The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-02-24


ernment, but sirplya body yauthorized to
frame constitution nthe shape of pc
tition, aud to pray for its acceptance by
Congress- That was the distinction.
y gain, in the seventh sectfon of the
schedule we find:
Before this constitution shall be sent to Com
gress for admission into the Union. as State,
it shall be submitted TO all the white male in
habitants of this Territory, for approval or dis
approval as follows
1t then goes on TO give tie ferri of the
vote, q constitutions with +slavery. or
constitution with no sla@efss;" but be-
fore Ts can be-sent to Congress the sched-
ule says it shall be submitted for approval
or disapproval. Can it be said, in the
face of this language. that se convention
declared the constitution in force without
submitting it to the people? Can it be
said that the constitution can ever take
effect. unless ratified by a vote of the
petple2 If | can understand the plain
meaning of language which appears to be
unequivocal. it is not susceptible of doubt
that the constitution is referred to the
people for acceptance or rejection, aud
that whatever validity or vitality it is to
have, will be received from the peoples
ratification If [, am right in this posi-
tiou it krings me back to the old point,
that the Submission is sueliTas not to give
an opportunity for fair vote on the sia-
very o. any other question:
come next to the position which I as
sumed with reference ,o-the submission Of
constitution for ratification | did not
contend that constitutions might not, uu-
der any circumstances, be- pat in opera
Ice ~ ia
ratification I said before, and | say
now, that the constitution must be the
act md deed of the people of Kansas it
must embody the will of the people Of
Kansas; no coustitution should be received
by Congress. aud none can fairly be con
sidered republican which does not enbody
she will of the people who are to be gov
erned by it, aud is not formed by their
act. Having assumed, as an essential
fundamental principle, that the constitu-
ton must embody the will of the people.
the next question is, WHAT'S the best aud
most appropriate mode of ascertainirg
that will? Upon that poiet concur with
the President of the United States in his
message. that the best mode is to refer it
to the people for their acceptance or re-
lection by fair vote. TIE principle be-
ing that it shall embody tie will f the
people, its Submission to a popular vote is
only a means of ascertaiiing fact, which
fac', namely, hat it eriib6dies the will nf
the people, gives it vitality, aud makes it
an appropriate constitution. I regard the
argument of the President of the United
States in favor Of that mode of ascertain,
ing the peoples will as conclusive The
Presidents argument is, that delegates
represent districts, aud majority of the
delegates may represent minority of the
people, IN Coz sequence of some being
elected by large majerities ans others by
small majorities; hence the President says
delegate election is not a far test, but
YOU must refer it to vote of thewboe
peo lie in order TO ascertain the vital, the
fan lamental, the cardinal poimt whether
or not the constitution is the EN- bodiment
of the will of the people l advocate
submission, as means OF ascertaining
end, not as a principle. [ do not say
there could be no possible case in which
| would not accept constitution without
its having been thus submitted Suppose,
for instance, a constitution had been for
med by delegates, and there was not
murmur against it, not protest, not the
dissented from it, and the only question
in dispute was the sufieiency of the por-
ulation, am not certain but that | should
waive the irregularits, and take 1t for
granted that such a Constitution did EN-
body the will of the people If should
accept it on such terms, il would be be-
cause there was satisfactory evidence that
it was the will of the people. That viii
embodied in the constitution is the cor
dial principle which Is, or should be,
sine qua non in the estabiisllnent of
governments for for the admission of
sew State
This is the point of difference between
the Senator from Missouri and myself
As be evidently misconceived my meaning
on the matters to which / have referred, |
it has seemed to me to be due to him to |
evstste my views, especially as he has .trea
ted the subject with a candor and courte-
- that deserve to be followed aud imita-
ted Certainly they will leave their inn
pressiou on me in conducting discussions
with him. l shall endcavor to profit by
the example he has set this day in the
mode of debate
Mr.. GREEN. I am somewhat sur
Drised at the position taken by the honor
lble Senator from Illinois. He under
sakes to prove that he State of Michigan
was authorized to form constitution by
IN enabling act, aud this by process of
-easoning L had not expected from him.
He undertakes to prove it by the ordi-
rance of 1887, which contained provis-
on that the Territory should be divided
nto not less than three and not more than
i've States. So far as this division is
concerned, be is well aware that it has
been violated The territory is made IL
o more than five States; but d es the
ordinance give authority to the people of +
! Territory to form constitution d es
I convey from Congress to the people
to create government ? He
ays yes. Congress did not SO consider
yhen they passed an enabling act for
ohio. Congress did not so consider when
hey PASSED an enabling act. for Indiana r
Congress did not so consider when they
nassed au euablipg act for Illinois, the
own State. Four out of the
y - / :