of the Shareholder.
The honorable Senator from Kentucky ln-
uired what, under this new doctrine, would
revent the majority of the people oil The
,tates of the Union'irom changing the present
ed raj Constitution, aud abrogitihg all eN-
sting guarantees for the protection OF the
mali States, aud any peculiar or particular
interest confined to minority OF the states
{ the Unioa. The analogy, | admit, Is not
omplete between the Federal Constitution
nd q constitution of State but the pro-
nulgation OF the gene. al principle. that ma
,rity Of the people are fettered by no constl-
ntional restrictions in the exercise oil their
light to change their form OF government Is
anperous. That Is quite enough Tor the par-
oses of demagogues aud incendary agitators.
yhen read the special message of the Presi-
eat, said TO some friends that the message,
aking it altogether, was repleie with more
dangerous hercsies than any paper had ever
cen emanating, not from u President OF the
Juited States, but from any political club IN
he country and calculated tn do more INJURY
consider IL in effect and in its tendencies, ~
organizing anarchy.
We are told that IL we shall admit Kansas
vith the Leeomplon constitution this whole
Iificuity will soon be settled by the people Of
Kansas. How. BY disregardmg the mode
md forms prescribed by this constitution foF
IL! No. | am not sure that the
after ali the lofty gencralities an
in his message In regard 10 the Ina
ienable rights OF thu people, Intended 10 sanc-
ion the idea that all the provisions OF the L.
COMPTON constitution Ia respect TO the mode
nd form of amending IL should be set aid !.
IL saws the Legislature now al -cted may al
Il first meeting call a Convention 10 amend
hs constitution and i'm another passage al
IA message he says that this inalienaIie power
4 the majority must be exercised in Il laval
manner. This Is perplexing. Can there be
nv lawful enactment OF the Legislature In
citation h. the call Of n convention, unless u /
V Ia conformity with the provisions OF the
They require that two thirds
& the members OF the Legislature shall con-