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

by any fiction or by any technically which could
prevent the full scope of your justice and your
son over the whole subject.
Therefore. sir, this state of preparation Of the
Territory Of Kansas for admission into the Union
has no effect. The argument is not applied; the
fact is merely stated that there is state of prepa
ration, and there 1t would be necessary to stop on
any doctrine; for, in my own Judgment, no argu-
ment can be made even of any ordinary plausi-
bility to show that the state of preparation re-
strains the people of their natural and ndefeasbe
right and their legal right as proclaimed by you,
to form with perfect freedom their institutions
before they come into the Union. There is no
technically about it.
Here, it seems to me, applies that great princi-
pie to which adyerted at first, that tie people
haze a right to gomru Themselves. mean, Of
course, in subordina ion to constitution and law.
This people had no constitution, could have no
constitution, while they remained in territorial
dependence; and when the act Of the Territorial
Legislature was passed requiring vote TO be
taken on this proposed constitution, they had full
authority to pass that law. Their hands were not
bound. Here wasa great actabout to be done, an
act to bind the State, to give it new character,
to give Il new institutions, to put upon 1t con-
stitution-that panoply Of the rights Of all. This
was the great act to be done; it is an act which
none but the people can do through themselves or
their proper representatives. It's in all cases d.
rectly or by reference the act of the people The
laws which they establish are not Of that transient
character which can be made to-day and repealed
tomorrow. They are made for permanency. They
are the great mutable and eternal truths and prin
ciples on which all government must rest. They
are expected to be permanent. The people dele
gate to others the power of passing temporary and
repealable laws. They reserve to themselves the
great right Of passing those which are permanent
and OnIy he reDealad bv themselves.
Was 1t not of consequence, was rnot Of import
ance to know the will of the people, whether they
really did approve of this constitution which was
about to be offered to Congress- law which,
when Congress puts its imprinadtur on 1t by adj
mitting the State, is to be permanent? Would it
be any harm to take the vote over and over again,
so long as doubt remains? Congress has the
po,oer. What objection could there be to it? You
may say sit is an unnecessary care Of the peo-
pies rights; you have had their decision once; I;
therefore, it is not necessary to have it again !"
but out of abundant care, and abundant zeal you
may choose to take II again and again. and ascer-
tain whether there may be change or variation in
the public opinion. Who can say aught against
it? Do you object to it because it is taking too
great care of public liberty, paying too great re-
spect to popular rights? Nobody will take that
ground.
But it may be said you might delay the app-
cation to Congress by these repeated elections
You must avoid that as far as you can. In
this case it has not delayed it. In this case
this vote was taken before this constitution came
before you; while it yet slumbered in the hands Of
President Calhoun. No objection can be made,
then, that this was made the cause of or intended
merely for the purpose Of delay. The result shows
that it was necessary andproper. The result shows
that notwithstanding the vote of six thousand,
in favor Of it, there were ten thousand who were
opposed to 1t. l say, therefore, this is not the
constitution of the people o. Kansas. 1t may in a
certain sense be constitu ion offered by the con-
vention to the people OF Kansas but which the
people Of Kansas by ten thousand majority have
rejected have as lawfully rejected in the last vote
as 1t was lawfully approved by the six thousand first
voting in the preceding December.
/ say, then, Mr.. President, upon the record evil
dence, upon all the evidence, this is not the con-
stitution of the people of Kansas 1t is not the
constitution under which they desire that you
shall admit them into the Union. Now, will you,
against their will, force them into the Union under
constitution which they disapproveS That is
tho question. You know the fact that ten thou
sand against six thousand are opposed to the con-
stitution. You know that by the act of their Ter
ritorial Legislature they entreat you not to admit
them with this constitution. They tell you, more
over, as one Of their reasons, not only that they
disapprove of the whole constitution but that il is
particularly hateful TO them because the votes given
for it, or apparently given for it, were, to great
extent, fraudulent and fictitious The Legislature
tells you that nine-tenths of the people there are
opposed TO it.
Now, would II not be strange, that under these
circumstances, we should, without any motive for
IL that know Of as the common arbiters Of all
Territories and States TO the extent Of consti-
tutional power, force her into the Union? What
notiv can NO hav haf III ohf xVff ba
knowledge Of these facts, TO force her into the
Union, and to enforce upon her this constitution
cannot feel myself authorized TO do such thing.
OF course do not impugn the motives and the
views Of others, who, taking different view, act
from impressions different from mine. They act
upon one view, and upon another; but, viewing
the subject as do, Il seems to me that to do this
is plain unmistakable violation Of the right Of the
people to govern themselves.
have endeavored to show you, sir, that this
is not the constitution Of the people Of Kansas,
according to the recorded evidence Of their will.
1t seems to me, furthermore that this constitution
is fraud. Ii is not only not their constitution,
according to their will, but il is got up and made
in fraud, to deprive them Of their rights. Ibeheve
that and think It can be shown.
The President of the United States has furnished
us an argument on this subject, and il has been
oftentimes repeated here ia the debate-of course
a plausible and ingenious argument, as all must
admit, even those who deny the solidity Of the
reasoning. What Is the argumentf The Presi-
dent says that the sense of the people was taken,
and proved TO be in favor Of calling convention.
The convention was called delegates we're elected;
those delegates made a constitution; that consti-
tuition was submitted to the people in part, and
approved by vote Of six thousand, taken accord
ing to law. Well, all these, you win observe, con.
stitute tissue long series Of little egalities, reg
ularities, aud techncalitics and the reasoning OF
the President is founded on technical points on
each OF these facts You must admit all the facts.
Yes, sir, the facts are all true; and II they alone
constituted the case, the conclusion would be fair
and right that this constitution has been regularly
made; that this constitution has been sanctioned
by the people as well rs by the convention. But
is there no more in the case than thisY There is
great deal more in the case than this.
When frauds have been alleged and charged
against this government Of Kansas, gentlemen say,
"Ah, but these frauds were in other elections :;
these frauds do not particularly and specifically
touch this constitution, or the proceedings which
led TO this constitution" But suppose there we're
frauds in relation TO it isit not something IL show
you that in regard to that part Of the constitution
which was submitted TO the people TO be ratified
by them, and which was nothing until the people
had ratified Il even according to the constitution
itself there was fraud ia that election, and abun-
dance of fraudf So plaripo 80 jmpudent and so