The Nevada Democrat., 1858-02-03
ann.tt.r snrersirntx.

u0h thbuknF PtOpSA w haoAS WIN ehs ASSAoShsj
has created vide spread excitement in the
country. Heretofore the democratic party has
stood firm and united upon the Slavery agita-
ton. 1t united in carrying through the great
compromise measures of 1850; and is entitled
to all the credit of that pacifcation which it
was designed should forever exclude the sub
ject of slavery in the Territories from the field
of National politics. When Mr.. Douglas appre
ciating the inconsistency between the principle
Of the compromise measures of 1850, and the
obsolete principle Of the Missouri compromise
brought forward the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in
which it was declared that the Missouri restro-
ton 'being inconsistent with the principles of
non Intervention by Congress with slavery in
the States and Territories, as recognized by the
legislation Of 1850, commonly called the COM
promise measures, is hereby declared inopera-
tive and void; it being the true intent and
meaning of this act not TO legislate slavery into
any territory or State, nor to exclude 1t there
from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic insti-
tutlons in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution Of the United States" the demo-
cratic party north and south aequiesced in the
Justice of this measure proposed by Mr.. Doug
las anu OH tDht lbsu6 CdTTltu tuc pIcScub NuiSl
Magistrate in triumph into the Presidency
Thirty years of unceasing strife and cOntrover-
sy, renewed with alarming intensity on every
application for admission of a slave State into
the Union, had demonstrated the necessity OF
making some otner tribunal than Congress the
arbiter Of this most dangerous question. The
laws of parturitiOn accompanied the birth of
every new State, and the Union groaned with
the labors of the event. but instead of drawing
more firmly together the bonds of affection in
the national family, at each period threatened
to tear them asunder.
Experience had therefore shown that the rep
resentatives of the people in Congress assem-
bled coming together clothed with all the pref
udices Of education, imbued with all the sec
tional antipathies Of those they represented
fearful Of their personal responsibilities, were
utterly Incapable OF acting in concert and ad-
justing the difficult subject In this dilemma,
the eyes of patriotic aud wise men, including
the immortal Clay and Webster, men too great
for their party, turned 10 devise some better
and more practicable mode for the solution of
the problem. Recurring then to the radical
source Of power in the republic, they justly
concluded that the people themselves who were
the fountain of political power, should exercise
the sovereign prerogative Of fixing the funda-
mental laws of every new society. Upon whose
shoulders could the responsibility more proper
ly devolve? And to whom of right belonged
the exercise of that power, but to those who
were interested as citizens of the community
about to be formedP In this then the principle
of the compromise of 1850 had its origin, and
as a sequent, its application in the Kansas-Ne-
braska bill of Mr.. Douglas.
The question at issue now in the new phase
OF The Kansas difficulty is the execution in good
faith of the squaiter sovereignty principle. In
carrying out that principle two things are to
be attended to. lst. The exclusion of congress
sional legislation in all matters pertaining to
the local and fundamental laws and institutions
of the inchoate State. I'd. The plenary control
of the people over all fundamental laws aud
institutions Of the society or State proposed to
be erected by them.
The theory OF our government is pure de-
mocracy, in which every man votes directly
upon every subject Of Legislation in which be,
or the society of which he is q member is con-
cerned. Practically, however this is an impos-
sibility, and we substitute the representative
for the democratic voice. The will of the peo-
pie is expressed through those selected by them,
in every legislative body from town trustees up
to congressional delegates, and a faithful reflex
of the popular will is secured by the limitations
upon the terms for which they are elected
Representation and accountability may be said
to be convertible terms. The representative
not only answers for but answers to his con-
stituents. AS the agent of those whom he rep
resents he is also recognized in this capacity by
the rest of the world his right to act in their
name is not to be questioned II he abuses his
trust he is responsible alone to those who made
him; and in turn those who clothed him with
the trust are responsible for bis acts As the
constituency have right to demand that his
voice shall be recognized in their behalf, so
they must answer and be responsible for his
conduct. The relative rights and duties of
principal and agent in political point Of view
should be respected as sacred and inviolable by
third parties; not to be enquired into, or ques-
toned; and at the same time, the acts of the
agent should be regarded in this political rela-
ton as conclusive on the constituency.
Having laid down these premises what are
the conclusions, applicable to condition of the
people Of Kansas and the Lecompten Constitu-
tioA.
The people having rightfully had the duty
devolved upon them of fixing their fundamen-
tai laws, were bound TO exercise it. II was a
right which they should have eagerly embraced.
Had slavery been imposed upon them by Con-
gress contrary to their wishes they would have
had just ground of complaint. AS it was with
in their own control they cannot complain if
they have supinely or wlfuly permitted it to
be thrust upon them. But as the duty of exer.
cising this right was an arbitrary duty, they
had no right to abstain from voting, either in
the election for delegates to the convention, or
afterwards on the constitutional question sub
mitted. As the organic law provided by Con-
gress authorized the election of territorial le-
gislature-that legislature when elected was
necessarily legal body, and as such all the
world was bound to recognize it. Then, follow
ing the precedent of almost every State which
has come into the Union, that legislature hay-
ing made provision for the election of delegates
to constitutional convention, the squatter SOW
ereignty principle demands for it all the respect
which the people could confer upon a body of
delegates and they who wilfully abstained
from participating in such election have been
recrcant to their duty as citizens and have just
ly incurred tho condemnation of every good
citizen. They are the last who can decently
appeal to Congress or the people of the Union,
to redeem them from the consequences of their
own perverseness.
D.,kk =. H.. r. Al!