The Placer herald., 1858-05-01

its adoption cannot be inquired into only so far
as to see that it has been formed in such way as
the people have legally established for themselves
The doctrine of Governor Walker would be ut
tery subversive of all State rights and State SOW
ereignty; for one of the unquestonabe attributes
of sovereignty is the absolute right to select its
own mode of giving expression to its own will.
If. then, upon general principles, rs we'll as
from established usage it clearly appears that the
validity of constitution does not necessarily
depend upon its having received popular ratit-
cation, is there anything in the Kansas bill that
varies this case from former precedents? On this
point Governor Walker says these rights Uhat
is the right of having the constitution as whole
submitted to popular vo e) II have ever re-
garded as fully secured to the people of all the
Territories in adopting their State constitutions
by the Kansas Nebraska bill. Such is the con-
structon of this Kansas net by its distinguished
author not only in his late most able argument,
but by addresses made and published by him long
antecedent to that date, showing that this sover-
eign power of the people in acting upon a State
constitution is not confined to the question Of
slavery but includes all other subjects in such an
instrument. Indeed ! believe the Kansas Nebras
ka bill would have violated the rights of sover
eighty reserved to the people of each State by
the federal constitution if il had deprived them
or Congress should now deprive them, of the
right of voting for or against their State consti-
tuition"
What part or clause of the Kansas act gave
Gov. Walker the idea that it secured not only to
the people of that Territory but "all other Terri
tOrles'' the rights he mentions this committee are
utterly at a loss to imagine. If there is u word
or sentence in it which imbodies any such security
they have been unable to discover it: and if the
distinguished senator from Illinois, who is thus
styled the author of that bill ever gave any such
construction to it, antcceden to his ''late" speech,
this committee are not aware of it, If any such
construction was put upon any part of it during
its discussion in Congress in 1854. or afterwards,
or during the canvass of 1856, by that senator or
any person else, this committee are equally una
ware of it.. On the contrary, they have good evi-
dcnce that no such construction was then or af-
terwards or up to the 18th June last, put upon it
by the senator who is called its author. In the
speech made by him on that day he certainly put
no such construction on the bill. During the last
Congress the same senator reported bill, though
he was not the author of it, providing for the call
OF a convention in Kansas to form State consti
tuition for admission in the Union. That bill
made no provision for the submission of the work Of
the convention to Il decision of the people. That
was known as the Toomb's bill. 1t passed the
Senate and received the vote of the senator from
Illinois. In giving that vote Gov. Walker may
believe that the senator "riolated the rights Of
soc'reignty reserred to the people ofeach State
by the tederak cOnstitution," but he can hardly
affirm that by it the senator gave that construc
tion to the Kansas bill which the Governor says he
had so repeatedly given before his late speech
Indeed. the record of that senator shows that he
did not deem it necessary, under the Kansas-Nc-
braska BILL to submit even the slavery question
to a decision of the people. The language of the
Kansas bill. as first reported by senator Douglas,
on this subject was in these words:
''All the questions appcrtaining to slavery in
the Territory and in the now States TO be formed
thcrctrom are to be left TO the decision of the
people residing therein, through their appropri-
ate representatives.
This shows that he then thought that the act of
sovereignty in determining this question on the
formation of constitution could he performed
by the people through the ''intermediatc body" of
"reprssentatires' as fully and completely as if
done by themselves. The words finally adopted
on this point in the bill, after declaring the re-
strction of 1920 null and void, were follows:
1T being the true intent and meaning of this
act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or
| State. nor to exclude it thcrefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg
ulate their domestic Institutions in their own way.
subject only to the constitution of the United
States"
Ifany inference is to be drawn from this change
of phraseology it is that the object aimed at by it
was to leave even the slavery question to be set
tied, as all others had been before, by the people,
in their own way, in conformity to law and the
constitution of the United States If they chose
to do it by representatives, the power was given
them to do it; if they chose to do it by general
popular vote, the power was given them to do it
III tilaJ way OouSTcSS was W uDSIalH IrOH Ill
interference or intervention with or over their
own way or manner of doing it. so that it was
legally done under the constitution of the United
States.
The difficulty with Gov. Walker seems to be
that they have chosen way of their own differ
ent from the one that he would have have had
them to adopt. He wished them to decide that
as well as other questions in his way; they prefer
red their way to his. To correct this
dsobedient proc eedng on their part, he seems to
be willing now to shed the "last drop of his ltes
blood"
AS before stated, the Lecompton convention did
submit the slavery question to a popular vote.
This was matter entirely discretionary with
themselves, In doing it they, were doubtless ac-
tuated by the most patriotic motives. This was
the origin of all the strife in the Territory. This
was the subject which Mr.. Stanton had stated
with so much confidence would "in some ,cay''
be submitted to direct vote of the people. On
the submission every bona fde citizen in the Ter
riory entitled to the elective franchise had full
and perfect right to vote upon it, If any abstain
ed from voting. the fault was their own. They
have no inst cause to complain of Congress for
admitting the State under constitution with Il
clause which they do not like when they had fair
opportunity to vote it down, if they really have,
as they pretend, a ma ajorty in the Territory. The
official vote on the ratification, when so submitted
as will be seen by exhibit No. 6, was Ms follows:
f Constitution with slavery 6,225
Constitution without slavery 500
) Making an aggregate of 6,795 voting on the
question, and majority of 5,647 for the consti-
tuition as now presented This is certainly very
large majority of those joining in the election If
not majority of all the voters in the Territory
in favor of the constitution as it is now before
Congress- and according to the doctrine of Gov
} Walker, in his inaugural address, "those who alb
stain from the exercise of the right of suffrage au
thorized those who did vote 10 act for them, and
the absentees are as much bound under the law
as if all had participated in the election" If this
view be correct, then no constitution ever came
up with a stronger endorsement by popular vote
and every objection to its validity on the ground
of its wanting even this sanction is utterly with
s out foundation.
Another objection of the same class is that nc
enobnp act was passed by Conpress or in 9th