The Nevada journal., 1858-02-05

SouATTER SovEREIGNTY.-1f any one
is at loss to know the defunction ap-
piled to this term prior to the advent of
the Presidents Message, or is so wilful
and perverse as not to understand it,
we would cite authority of an undoubted
kind. We take the Cincinnati Enquirey
of Oct. p, sterling Democratic sheet,
edited by James j. Faran formerly a
Representative in Congress from the
Hamilton District, Ohio, and an able ex-
FOUNDER of Democratic principles. In
an article headed "Kansas-Her Con-
stitution," the editor says:
1t is an old and national test, and one
that is the cornerstone of our govern
ment, that the people are the source of
all political power, and that no govern
ment is rightful one that does not de-
rive its just powers from the consent of
the governed.
The question is, how is that consent
to be ascertainedl In the absence of a
direct bestowal by the people of their
sovereignty, qu0ad hoe, to the Constitu-
tional Convention, it is to be ascertained
by a submission of the constitution, which
the Convention may form, to the people
for their approval or rejection. The
people can say at the time they appoint
their agents to form a constitution for
their government, that the constitution,
which their agents may form, shall,
when adopted by the Convention, be
final and conclusive, without the appro-
val of any other power. But, in the
absence of any such authority, express
or implied-and the fact of silence on
the question cannot be construed as
comforting such authority, for sovereign
ty is not to be parted with by implication
we contend that it is just and proper
nay, indispensable, that the constitution,
which the Convention may adopt, shall
be submitted to the people for their
ratification.
In Kansas, the people who elected
the delegates to the Constitutional Con
yentiOn did not confer on them the
sovereign power of making constitu-
tiOn that should be operative and bind
ing, when adopted by the Convention.
In majority Of cases, the people requir-
ed of their delegates to vote for submit
ting the constitution to vote of the
citizens of the Territory. In other cas-
es it was the understanding between
the delegates and the voters that such
submission III ,uld be made. In blt
few cases was the decision ofthe Con-
vention to be considered final. There
is now but one paper in the whole Terri
tory that opposes the submission of The
constitution to the people for their
approval. Three -fourths of the legal
voters of the Territory are in favor of
and demand such submission. VIII
authority, outside of the Territory, can
lawfully or properly intervene between
them and their just wishes, on a matter
so important to their welfare2 Can any
outsiders claim rights adverse to the
will of the citizens of Kansas on so vital
a question! We hardly think our re-
s2ected cotemporary will contend for
the affirmative.
Aside from the folly of forcing upon
people constitution which they have
not and do not approve of, and which,
in their sovereign power. they can alter
or abolish, at their pleasure, after they
have become a State, we will remark
that Congress has beensin the practice
of looking behind the parchment on
which the constitution was written, to
ascertain whether it was genuine. and
wether it met the approval of the people
to be governed by it. Had different
rule prevailed, Congress would have
admitted Kansas into the Union under
the Topeka constitution. Congress sent
back for the approval of the people the
Michigan constitution, and it required
the approval of the people to the Flori-
da and Wisconsin constitutions. If
Congress could not look behind the con-
stitution itself, not only Congress, but
the people directly interested. might be
most grossly imposed on.