The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-03-03

application Of Kansas has been presented TO Congress-
becomes important question with your
how they ought to in regard it. And that ques ion
has been greatly complicated by various msapprehen-
s and false fascious ressoniugs
the obligations and responsibility Of Congress In the
matter Of admitting State the federal Union, and
rea. the effect Of such admission II is maintained
by that ought against the Of Kan
because her constitution recognizes the institution OF
domestic slavery But the federal constuton as under
stand allows no such test for the admission oil Stste
but on the contrary requires representatives TO act
In this regardless Of any such consideration. Be-
the acts Of Congress for the Organization OF New
Or sDy Of ss when sa
mitted States, sha be received into the Union with
or without lavery a. their constitutions may prescribe
at the time Of their admission" And the Nebraska Kan
act Of 1854 did according 70 B true intent and
ing place these Territories equality this respect,
with New Mexico and Utah. 80 that, however honestly
and ardeI y your representatives may be opposed 70
slavery, they bound by the acts Of their body
and by their own solemn oahs under the federal const
ution 70 vte on the application OF State for adms
sion into the Union without regard the fact conn
gency Of its being slave State free State Much has
der the Lcompton constitution about the section Of that
cons tuition which provides for its amendment after the
year 1854 a. ,oud not by any ans be altered till
the expiration OF that time And his s urged as reason
why members Of Congress sbouli against such al
mission On this point should be observed In the arst
place, that the objection made by the same who
approved the topeka constitution in which there was
provision for amendment till 1885, And between their OBJ
lection this and their approval in that there s an
u
with honest sincerity. But all this apart. the obec
ton proceeds upon two groundess assumptions: first,
that Congress- has the right TO make or require the Aers
ton Of this provision necessary condition of adm
ting Kansas into the Union; and, second that with
such provision the people Of Kansas cannot amend
their constitution till after 1864 But these assumptions
have foundation in truth. For long Kansas has
republican form OF government there is legitimate
power in Congress 70 ceternne wba. her constitution
shall be In other respects IN hx the time and mode Of
s alteration has any Dember OF CDgress the right
against ber admission the ground that ner
sttuon cam 4 he altered for term of years But Kan
be subjected any such disability. For is
plain 10 somt Of reasonable douJt that any people
~ho can make constitution for themselves, 70 which
there other party, alter abroeate IL at their
pleasure, net as easily and lawfully a. any two parties
between whom there Sritsen agreement can, by mu
,ual consent change snpersede that agreement con
rary To stpuatoos therein contained. Such has been
the practice Of Of the Oldest States 10 the Union
The constitution OF Maryland was changed N pursuance
OF legislative passed in lS49 contrary 10 the most
important provisions in the former constitution OF that
State 50, too in the great State Of New York; the last
amendments her constitution mahe, as the presi
cent has stated N his recent message in direct con
traventGn Of her former organic Law What IL more
and conclusive on h point, this sovereign power OF the
people particularly recognized and guaranteed by the
very tuon against which the objection under con-
sideration brought for rs therein declared that al
poca power Inherent in the people, and all free gov
err are their authority, aud instituted
for their benefit aud therefore they have a. all tunes an
Dael able and ndef asibe right 70 aer reform or ebo
hsh their form Of government n such manner as they
may ,bLk pToper.o Who doubt that the constitution
which holds such doctrine this mag be amended az
" nane2 And how Ia It possible that any member
OF that any democrat IN particular, can In view
Of ths fundamental doctrine OF our democratic govern
nent and ihe face Of tas declaration Of the Leco mp
TOD OD,ttuto, make tbs provision 70 question ground
Of oppo to the admdson Of Karsas uoder that con
stu'lonY Asaip, the opponents of the afmr stration
complain that for TO ad nit Kansas into the Union
der The .acomptop constitution would be 70 force ob
jsctiopsbe orm OF government upon an unwilling peo
ple by arbitrary act OF Congress But admitting
for ;be sake o he argument hat majority OF the people
Of Kapsas are opposed 70 tha, constuuon this compa Mt
