The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-03-13
Senator Douglas Minority Report on
I.ncntnnfA

|
| and in his own language:
: | am constrained to withhold my assen
! from the conclusion to which the majorit
of the Committee have arrived, for the rea
son that there is 10 satisfactory evidenc
that the Constitution formed at Lecomptol
r is the act and deed of the people of kansa
or that it embodies their will. In absenc
eff all affirmative evidence, and in opposition
to the overwhelming majority OF the cleo
ton of January 4th, 1853, it is argued tha
the Convention was constituted with ful
authority to oTdain constitution and esta
blish a government; consequently its pro
ceedings must be presumed to embody th'
popular will, Notwithstanding its being over
thrown by most conclusive evidence to the
contrary As the right of Congress to &C
cept the Constitution depends upon the as
sumption that its proceedings were techni
cally rtgular, it is necessary to inquire whe
thcr it was duly constituted and clothed
with full power for ordaining a constitution
and establishing State Government to the
exclusion Of the preceding acts of Congress.
Did the territorial act of Feb. 18th, 1857,
have the effect OF authorizing the Conven-
ton to substitute State Government for
the Territorial?
The committee in their reports have held
that q sovereign power of a Territory Is held
in abeyance by the National Government in
trust fer the people until they shall become
| a State, and that this power cannot be trans
! ferred TO the Territory without consent OF
/ Congress. The Kansas Nebraska act invest
ed the people of the Territory with the
! right or self-goycrnment in obedience to the
/ organic act, but did not authorize them 70
annul that rct without the consent Of Con-
grcss.
/ The President seems to think that the
/ Kansas-Neorasha act authorizes the people
/ of the Territories or any portion OF them
( to form Constitution ct any time without
I authority from Congress, suspending the au-
| thority Of the Territorial Legislature, at
! least TO the extent OF depriTing it Of the
power to submit con.titution to the peo-
pie before it should be deemed the act Of the
people Neither the provisions Of the act,
nor the understanding OF lis authors support
this position.
President Pierce held no such theory. In
1886 he sent in special message to Con-
grcss. recommending an enabling act as
remedy for existing evils in the Territory.
The Committee on Territories, TO whom
this message was referred, were of the O.
pinion tha; the recommendation Of the Pre-
sidcnt furnished the appropriate mode OF
satisfactorily adjusting the question at issue,
and so reported, thus indicating that they,
as we'll as the Ch:lf Magistrate, did not re-
cognize the right Of the people Of a Terri
tory containing but few Inhabitants to form
at pleasure a Constitution and State Govern
ment The House Of RepreScntatiy $, how
ever. refused to comply with the Presidents
recomuen alton.
That the -uatc we're Of the same opinion,
is evident from the passage Of the Enabling
Act for the people Of Kansas, July ,, 1896.
No Senator who had voted for the Kansas
Nebraska Act voted against the Enabling
Act, and none opposed it. on the grounc
that the Organic act was Sufficient TO au-
th0Tize the people of territory 10 ordain =
Constitution ~ pleasure.
The Kansas Legislature, by the act Of
February 70, 1858, did not and could not
confer upon the Lccompton Convention the
sovereign power Of ordaininG Constitution,
in place Of the organic Law passed by Con
cress. The Convention, conscious of want
of power. seek to supply the deficiency by
referring the Constitution to the people at
an election on the 2Ist Of December, " for
ratification or rejection" with provision
that this Constitution shall take effect and
be in force from and after its ratification by
the people" From this, it is clear, that the
Convention did not openly assert the au-
thoritv 10 ordain the Constitution by virtue
Of inherent sovereign power, but referred lis
ratification to the people, under the suppo-
silion that the popular will expressed thro'
tue ballot box might imprrt validity to 1t.
Before the time of election, the Territorial
Legislature interposed It's authority by pass
! ing a law. providinif Tor holding the election
! on the 4,h Of Januarc. The reasons fer this
were
| !. That the mode Of submission prescrib-
| ed By the Convention was unfair, rendering
/ it impossible FOR tina people to reject it.
! .. That the mode of submission did not
| fully present the question of slavery or no
slavery.
/ 3. That the Convention possessing no ie-
/ eislative power. it could not provide penal
ties for Illegal voting.
| 1. That by the schedule Of the Constitu-
/ ton the management Of the election was Ia
/ ken out Of the hands oc the Territorial oiii-
| GERS.
The election of the 4th Jan. resulted in
| the reputation of the Lecompton Constitu-
! ton by clear majority of 10,06i votes.
/ Notwithstanding the legislative act, fixing
| on the 4th of Jan. as the day Of the election
/ the friends of the Lecompton Constitution
| held an election on 2lst of Dec, un the pre-
tended authority of the Convention, which
resulted in a majority of 5,514 votes, cast
for that Cons tuition, with slavery" More
F.. than half this majority was east at very
sparsely settled precincts of the Territory
and without doubt was fraudulent. Assum-
| ing, however, this election to have been fair
and valid, though not conducted according
to law, on comparing the returns of tie two
elections, indicate majority against the
Lecompton Constitution, of 4, 400; casting
| ont the votes declered fraudulent by the
presiding officers Of the two Houses OF the
| LEGISLATURE, we have a majority of 5000, or
four to one of all the legal voters of Kansas
! in opposition to the Constitution. The
President asserts in his recent special mes
sape that the election Of the 4th of Jan was
held after the Territory had been proposed
for admission as a sovereign State, involving
strange inconsistency of voting against the
LecoInpton Constitution, while recognizing
its valid existence by voting under its pro-
! visions. BY what authority had the Terri
tory been thus prepared for admission into
the Union? Not by the authority of Con-
, rress. Not 10y authority of the Territorial
1egislature. 1t is a peculiar doctrine tha,
a Territorial Legislature may assemble
Convention without the assent of Congress,
and empower the Convention to abrogate
the authority Of the Territorial Government
established by Congress. Surh question
does not now arise for the first time.
Under the administration of faction, or
the right of the Territorial Legislature o
Arkansas, "to prepare that Territory fol
admission into the Union as 4 sovereign
State without any express authority iron
Congress" Gen Jackson delivered the de
cision of his administration through MIR
g Butler. his Attorney General, that a conven
t;on assembled under a Territorial Legisla
ture. without an express authority from
Congress, had no right or power to prepar
n the Territory for admission into the Unio
n as sovereign State, and thereby abrogat