The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-06-09
Or asglanb Clinton,
ASHLAND:
"Wednesday, II June 9, 1858.
Popular, or municipal sovereignty

" uAOSdoy ounO y, IOOO.
Popular, or Municipal Sovereignty.
.Ehe Ashland Times cannot see how q
Congressional mandate to the people of
Kansas, requiring them to vote on a
CONSTITUTION which they had before le-
gally adopted, can be an insult to the
popular sovereignty of that people
We cdn4see il very palpably.
Our Government is a Constitutional
GoEeInment,. and with powers clearly
defined. All powers, except such as are
expressly granted, re1reserved to the
States. and the people respectively
While We, IS a citizen of Ohio, may
regret that the Kansas Constitutional
Convention did not submit their a0hOle
work to q vote of the people of Kansas,
ret maintain that nndert federal
Constitution, neither Congress nor the
Town Council of Ashland have any au-
thority to require such submission.
This whole controversy arises, it ap-
pears to as, from an utter misconception
of the Constitutional powers of the
9, General Government rs Heu
Where, in the Federal Constitution,
any more than in the Constitution of
England is lodged the power to refuse
admission. of a State into this Union
because its whole Constitution had not
been approved by a vote of the people?
A few years ago the Constitution of
the State of New-York contained re-
strictiops upon the exercise Of the right
sof Suffrage, and other aristocratic pro-
visions. The Constitution of several of
the older States possessed many features
sc, anti democratic as to render them al
most obnoxious to tho charge of being
not sRepublicap;' and yet it was never
supposed By any one that Congress had
power to either rule those States out of
the Union, or to compel them to liberal,
ize their organic laws. saaen
This objection to the admission of
Kansas under the Constitution legally
adopted by the people of that Territory
through their delegates in Convention,
because it was not ratified by the people
in all its parts, is a NEW DOCTRINE,
and as repugnant to all precedent as it
is to q strict Interpretation of the Con-
stitution. s5f Bra
The people of the United States do
not approve of the ~despotism established
in France by Louis Napoleon; probably
a large majority of the French people
themselves are dissatisfied with it yet
if our people should organize rmies in
America and send them to France with
AeparPese-e feEushing..eat that despo-
tism, our movement would probably find
no sympathy in the heart of any man,
woman or child in, all that Empire
They would regard our invasion as an
outrage upon their National and popular
sovereignty.
The spirit of our institutions and of the
Democratic creed which is founded upon
those institutions, is that municipal SOW
ereignty exists chiefly in those organiza-
tions whose bodies are nearest the people.
Hence, that the Town Council of Ash
Hand is a stronger governments, relative
ly-is possessed of more power; and its
influence for good or evil, is greater up
on the people of which it is the repre-.
sentatiye9than is the government at
Washington. Indeed SO few and SO
simple, and SO clearly defined, are the
powers of the General Government, that,
rightly administered, its burdens or
blessings upon the internal interests of
the country, would never be felt by any
portion of the people. Our theory is
that the sovereignty is in the people,
Chat to thePeople of each State, of each
Territory, and of each county, city, town,
township and school district organization
each IN. its sphere-belongs the solo
and exclusive right of regulating their
domestic concerns fae their o10n- aoay."
This theory, fully recognized and er-
fe~reedsvould always secure 10 each and
every. municipality the right of attend
ing TO- IT'S own business, and would re-
lieye each of the. care and responsibility
of taking charge of the concerns of its
neighbors. This is very safe doctrine
for ourselves ; because if we neglect our
ofn interests and duties, and undertake
the. management of the concerns Of
others, we establish a precedent whereby
our neighbors may feel themselves JUST
fedsinfakiDg chargesof affairs which We
b~adasupposed belonged properly to our
selves alone sScas"e3o s0s .oi
The Free State men Of Kansas, Iav.
ing suffered the elections to go by de
fault when they could have controlled
them as they pleased, cannot call upor
Congress to protect them from the con
sequences of their own sobstinacy and
folly. If they arc g underliugs," the
fault is not in their ~tstars,n or in Con,
gress, but in Menselves. 1.-THE Lecomp
ton Constitution does not suit the Free
State men in Kansas,.i it is because OF