Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1858-03-11


But were the case now. exempt from these
pledges and their consequences, is it true
that the people in framing State Consti
tution are only to decide the slavery ques-
ton? Has it come to thise That the
people in their sovereignty are to decide
only the destiny of such Africans as may
be in their limits. and not upon all those
far greater rights which concern the life,
4 liberty, property and happiness of free
people? Has the African become so eleva-
ted above. the free men of this Union, that
they in their sovereign capacity. may not
decide upon all that concerns their own
government, but only upon the fate of that
sable race that may be within their boun-
daries? And is it true that the people in
inchoate free States can neither ratify nor
reject any part of their Constitution, but
that this can be done in inchoate slave
States only, and then only as regards this
one particular institution? The Kansas AMI
Nebraska bill declares it to be 1.-THE true
intent and meaning of the act, to leave the
people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions, in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution
Of the United States Now The President
in his December message admits that the
term '.people,' as here used, means what
it says, the people themselves in their SOW
capacity (as contradistinguished from con-
ventions) in voting for. or against the rat
ifcation of a State Constitution. But he
says the terms domestic Institutions" in
the plural, means only one Institution"
namely, that of slavery But the terms
THEIR domestic institutions most clear
ly include them all, because extending in
words and letter to all the territories of
the Union, whether bond or free The
President regards this Kansas Nebraska
f bill as an enabling act but enabling whom,
or what, or how? Why, enabling the
, people to form and regulate their domestic
, institutions through a State Constitution.
r The word form is here significant
, Whoever spoke of forming the institution
of slavery? This word most clearly I'M
r plies the forming of State Constitution;
4 and if it does not mean this, it is not an
s. enabling act. for that is the great object
f and purpose of such an act These words
do then enable the people to frame a
s State Constitution, and by which alone
they shall form andregulate their institu-
| tions; and the President comedies that the
t word people, as here used, means, as il
: says, the people themselves, as contradis-
f tinguished from conventions, by direct
vote for ratification or rejection This
a then being an enabling act, an act, as con-
D strued by the President, enabling the peo-
l people to frame their own Constitution
this term, the people, cannot have two In
terprctatlons, one meaning the people
| themselves, and another also as the Prcsi-
S dent insists, conventions only. No; thes,
t words the people in that act, have but one
: signiiication, as applicable to all their do
{ mcStic institutions. and it never can be in,
: terprcted to mean, as the President would
construe it,, in what he calls an enabling
e act. the people, so far as regards the ques
!, tlon of slavery. and conventions only, a.
O regards all other subjects. No; this great
S act, declaratory upon its very face, was IN
C tended to recognize the right of self-govern
j. ment in its broadest and most compensiv,
: sence, as vested in the people themselves
n extending to all domestic institutions il
C ratifying or rejecting their State Constitu
e tlons, whose provisions could only bt
known and acted on by them, when sub
S mitted for their decision by the convention
! And thus it was that the Kansas and Ne
i braska bill was a recognition that great
Y fundamental principle of public liberty
!, embodied in the federal constitution, re-
i serving all sovereignty 10 the people of tn,
t several States admitted or inchoate, and
: not as vested liz conventions who posses.
e no sovereignty, (Which cannot be delega
: ted or divided) but are servants of The
: people and not for their masters. Such i
: The true meaning of the term oeople in tho
4 Kansas and Nebraska bill, as now and al
: ways advocated by. its distinguished au
G thor. Such was the Interpretation giver
: to this act by both houses of Congress, in
t the Minnesota Act, (which is but sup
t Elemental and in execution of the Kansas
J; and Nebraska Bill) in requiring the Con
e stitution itself to be submitted, for rati6ca-
: tion or rejection, to the vote of the people
: And why should this odious distinction
' be made between Kansas and Minnesota;
/, Why should the people of the latter be
t permitted to vote for or against the ratifica-
| ton of their State Constitution. and this
a great sovereign and constitutional right be
: withheld from the people of. Kansas? Is
0 the one sovereign, aud the other sub
ject State? Where are we, and in what
+ direction are we drifting? Are we upon
j, the banks Of the Bosphorus OF Danube, OF OF
upon soil consecrated to popular sover-
: eighty by the blood Of the revolution? Is
j it Executive edicts or sovereign, rights
e that constitute the liberties Of our country? ?
!; Arc we freemen sswho know Hour rights,
e anl knowing dare maintain, or are we
vassals, serfs, Or slaves, palace slaves,
|, that will cringe or change at the stamp OF
t the f'sot of master? Is it the people and
: the States, as represented in the Senate
: and House of Representatives, who are to
record their votes as indicated by their an.
; biased Judgment or are they merely to
: register executive edicts, under penalties
for refusal ofdenunciationa and prescription?
Is the President the master or the Servant
, Of the people, that he should thus dictate
!. to them or their representatives, under
! threats of exclusion from the party of their
] choice? Is Democracy a name and shad-
ow, or substance? 1t means the ro,cer
j Of The people This is its vital essence
| Or has it lost its true Specification, or are