Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1858-03-04
Admission of Kansas.-Report Of Senate,
Douglas

1ecompton constitution, made in the |
Senate on the 18th ult., completely ex-
poses the fallacy of the reasoning of
President Buchanan. It will Re recol-
ected that the President IN his message
the transmission of the
Lecompton constitution to Congress, ar
CUES the right of The people of Kansas
to change the constitution as soon as
they please after its adoption. We have
only room for an extract of the reply OF
Senator Douglas, to this reasoning ofthe
President:
The President can perceive no obiec-
ton to Congress inserting provision in
the act admitting Kansas into the Union
which abrogates aud annuls an impera-
tive provision Of the Constitution, and
declares the right of the Legislature al
ready elected to take the initiatory steps
to change it by majority vote, in the
face of the provision in the Constitution
that such steps shall not be taken until
sstaoo-thirds Of The members of each
House" concur, and not even in that case
until after the year 1864. What right
has Congress to intervene and annuI,
alter or even eonstrue, the provisions Of
u State Constitution, and license the
members of the Legislature to disregard
their sworn obligations to support the
Constitution under which they hold their
offices? Where does Congress obtain its
authority to tell the members of State
Legislature that they are under no obi
cations to respect and obey the Consti-
tuition with which such State was admit
ted into the Union, and that they NAV
proceed to alter or abrogate it, in mode
and at time different from that author
lied and permitted in the instrument =?
If the Locompton Constitution be the
act and deed of the people of Kansas,
and if it be accepted by Congress as
such, and the State be admitted into the
Union under it, l hold that there is no
ldacful mode ON earth to change or a.
mend it, except the one provided and
authorized In the Constitution itself /
agree that s'the will of the majority is
supreme and irresistible, When expires
"Sed i'll an orderly and lawful manner
But the question is, when Constitution
has become the supreme law of State,
what ''lawful manner" is there of chang
ing it, except the one provided and per-
mitted by the Constitution? agree with
the President, also that 'the people can
''make and unmake Constitutions at
pleasure" But how? In what manner
is this to be done? There are two modes
the one laacful, and the other reeolu-
ti0saary. When Constitution has once
become the fundamental law of State,
there is no "laacft1k manner" there can
be no lawful manner of altering, chang
ing, or abrogating it,except in pursuance
OF its provisions. 1t is true that the right
of revolution remains-that great, in
alienable right to which our fathers re-
sorted when submission was intolerable.
and resistance less evil than submis-
sion.
Constitutions and governments have
been changed by revolution without VIC
lence or bloodshed, but this is the case
only when the public sentiment in favor
of the change is unanimous or approach
es so closely to unanimity as to silence
all opposition. If this should prove to
be the case in Kansas, the people will
be able to re-assert their violated rights
of self-government, and form a Consti-
tuition which will embody their will with
out violence or force; but if, in the pro-
gress of the revolution, they should meet
with determined resistance, civil war or
unconditional submission must be the
inevitable consequence Do the history
of this Lecompton Constitution, the
character and purpose of the men en-
gagged in the movement, and the means
employed to force it upon an unwilling
people, furnish us assurance that after
they have realized all their hopes by
making the Constitution the fundamen-
tai law of the State, unalterable until at
ter 1864, and then only by two-thirds
vote, that they will, on the day they
come into power under it, permit it to
be subverted and abrogated by a revo-
lutionary movement, when they will have
acquired the right under the Constitu-
ton of the United States to demand of
the President the use of tho Federal Ar
my, to put down the insurrection, and
protect the State against domestic vio
lence ?" When this demand shall be
made upon the President by the ''Leg-
islature already elected at its very first
session." or by the Governor "when the
Legislature cannot be convened" will
he not consider himself bound by his of
fetal oath, and in obedience to the Con
stitution of the United States, to use the
Federal troops to protect the State a
gainst domestic violence, by putting
down the revolution, and suppressinc
instruction and maintaining the author
ity of the Constitution, until lawfully
changed in the manner prescribed in the
instrument? Or, if it could be converted
into political question, and brought be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United
States for adjudication, can any one
doubt the decision ? Would not the
Court be compelled to decide that the
Constitution, having once become the
law of the State, must be
and obeyed as such until
or annulled in pursuance of its
own provisions ? Would not the Court
DC compelled to declare as an inviolable
and universal rule of Interpretation that
when Constitutionprescribes one mode
IF amendment, it must be understood
and construed as having thereby preclu-
GUIDED all other modes, and prohibited
MI other means of accomplishing the
same object? Suppose the people of
Kansas should attempt to change the
constitution in mode and time diff. |
erent from that authorized in the instru-
nent, and should proceed so far as to