The Kansas herald of freedom., 1859-06-25
Territorial Sovereignty.


The editor of the Lecompton Democrat
replies by saying:
ave answer the above question by
citing the fact that during our Territorial
existence, we are wholly governed in our
legislation by the act organizing the Ter
ritory that act admits the constitutional
right of the people to prohibit or institute
slavery, but does not and cannot clothe
the representatives of the people with any
such power; hence, when the people, in
their sovereign capacity, ratify Constitu-
ton for State government, and are adj
mitted into the Union as State, we are
no longer governed by the Constitution of
the United States or the Organic Act,
touching our domestic affairs, but by our
State Constitution, which may either pro-
hibit or institute slavery"
The representatives of the people, he
admits, may frame proviso against sla-
very, but it can have no force till it has
been ratified at the polls by the people.
Why has not the legislature the same
right as Constitutional Convention, to
frame a statute against slavery, and sub
NIT it to the people for ratification At all
times the Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land"
The Organic Act comedies them as much
power in the one case as in the other. 1t
provides, "That the legislative power Of
the Territory shall extend to all rightful
subjects of legislation, consistent with the
Constitution of the United States and the
provisions of this act" The prohibition
of slavery is not "rightful subject of leg
islation," if the legislative power does not
extend to it. Moreover, the Organic Act
declares, that its true intent is to leave the
people of any Territory or State perfect
ly free to form and regulate their domes-
tic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United
States" If it is not unconstitutional to
abolish slavery, the people may so enact,
according to the tenor of the Organic Act.
But the idea that the people can prohibit
slavery only by direct vote, and not then
till they come to adopt State Constitu-
ton, is absurd. The sovereignty of the
people over slavery, taking as true that
Congress has no power over the question,
is as perfect before the formation of a
Stata Constitution q = oftar
The Kansas n ebraska act makes no
specification as to the time when the peo-
pie of Territory may decide on the ques-
ton of slavery. The clause, that "when
admitted as State or States, the said
Territory or any portion of the same, shall
be received into the Union with or with
out slavery, as their Constitution may
prescribe at the time of their admission, ~
is simple guaranty that Congress shall
not make the slavery question a bar to
admission, as the old Free Sellers would
have done. 1t confers no power on the
people, and does not prescribe aohen the
people shall prohibit or establish slavery
This clause is simply declaration of non.
Intervention on the part of Congress.
In another article, explanatory of the
Kansas Nebraska Act, the editor states
that: an the Senate of the United States,
on the 23d of February, 1859, the mem.
bers heard that the Kansas Legislature
had usurped the sovereign power of the
people, and violated the Kansas ebras-
ka Act by abolishing slavery" but he
adds, shat the Legislatures of both Kan
sas and Nebraska refused to uSurp the
power of the sovereign people," Will the
editor point out the clause of the Kansas.
Nebraska Act which the Legislature came
so near violating? 1t is "usurpation" in
the representatives of the people to abol
r ish slavery, but does not seem to be SC
regarded when their legislation is for slap
!. cry The first Kansas Legislature could
establish slave code, yet not singl,
Democratic editor charged that it had
been done by usurping the power which
the people could exercise only in the rat
ification of State Constitution
J We do not deny the right of the peopl
of a Territory to prohibit slavery, for W,
believe that they can as constitutionally
do this at any time before the formation
of State Constitution, as then. They
can do this, because the Constitution o
the United States does not place slave
| property on the same basis as other prop
{ erty. 1t creates slavery nowhere, ant
does not make the institution legal wher
3 ever it goes. But if we were to start from
, the Democratic standpoint. that slau
3 property stands on the same basis Nth othe
$ property, we should not hesitate to avov
3 the position, that the people of Terrific
Try have at no time any greater right II
prevent the owning of slaves within it
limits, than they have to prevent tn
owning of land-in short, that the aboll
7 ton or prohibition of slavery is not
"rightful subject of legislation" This j
Just what the South affirm, and Just wha
the Lecompton Constitution affirmed i
: the following words "The right of prop
u erty is before and higher than any con
> stitutional sanction, and the right of tn
o owner of slave to such slave and its in
9 crease is the same, and as inviolable a
the right OF the owner to any propert
whatever"
We battled the Lecompton CoDstitu
: ton because it not only was not the wor
of the people of Kansas, and had not re
ceived their Endorsement, but also be
cause it contained this Professionalism
;. ing the inviolability of slave property
While the South supposed ii possible I