Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-04-20

4 v 10 W NOkCH W. k"N
were to compose the new Government under thi'
Constitution, and that they did 40 not merely with a
| simple assent to the Constitution, but with the express
decls' alton that they would support II, Tor they were
not allowed TO vote until they agreed 10 SUSTAIN the
Constitution-tha il to cay, 10 sustain II. II adopted,
until it should be legally changed or abolished. Such,
in my opinion, was the plsdgs when fairly Construed.
Against all this, We ara referred to fhe vnte which
was taken on the sth January, under the law OF the
Territorial Legislature, az evidence that me people
Of Kansas are opposed TO this Constitution. Mr..
President, | deny that this vote is 8n element IN the
argument. 1.-THE Convention at Lacompton WAS valid,
If its acts were authorized, then this Legislature had
no authority to pass a law, to take the sense OF me
peoples they had no authority to do that which be.
longed to the Convention itself to do; for It was for
that body to take the sense Of The people IN regard to
its action, and not for a Legislature which came into
being afterwards. If We admit the State under that
Constitution. and thus acknowledge that u Was a
State, the act relates back to thu time OF the adoption
Of the Constitution, and nothing that was inconsistent
with its provision ia legal and valid If, on the
other hand. this Convention was not An authorized
body. that settles the question ITSELF and !! 10 u-s.
less 10 look further to the votes in relation TO II. II
1t wers An authorized body, there is no validity IN ifa
acts, and 1t il idle to count the votes that were cast
against il.
But, air. We are told that whatever may be the evi.
dencs which has been taken, according to the forms
this case, We ought not to regard them when there is
such pslpable evidence that a majority OF the people
Of Kansas are against the adoption Of this Constitu;
ton. Here lies. in my view, the most plausible OF all
the Arguments which have been urged agsin't It,
We must remembsr that the very existence OF popular
government itself requires thst We should take no
evidence in regard to hepopular will, save that which
is presented according to the proper form. OF Law
That principle ia necessary to protect the right OF self.
government in a representative systemi and l think
have shown you, Sir, that according to that evidence
which has been taken in conformity With the iorms
Of law, this Constitution is 10 be considered as the
valid act of the people Of Kansas But put aside
that for the present, and l come to this other argu
ment, that whatever may be tho legal presumption,
here ia positive evidence that a majority Of the peo-
pie are against this Constitution.
MIR. President, l pasa over the circumstances that
this vote on the 4th OF January was an es parfe pro.
~ceeding; that it has not been exposed to the whole
come test Of an adversary scrutiny; that circumstau-
tial evidence has been adduced TO chow that more
votes were cast in certain places than could possibly
have been fairly given there. I pass over all these
considerations; and | ask whether this fact itself does
present conclusive evidence that the people Of Kan
ses are against this Constitution What is it that is
expressed by this vote in which the ten thousand ma
jority was given1 We are not to infer from it that
this majority were not allowed to carry out their will
in regard to the Constitution, and that therefore we