Litchfield enquirer., 1858-03-11
1856.

and any abandonment of them now on my part, after the people had accepted and acted npen them would be to cover myself with infan,y and dishon6r. Whatever then, may he tie actiof of the wavering, tiinid or corrupt, me- mace and prescription have DO terrors for me
 l will continue to tread the path where eon- science and duty call me, regardless of all ce,.- sequences or sacrifices, personal or political. But were the case nov exempt from tltse pledges and their consequences, is it true that the people, in framing a State Constitutior, are only to decide the Slavery question? Has it come to this, that the people in their soy.-' reignty are to decide only the destiny of such Africans as may be in their limits, and not upon all those far greater rights which con cern the life, liberty. property and happiness of free people? Has the African becom., so elevated above the free men of this Union that they, ill thtir sovereign capacity, may not decide upon all that concerns the own gov erEnlent. bIt only upon the fate of that salsie race that may be within their boundaries ?--- And is 1t true that the people in inchoate Free States can neither ratity nor reject any part of their State Constitution, but that this can lie done il inchta ate slave states only, ,and tlen on-
 ly as regards this enc particular institutiong The Kansas and Nebraska bill declares it la be ''the intent and meaning of this act to leave the people. thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tke constitution of the U. &" Now the President in his December
 message adlnits that the term ''people' as here
 used, means what 1t says, the people them
 selves ln their sovereign capacity, Gas contra
 distinguished from Conventions, in voting for or against the ratification of State Constitu- tlon. But he says the term domestic nstitu- tons, !" in the plural, means only one institu-
 ton, namely, that of Slavery. Bat the terms THEIR domestic institutions" nest clearly in- clude them all, because extending in words and letter to all the Territories of the Union, whether bond or free. The President regards this Kansas and Nebraska Bill as au enabling aet, but enabling whom, or what, or how?
 Why, enabling the people to form and regu-, late their domestic institutions through Stafe Constitution. The word form" is here siSh:- fcant Who ever spoke of forming the illst;- tuition of Slavery? The word most clearly
 implies the forming of State Constitution and if it does nor mean this, it is not an eua- bling act, for that is the great object and pnr. pose of such an act. These words, then, do euable the people to frame State Constitu- tlon, and by which alone they shall form and regulate their institutions and the President comedies that the word people" as here used, means as it says, the people themselves, as contradistinguished from Conventions, by a direct vote for ratification or rejectiou.
 This, then, being an enabling act, an act as construed by the President, ~eaabng the -peo- pie to frame their own Constitution, this term. the people, cannot have two interpretation, oac meaning the people themselves, and anoth- CT also, as the President insists Conventions only. No-these words, the people, in that act, have but one signiication, as applicable to all their domestic institutions, and it can never beslnterpreted to mean, as the Pres- dent would construc it, in what he calls an en- ablIng act, the people, so far as regards the question of Slavery, and Conventions only, as regards all other subjects. No--tIis great act, declaratory upon its very face, was inten- ded to recognise the right of sefgovernment in its broadtst and most comprehensive sense, as vested in the people themselves, extending to all their domestic institutions, in ratifying or rejecting their State Constitutions, whose provisions could onty be known and acted on
 by them when suslntte for their decision by
 the Convention. And thus it was that tho Kansas and Nebraska bill was a recognition of that great fundamental principle of public liberty, embodied in the Federal Constitution. reservlng all sovereignty to the people of the { several States, admitted or incloate and not as vested in Conventions who possess no soye- reIgnty (which canuot be delegated or diyi- ded). but are servants of the people only, aud not their masters:
 Such is the true meaning of the term ipeopl.' in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, as now and always advocated by it's distinguished author. Such was the interpretation given to this act by both Houses of Congress, ill the Minnesota act which is but supplemental and in ex. .ecution Of the Kansas and Nebraska bilf1 in requiring the constitution itself to be submit ted for ratification or rejection to the vote of the people And why should this odious dis {. tincton be made between Kansas and Mime sota Why should the people of the latter oe permitted to vote for or against the ratif. cation of their State Constitution, and this great sovereign and constitutional right be withheld from the people of Kunsas Is the one sovereign and the other subject state Where are we, and in what direction are we drifting Are we upon the banks of the Bos- phorus or Danube, or upcn soil consecrated to popular sovereignty, by the blood of the Re,- olution Is the President the master or the servant of the people, that he should thus die. tate to them or their representatives, under threats of, exclusion from the party of their choice Is it executive edicts Or soyereipn rights that constitute the liberties of our con,. try? Are we freemen "who kn6W our rieht,. and knowing, dare ,naintain,', or are we Va. sas, seris, or slaves, palace slaves, that wi. cringe at the stamp of the foot of tleirmaster Is it the people and the states, as represented in the Senate and house of Representative. who gre torecord their votes, as indicated bs their unbiased judgment; or are they mere)s to register Executive ediets, under penaltiep .,