The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-01-21

lncnt. nat tUbNtDtiun Was, htTcIoV, nc
iare. legitimate. |, formed a Constitution,
and had right TO form it. That was its
function and there It's power ended, except
to submit it, rs u proposed organic law, to
the fair and free election Of the sovereign
people, to b. adopted or TO bc rejected by
them, They, in their ORGANIZED being Of
legal voters. are alone sovereign. The en-.
tire constitution ought TO have been submit
ted to their lawful voice ut the polls. The
power was not delegated to the Convention
TO proclaim and establish u State Cons,itu.
ton; II had to be approved by Congress,
and much more had II TO he approved by
the sovereign principles, for whor, the mere
agent, the Convention. actcdl
II was not mere statute law. rcpcalable
at will by Legislature 10 sit yearly, and To
he chosen by the precincts Of annual clec.
tions. II was the grca, fundamental organic
law, under which titles aud tcnurcs and
franchises were TO be held, and Judges aud
legislators were TO sit, and executive author.
ty wins tO WELD the arms Of State, and Of
fees were to be- filled, and Justice was to b.
administered, and law was 10 be enacted and
coHie,lcrated station was to be assumed asd
sovereignty itsef was to bc assumed and /,
was 10 be irremrable by legislation, and TO
be- in y word, the supreme constitution OF
State, under which she was TO be received
into the most glorious l Mon Of States which
ever protected and fortified the liberties Of
mankind What, Tell W. than an ins,ru-
ment itself was not TO bc submitted in lis
form and plan proposed TO the only lawful
sovcreigns- the Organize poplc-- not
mere mass Of persons, but the bond fde in
habitanis and legal voters Of the State to bc
governed. for their election. 10 adopt or ~
jcct il DeJWe, say il ought To have been
so submitted Pure and undeiil,d rcpubl.
canisin, conservative Democracy, required
that it should bo ~ submitted. There is no
mobocracy in that idea. II Is even, just.
steady, organlzel free republican action, ike
law Of popular liberty, defined by citizenship
and the rule Of election, and is the true cS.
ample of essential sovereignty in the people.
Instead of 40 submitting this PROPOSED
constitution by the mere agent, the Convex
ton, ,lelefenlially 10 the principals, the or
ganized sovereign people there was usur-
paiion--a Withholding from them Of fair,
free. full and equal election 10 choose or not
to choose their own constitution Of self
government II was n pdrfe II was all
on one side il was. in gambling phrase, the
foul head. ] win aud tails you lose " the
constitution WAS Obliged 10 b. adopted. with
the clause or without the clause the vote
was bound a. br " ior the constitution =" il
all nd M hat
was no submission "a an election at all --
Election is choice Of alternatives, 10 adopt
or 10 reject To reject az well as adopt, to
adopt ns well as reject. There was no
choice in this case and no equality Of voters
in this case. Three men went 10 the polls
A. said 4" vote for the constitution. with
or without the clause - but Is. and & said,
We vote against it, with or without the
clause As vote was counted. Bs AMI C's
were not 10 be counted. and thus one WINS
made not only 10 Offset two. but TO be sole
substitute in fact for three against the ma
ori,y Of two TO one out Of three. Now this
was but the unveiled trickery and shameless
fraud Of n so-cslIcd schedule. There was
neither right nor justice in il. The Democ-
racy Of Virginia st least scorns title Of
any sort, founded on fraud, occult ~ paipa-
ble, a. this. We say that, n between the
convention Of Lecompton md the ysople Of
X snssus, the question was one DE jure. and
ds iurs the whole constitution, in all iis
part. ought 10 have bcn submitted 10 oil
the legal voters. pro and ton, anil the two
voters ought TO have been allowed their
voices against IL. N we'll M the one voter
hi voice for 1t. And. ~ far ~ slavery il
concerned, 1t made tbe css wor.e against
tha, speci~ d property, 10 submit the
slavery claus alone TO tbs election u the
people
Why discriminate in respect 70 that "pe
ctlisf institution p II IL becsHse il was
peculiar, II W. conteDded lyr anything esIc-
ciaIiy. 1t u that our property shal! not b. dis
tibguished or discrim mated from O,bcr pro
perty 10 legi,latin. II stands on the same
footing Of right N protection and preerva-
tioo which Ia claimed for any other ds-crip
ton oi thing owned " J,ps,eased by others
n IHDprty. Why wAs this singled out Tor
chancss Of prohibition Wa il not enough
thai the Badger amendment of the kanzns
Nebraska bill hsd already enacted tina, all
is~. protecting and establishing II prIor TO
1919 20 should be repaieI: "byrpeat
Discrimination against slavery 10 tbs sche.
DUE u submission' This Wis ground
eboagb TO make lFo-sIayery par'izan. reject
IT. 10 fact and Of right. i the constitution
had u0t b-en sabmiiinI al al, ~ whole OF
in part 20 the people, il would have ben
n.ofe impartial and more ja.t 10 tie save
hastr than !; was submitted II tbere w. any
m ls,skeu and misguids.i sod m,gudlny par
,ies IN The South who you'd he ga,i,y of ar
rayiba sgainst The oqnal right Of slave PRO
ytrty The irresistible and ird,pu,abIe rights
II popular sovereignty, We would have our
property from the gua' disuship oi such folly
and rely, az property and protection must
always mos, saisiy rely, rather upon law snd