Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-04-14
SPEECH OF HoN. wM. 7. AVERY.


The House being in COMMITTEES Of The Whole on the
State Of the Union-Air. AVERY said;
Ne have seen what they we're to do. Now, how
we're thew to do this thing? How? Why in their
own vsv. Subject to WHAT Subject only 70 the
Constitution Well, then, in what way was this con
stitntion 10 be formed-their institutions to be
formed and regulatedl In the way Of the Governor
Of Kansas of the Secretary Of Kansas Of jim Lane
and his laWless rebellious minions in the way Of
the President Of the United staiesg in the way Of
Congress or in their OWn-the way Of the people Of
Kansas acting through the legally expressed will Of
The maiorityf What was that will? Why, that
convention should be called to prepare to form, to
make constitutional To what was this constitution,
after ii had been thus formed by this convention,
subject To what power was ii subject? To whst
restriction is il confined? What contingencies were
placed upon it? To what ask, was it and is il
subject? Isit subject othe adoption or ratification
of the people after il formed? is i subject to
any future action Of Congress in the passage OF
so-called enabling act No. sir, none Of these; but
subject only TO the Consultation Of the United States;
that is not repugnaDt to the Constitution but IN con-
formity thereto, subject liz republican form Of gov
eminent: 10 the Constitution, and Osy TO the Consi
tutiou What does Only meani Why, N no other way,
on other WISE other limitation, other condition,
no other restriction-none. Then the Kansas and
Nebraska act was itself enabling ut, to all in
tents and purposes. No other is needed any other
would have been an inteFvention-an unWarranied
interference. II is grsnt-a grant Of power; with
a Imitation Limitation expressed upon its face.
that Limitation IS thatthe constitution shall only be
subject to the Constitution Of the United States.
This grant, then having in it. in unmistakable
terms an express Limitation, all other limitations
by well known and established principle Of law
are excluded. You cannot, by any stretch Of power
Of implied power, make this grant subject TO any
implied limitation. Il must be confnedto the terms
of the grant, to the express limitation in the grant
You cannot 60 beyond outside Of it. If this ex-
press limitation in the grant is complied With-is
ful6lled-there is an end of it.
The distinguished gentleman In the other end of
the Capitol said himself in his Springfield speech
before alluded to- that this was a limitation, and
that il was subject only to the Constitution; it was
the only limitation, the only qualification which
could pertain to the constitution when presented
Have / not then high, az, the highest authority,
for the soundnesso Of my argument on this point ?
Am not borne out in the position that take ? Am
l not right, then, in saying that yOq are estOpped
precluded from going one step further. Have these
/ things been donel Have the people Of Kansas,
according to this enabling power Of the Kanas and
/ Nebraska act proceeded to form constitution
Was this constitution formed in their own way (?
I Was that way subject to the Constitution Of the
United States? Do they present a republican form
Of government in their constitution Have all these
| legal requirements been complied with? If they
have why then it remains only for Congress TO vote
Kansas into the Union as 8 sovereign and indepen-
/ dent State according to and under these REQUIRE
ments think they eli, and more, have been COM
piled with; for, as 1 have before said, the only
threatening question, the question to quiet which
this great doctrine was naugurated, has been fairly
and legslly referred to the people Of Kansas for
/ their adoption or rejection.
The gentleman from Ohio (Nlr Bingham) said
that the idea that this Kansas-Nebraska act was an
enabling act was after thought. Was it an after
thought with Robert ]. Walker, the Kansas Gov
ernOr WheD in tie passage Of his letter from which
have already quoted, he argued that the difference
between the admission Of Michigan under her con-
stituOn, and the admission of Kansas under the To-
peka constitution was that the Territorial Legislature
of Michigan clothed by Congress with no author
ty TO assemble constitutional convention and adopt
a State constitution; but under the comprehensive
language Of the Kansas Nebraska BILL the Terrific
rial Legislature was clothed with such authority
Here is an acknowledgment for you, that the Kan
sas-Nebrsska act was regarded as an enabling act
that this after thought Il was so acknowl-
edged by Governor Walker, by Mr. Stanton, and so
regarded doubtless at the time Of its passage not
only by its great author but by its every advocate
and supporter when Mr.. Douglas said in the Senate
on the ID of July, 1856:
''Au power which it is competent or possible for
Congress to confer the Territorial Legislature is
then be regarded as possessing the amplest of ali
legislative authority, that Of providing for an ex
preston Of the people upon the question whether
they would or not organize State government"
Sir, for what purpose was this Kansas and Ne
braska bill passed if not to perform the functions
of an enabling act? What has it accomplished?
