The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-02-25

itS'ii. III shows on It's lace TACT stronger
than any proof, that the people dad not vote
lit shows that il was impossible for them
20 vote their sovereign will in fair, FIVE
and full election, Such an election cannot
possibly bc held under such schedule.
This. Congress is bound Ia look at ] am
bound in certain eases 10 cause the seal Of
this State TO BE- affixed To papers for the
purpose of authorization. have no cleo
ton. Il the paper is proper 10 he certified
| must afix the seal. But suppose tina, in
the net of authorization, by ailixing the
seal, it appears 10 me that there is doubt
even whether the paper is tho act and deed
Of the party whose act and deed il purporis
TO be. Must ! not inquire whether |, he
the act aud deed Of the partyY If | aflix
Authorization 20 what is not his NAV ito
him ircparahc damage. l'ut suppose that
il appears on the face Of the paper itself
that II oouid no, be his act and jcei-that
lac was not len n FREE agent, Am bound
To certify that 20 be his act and deed which
no, only IL not, but could not bc his act and
dccdy Now, as | said in November. If the
Convention had proclaimed this Consti,u.
ton, and sent il 10 Congress, w,tiou sub.
mstftng q al all 10 The people, then Congress
would have had simply the evidence Of the
Convention the representative and agent
tina, this was the authorized instrument of
their principals---the people Evidence to
the contrary would not have appeared Ia the
record and on the return itself, And we
would not have been authorized. II you
please, Ia 40 behind the return Of the Con.
ycn,ion, or to have taken evidence ai,uade,
or admitted plea TO matter dchars the
record. isot the Lccompton Convention
submitted their Constitution 10 popular up
prevail or dsapproval, ratification or rjcc
| tion. II purports 10 h. the net Of the PEG
ple--not of the Convention ouly, but Of the
people also. The Convention did no, fully
aud finally adopt it, and this schedule
shows that the people did not, because they
could not. IA il was proposed. II IL. then,
| neither the net Of the Convention nor Of the
people. II Is, In Tact, adopted by neither,
and could not he by the latter.
II Congress received and adopts II M II
State Constitution for Kansas under these
circumstances, will not Congress b. iatcr,sn.
ing to impose Constitution upon people
which ~ not theirs? Win they not arbi,ra
riy intervene to decide question which bc-
longs 10 the people of Kansas alone--to oil
and all alike allowed by law To voter Have
ulI and all alike been allowed 10 vote p
| Were those who did vote allowed Ia vote
against the Constitution IA well NJ for ~
We are told that We are TO shut our eyes
20 the record. What evidence have we then
that II IL a Constitution ut all We mr.,
told then, that this IN moi The time Ia raise
the question. de tado, whether Il Is the act
and deed OF the people Of Kansas. When
would DO the time. when was the time, II II
be not the time now, TO inquire whether this
IL genuine Constitution Of the people 0l
X ansas, and whether il Is or " not rcpubi
can, when thesr, aud these only, are tn
questions before Congress-
Why, IL il asked, has the fact been Dc
laycd 10 longy answer. how could th
issue be made up before the returns wer
made and the evidence appeared on the r.,
cord submitted 10 Congress.
All but We arc told that II IL ,nerpei,
eni to raise this question ut all that cxpc
diency requires Congress 10 decide the gues
ton. When was il morally determined TIM
the policy of this nation should he governs
by cxpcdiency rather than by justice oI
right : But what right has Congress 10 e
up its decrcss Of expcdiency over and abov'
the sovereign rights OF people u iree ant
fair clectioni Ia cxpclicDcy 10 he carrie,
40 fur ~ 10 allow Congress 10 intervene "
AZ 10 vet it, will over the will Of the pcopl
Of X ansas, or " substitute its will for theirs
and to give u minority Constitution u
majority This would be intervention will
vengeance IN the teeth Of non-iniavcntiou
40 much exclaimed for by those who advo
cate the Constitution
I,ut the President offers an induccimn' 4
the snti-slavcry party in Kansas by saying
III a majority Of them tho people u X an
sasj desired 10 abolish domestic SLAYER
within the State, there Is no Other possible
mode Wy which this can h. effected 40 speed
ily, IA by prompt admission" 1'his hint !
somewha, dangerous In point II policy. !
cuts both ways. itmight be asked whetbc
this commands itself TO prosIavcry gentle
men who are advocating the prompt admis
sion" Some Of them once REPEALED law
protecting and establishing slavery IN Kan
sas They had better not make II too ap
parent in The south that prompt admission
would most speedily unrnake the SLAYER,
there which was restored by the bred Scot
decision. I;ut this was not the President
fair meaning lie meant TO say only that !
was in his opinion the speell,st way " Oh
tain fair vote by the people. Ia othc
words, Congress IL 10 do thing In ordc
that II may be Immediately uDdoDe! VIII,
do il 10 be undone! IL Congress 10 Civ
the Territory Constitution obnoxious To
majority in order that that majority ina,
have State sovereignty 10 put IL 10 the tor
lures Of It's Indignation Why not ratbe
allow the sovereign people directly sod a
once 70 select Tor themselves the form o
government they prefer, instead Of submit
ting TO their passions an instrument which
the argument admits they abbor!
Would 1t h. le1s uoable, or take ess time
" refer the matter back % their decision
and 10 avoid the issies which might end