proceeds upou the assumption tnat Congress hxey 70
DO, against .he popular will Of Kan as, shat Il has
to DO Tor the most willing people en- earth. For
gress has no power to organize new STATE nor to in
veft any people, whether Wiling or unwilling, with
state government II great mistake " suppose that
IN. act Of Congress by which State Is admitted into
The Union the act by which that state s brought into
beng an subject 70 a State constitution. mo
re ctoD 20 sufficient 70 convince every
intelligent man that when the people Of Territory act
ing Ia accordance with the laws and Of the federal
government adopt constitution and elecs Govern1t and
other officers OF the State In obedience 10 provisions,
ths mseves constitution by which they just really
and nrmy bound before Their admission into the Union
they are afterwards And such appears 70 BE- the case
"a Iasful manner, BY their chosen representatives,
frsmsda co'suation they have adopted ths. oonstitu
ton and eiectes their tate officers under sod IN they
have declatd that this shall txe effect and
be In force from and after rs rstnc<,o by the people, az
herepbefore provided" which RATIFICATION took place
the 2isi day u December 1887 It wrong, therefore,
aye absurjto talk now Of Congress forcing COO
sttuuon Upcn the people OF Kansas, when II rs already
wiful de'ault-and since, II we're not, would be i'm
possible for any Of Congress To force upon them or
even 10 bring tbem into tie Union But told that
tie Leompioo constitution was procured by series Of
hssns practised by small minority OF the people
upon the great majority, and that does not
airy represent the legal Of Kansas Aner
iul cor deraon Of this point, am fully satisfied that
coes thus tail To represent the majority OF the legal votes
KAIsss ssch failure has resulted mainly, not wholly,
ON tho refusal wfu neglect Of many 10 At the
~fu election Of the people. And 20 ur stanton, tho
former secretary Of kAosAs hs recent address 10 tho
aefi IN tad kta Isa sriY.1 Inn
failed u vote Tor the eisgaes 70 be Lscompton
Constitutional Convention, ssys-t II not 70 DO denied
that tie great central fact which controlled the Whole
the utter went Of confidence by ;hs people 10
the Whole machinery Of tho Territorial gov rnmeuI"
this stat msLt of Mr. Stanton be ueAnd see no reason
doubt tthen the fact, be fact that the Is ,omp
ton Convention I'D Dot fairly represent the pe1pe of
Kznsss attributable not 20 any fran1s OF Tho fe
its, vc, bn; the pe1orl able neglect of the msng
~bo refused to participate m general popular election,
be Ia pursuance of aspscia law the Trr tofia Legs
is'ure Apd DO ono wi pretend toat such refusal Of
electors 10 vote from sant OF confidence In the govern
Ut uGdu witch they live aud 70 which they ose as
an,e can BY any means invac ate the elections. The
esey other which the majority Of the legal voters
NJ KsnsS have allowed the election 10 60 bs default II
doe NJ 70 me- therefore, that the Iecompton ustiu
ton maze hy couvsbtoD OF delegates elected by the
Vsope, IN pursuance of law Of the Legislature, s se
Lune, hsusi. document. ana that the election of Do
G mbsr n. when that constitution ~ss agreeaoy W it,
provision, submitted W all the white mall nhaoit
sru Of The Territory for approval or isproyal," asd
tbersupop ratified by majority OF the popular votes
ny ue people Of all parties, cAnuot bs re
ssrced anything lee. than the popular
arotion and kco,tion OF that Constitution ~ the
supreme the STATE Of Kansss Inc Legality Of ths
ecomp,op Convention has never been denied by many
~bo roe oppose the admission OF Kansas under the Ls
,omItn Cons'tstiOn their oppoeton being made 90 the
gruund hat this Institution has not been submitted "
The people But this alleged ground were true do not
see hos could Justfy such opposition for believe that
less thsn eleven Of the States in the Joion
admitted under constitutions which had never been sub
nued TO po7uiar vote Besides The ground Of this op
position nOittrcty true, for the Lecomton oonstitu
ion, ~ have shown, submitted 20 the people 'or
and for the elecsn oi State u aud there
upcu received The sanct on of popular vote. And
" me thu hese precedep,s 40 this Hon ought
10 obvisie al objection and nevtraIze ali opposition o.
thH stoubd W The mission of Kaosss under Leoomp
iou CONSTITUTION fndeed see ~, uod left when
member d Coz g-ess csn consistently 9Th the provisions
- the edsrsl consi uton, against the Application Of
presented 10 the Of President
kepresenisves 60 net come here cnzeus Of Kansas,
to ~ uolmtnt on every part and parcel oi her cons
luton sad 10 pronounce upon the qualifications Of her
electors The time Of holding her elections and
Cf he applcatIon Eaness hasb bapp