Of what value have been all the fierce conflicts con
corning it. if it did not confer this power upon the
Territory? Did any Of its most ardent supporters
did its great author himself, then think that it
was so impOtent as this? Sir, l have mistaken
them; have mistaken it have misinterpreted
q III ,v,1L II a. l. M
language employed everywhere, in all the legisla-
ton and resolves which have been had upon the
subjeCt-thRt Of forming a constituencies not
convey TO the human mind the idea of adopting it,
If the imperative necessity Of the admission and
adoption Of the constitution, by the people, alter it
had been formed, had been foremost in the minds Of
those who put this act in being, why did they not
say so? Why did they studiously avoid saying so
1t would have been very easy matter to have done
90.
Let me not be understood as opposing this doc
trine 1t may be good one; it may be the best
way. l shall not now dispute it. That Is not now
involved. States have been admitted under COnsti-
buttons submitted and unsubmitted. The only cues
ton here is, it obliged 70 be done in this in
stance? I say not. l took the ground at home
and take it here, that this LecomptOn convention
had the power to submit this constitution or not as
they chose That whether it was or was net sub
mitted, and came to me in Congress from the hands
Of a legally-chOsen convention, representing the
sovereign viii Of the people, would vote for it.
And so l would, having the other requirements of
the Constitution Of the United States-tbat is sub
ject 70 the Constitution Of the United States with
republican form Of government. l commended there
as do here, for the firm maintenance of that great
doctrine of nOn-intervention. l commended as l do
now, that any act, by any power, by which the
people Of Kansas would be hindered or prevented
from the formation and regulation of their own in
situations In their own way, would have been an
Il
principle. / thought then that Governor Walker
himself in his Unesed for, apparent attempt At
dctstiOn to the people, in prescribing the mode and
manner Of their proceeding as indicated in his
proclamations and speeches. was such en- interveD-
ton; that if the President or Congress-, or auv
other power, steps in now to thWart the admission
Of Kansas under the Constitution, in the way the
people have seen fit to send it. it will be an u1war
rsnted Intervention. The way they have made and
adopted it is their way, be it good or bad That is
not for to determine and an interference with
that way, from any quarter, would itself strike 1
down the great doctrine it was the pride and glory
of the party TO establish
That convention, in my Judgment fully repre. |
scented the whole and entire sovereignty of the peo-
pie. It was clothed with plenary power TO FORM TO
establish, 10 mould and fashion, lust such a consti-
tuition as they chOse-With slavery ii they chose 4
without 1t if they chOse-so that il was republican
in its form Of government and subject to the Con
and established the organic law either TO let the
people pass in judgment upon their action, or to |
present it just It was to Congress But this |
saw fit Wisely deubtless) to submit to
the vote Of the people the only question which had
rent and divided not only that country, but the
nation and submitted, too, in the most direct and
palpable form in which it could have been present
ed, because II was isolated, alone separated from all
other questions in the constitution.
Granting, for arguments sake, that the Kansas
and Nebraska act, that the Cincinnati platform.
that the doctrines Of the Democratic party, that
The behests Of the people, all demanded that the
question should be submitted to the people BY the
language Of the act and of the platform it is plain
hat the reference or submission of no other quest
ion was contemplated. The language Of the act
e. that its true intent and meaning is not to leps
ale slavery into any Territory or State nor to ex-
,lud It therefrOm; but, Sc The language of the
Cincinnati platform is that it recognizes the right
If the people to form constitution with or without
LdUsry, and be admitted into the Union. SC So. if
& was contemplated that anything at all should be
unlimited to The people, sagsry was that thing, and
hat alone. II Is the only thing the only institution
he only domestic institution referred TO bv name
c was and is the institution; the great, absorbing.
Iistrs.tin- claimant alOnn thOugbt Of Nv tL,+s-.o /