The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-13

1t had not authorized tho Legislature Of the new
stats to make new terms with Congress u regard to
lands If that body shopld rejsct - prssosaiea it
submitted 1t thus resulted logically and naturally
from these two circumstances that Congress- deter
mined to submit its counter proposition in re-
gard to land to the people Of Kansas representing
the sovereignty Of the now State, the Lecompton
convention having adjourned without day 81
Such is the plain history Of this matter. IN
less Kansas would agree to into the Union un-
der the usual stipulation in regard to the public
lands she could not be permitted to come in at ALL
This stipulation was accordingly submitted, not to
the convention Of Kansas, which was non existent ;
nor to the State legislature Of Kansas, that body
having no constitutional power 10 act, especially
after the convention had expressly acted ITSELF but
TO the people of Kansas as the imboded sovereignty
of the State. Hence the submission to the pop
uar vote of the land ordinance and of the question Of
admission with that condition precedent State.
We think we have thus stated tho whole purport
and meaning Of the bill so far as it submits anything
to the popular vote in Kansas and have shown that
neither in its terms, in its intent, in its effect
is not by direction Is it submitted by indirec-
ton?
Even if it were submitted by indirecton, and that
indrection honest logical constitutional right
in ITSELF and necessary, could not agree that that
fact were just of offence, of objection to
the measure We could not get along at all in gov
eminent if we could not agree that good things
should be hazarded indirectly upon issues upon which
others directly staked. Itwould notbe sufficient
objection to the conference act it, in submitting ques
tons to Kansas which absolutely required to be sub
mtted, this Lecompton constitution had been indi-
rectly put at stake. But we think it very clear,
nevertheless, that such was not the case.
All the supporters of the late Senate bill admit that
the Lecompton constitution is now the lawful con-
stitution Of Kansas prospective State. 1t was
so in December when Congress met it is 80 now,
after the passage of the conference act it will be
so up to the day that the vote Of the people of Kan
sas shall be taken tho question of admission
and the proposition respecting the lands submitted
by Congress it will be after that day ALSO which
way the majority of the vote be cast Of course
it will be so, if the vote be in favor of admission
Will the Lecompton constitution still be the const-
tuition of Kansas las prospective State not yet adj
mitted if the vote shall be cast against the land
ordinance and admission That is the only ques-
ton which our argument has left to be disposed Of
We know of no power in Congress- to abrogate
State constitution whether the State be incpent ap
plying for admission into the Union, matured
and sovereign State of the Union. Though Con-
gress therefore, should have expressly inserted
clause in the conference act abrogating the Lecomp
ton constitution in of adverse vote in Kansas
on the land ordinance such clause could not have
abrogated that instrument 1t is only the people of
Kansas who can land they only by regular and legal
modes of procedure) abrogate the Lecompton con-
sttution and as the question Of abrogatng rat-
flying that instrument is not submitted to the people
of Kansas in the vote that will be taken the land
ordinance, Of its abrogation ratification is
not involved in that vote. The vote may, indeed,
under the circumstances, afford indication of the
wishes Of the people in that matter; but the vote
win by no means be an act either of ratification
of abrogation as to that instrument. Thus as it is
only the people who can abrogate tho Lecompton
constitution, and vote they give under the
conference act have effect TACT and deed"
of abrogation their part it follows that the Le-
compton constitution will not be abrogated, even il
the vote of the people of Kansas be against admis
sion under the Conference Act. The abrogation
must be by another and special act of the Kansas
people.
If the vote be adverse, what then 2 The Con-
ference Act itself provides for the contingent
cy. 1t enables the people of Kansas to take
measures for framing new constitution in lieu
of the Lecompton; not Immediately not at their
arbitrary will and pleasure but whenever and
not before it is ascertained by census duly
and legally taken, that the population of the said
Territory equals or exceeds the ratio of repre-
sentaton required for member Of the House of
Representatives. of the Congress of the United
States " Any matured State has right to change
its existing constitution by substituting another So
hasany incpient State. Kansas would have this right
whether Congress recognised it or not; and no rea-
sonable quarrel with the Conference Act for
recognising this right as belonging to her in the
| event Of her refusal to come into the Union under
Che land ordinance proposed to her-especially
as the enabling clause of that act lays Ter under
disability to change her present constitution by sub
shutting another, until her population shall reach
93,5OO.
We have thus, in a patient, calm and logical
gument endeavored to prove to those of our south