True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1858-02-24

meet iE Convention, without a law Of their
Legislature, and without any provision or
against any provision of their Constitution
and may alter or abolish their whole frame of
Government. The sovereign power to 60 Yern
themselves was in the majority, and they could
not be divested of t."-6ongressional De.
bates, volume l2, p, 1886.
Mr. CLEMENS. Who said that
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Benton.
Mr.. GRow. President Buchanan held
the same.
Mr.. BINGHAM. That is true, and |
shall notice that hereafter. That was
Dem ocratic doctrine in 1896, when Mich.
igan applied to be admitted into the Union
Then, sir, the people might make a State
Constitution Without a Territorial law,
or against Territorial law, because the
validity Of The act depended, not upon any
existing statute, but upon the Inherent
right of the people-their great right of
seIf-government, of which they could not
be divested. II the words of the message
just cited mean anything, they do mean
that the people have not the inherent
right of selfgovernment; that their right
to reject Constitution, framed by their
delegates, depends upon requirement
in The organic act binding their delegates
to submit The whole Constitution to the
people, and tina, all their rights in the
premises exist only by virtue of Federal
grant. This surely repeals the very
words of the organic act Of Kansas, which
declares that "the people of the Territory
shall be left perfectly free 10 form and
regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way" They shall be left to
form all their domestic institutions-noI
merely the constitution of Slavery" as
the President says, but all their local and
State institutions. The organic act, by
lis words. simply afirms the right of self
government 10 he in the people it does
not profess to confer any such right. A
man not yet out of the horn-book upoI
the law of construction, ought to know
that this organic Kansas act does no
profess to, and does not, in fact. grant the
people the power TO form their own do
mestic institutions. The spirit Of the acI
is, that it leaves the people, as it found
the people, perfectly free, by virtue oI
their own inherent right, to form their do
meslc institutions in their own way, sub
ject only to the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States. ....
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
LAMAR, following the assumption of the
President insisted that the organic act o.
Kansas was an enabling act. With al
due respect for that gentleman, and with
as much respect for the President as he
permits me to entertain for him, beg
leave to say that the assertion, that the
organic act Of Kansas is an enabling act
is an after thought. The Presidents
party was not of that mind during the
| Thirty fourth Congress, when they cla
mored, from the Penobscot to the Pacific
for the passage by the House of thelr'en
abliDg Kansas act, which passed the Sen
ate, known as the Toombs bill. No, sir
the organic act of Kansas is not, nor was
it intended 10 be, an enabling act. Mo-
do | deem il necessary that there shoulC
be All enabling act. The Twenty-fourtl
Congress, by most decisive vote, so de-
cided and amongst those of that Con
gress who so declared, both by speecl
and vote, the present Chief Magistrate
Mr.. Buchanan, was conspicuous. Pen
ding the question for the admission o
Michigan upon Constitution made by
the people, without any act of Congress
or Territorial act authosizing it, Mr.. Blu
r chanan spoke as follows:
1.-The precedent in the case Of Tennessee ha
completely silenced all opposition in regard t
the necessity Of a previous act of congress t
} enable the people Of Michigan to form Stat
constitution 1t now seems to be concede
that our subsequent appreciation is equivalen
to our previous action, This can no longer b
; doubted. We have the unquestionable pOwe
Of waiting any irregularities in the mode {
framing the constitution, had any such exis
ted."-Congression Debates, PIP. l04l, l04:
; "He did hope that by this bill all objection
6 would be removed and that this State, S
ready to rush into our arms, would not be re
pulsed, because of the absence of some form
alities, which perhaps were very proper, bu
certainly not indispensable. Ibid, lOl5.
1t is no answer to say that the queslio
! in the case Of Michigan was not, in th
d case Of Kansas, whether the people ha
9 the right to pass upon the Constitutio
: before Congress should approve it, an
: admit the State under it. The queslio
: in The case of Michigan included thi
and more the question there was, whett
: er the people, of their own motion, an
y without the aid of statute, National {
Territorial, could make Constitution
: preparatory 10 admission into the Uniol
e which Congress could receive and appro,
: and as it was solemnly, and by the vot'
of more than three -fourIhs Of the Twent,
9 fonrth Congress, decided they could tn
: the action Of the people without an e
:. abling act was an inGrmality which Coz
gress could waive, and in that case d
! waive. 1t is indisputably true that Il
: people of the Territory may themselvt
+ waive the formal ratification Of the Co
u stitution, after their delegates shall ha'
framed it; and in such case may well
] held bound by the acts of their agents.
! But in this instance, the people of Ka
}, sas have not so waived their right.