The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-01-26

of the doctrine; but that many, from actiOuS,
personal, or party motives, refused TO do so,
and by absen;ing themselves from the polls, per-
mitted elections BY the result of which they
were bound, to go by their default. Others,
though the citizens Of tie Territory, we're ac-
ting under their own laws, which must OF ne
cessity be under their own control, thought no
such opportunity had been afforded them, and
therefore united with the republicans IN asking
Congress TO interfere, to GO behind the local
laws and send the constitution back for another
popular yoto. This was more difference as
to facts connected with application Ola prlnci
pie than as to the correctness OF the pnIcipie,
Let us look into the facts. portion Of the
people of Kansas dissatisfied with their laws,
refused to vote under obey, or in any manner
recognise them and charged election frauds up
on those who did vote Their duty clearly was
to seek the legal, peaceful remedy Of repeal Of
any laws obnoxious to them; for, however dis
tasteful laws may be to individuals they are
nevertheless binding uponall until repealed or
annulled. Their charge 6f election frauds was
well based Frauds were doubtless perpctra,
ted in Kansas but perpetrated nearly alike by
both parties. They could mutually balnce their
fraud account. l have no word for those frauds
but OF strong c0ndcmnation-no feeling relative
to those who perpetraLcd them, be they who
they may, or of whatever party, but OF desire
that they may be severely punished. But the
trial and punishment must be by their local au-
thortles, and under their local laws. Congress
has no jurisdiction in the matter. 1t has no
right to investigate alleged frauds at local cleo
tons except where the election of its own mcnl-
bers is concerned. Well it is that Congress
possesses no such right otherwise its time
would be exclusively occupied in investigating
the constantly recurring allegations OF frauds at
elections in our large cities. These who ere
ated the difficulties in Kansas are eStopped from
pleading "boguS laws" and election frauds in
justification of those difficulties by their own
action; ior upon one occasion they did vote I'M
der the same officers, and at the same precinct,
and elected a majority of their territorial leglS-
lature. Thlsis held to be proof conclusive that,
had lhey chosen to demean themselves like 10y
al citizens, and voted at other elections, they
could as we'll have elected the legislature which
framed the law calling convention to frame a
constitution and therefore had the law SO sha-
Eed i they wished as to require submission CT
the constitution to the popular vote could rs
well have elected a majority Of the delegates and
secured constitution in full accordance with
lucIT WlSDcS' but ny ulSI uii5 law ann uH
tv, and refusing to vote they surrendered The
right to speak for tbem--the right OF govern
ment to those who did vote No proposition
can be palmer. 1t is net non voters, but those
who vote, that govern with us.
This is the view Of the matter taken by
majority Of democrats in Congress. Others
however, concide with the republicans that tho
laws were not binding; or, if they were, Snct
frauds were perpetrated as to Vitiate the e!ec
tions under them. They, therefore, united
with the republicans in requiring the constitn
ton to be returned for adoption or rejection by
those who had refused to acknowledge the laws
or exercise the elective franchise. This mos
democrats opposed as an attempt by Congress
to set aside all laws and forms Of law i'll the
Territory, and aid those to govern who had de.
fed the constitution and law and refused tt
vote. They opposed it as the establishment o
principle that would create a new era in cul
government by making voters the govern
ing power, instead of law abiding voters, b
permitting any election or any legislation under
an election to be negatived by those wEo fac
tiously refused to participate in the election
They opposed it because it was in violation o
the democratic doctrine OF mon nte!y yention.'
The true question before Congress was not one
for or against popular sovereignty, as has beer
,t ,',t ~ ,tervnnt;on
CnnrrosS hos tho riobt to intervene and son,
Laat - core,;tnt;on Icconeo if hos NOT Iecn s,h
,,';,"oI ~ ,,o,,,,Iar ,oto yho, tLo law nrnv;
d,nr G,r G,or,;nr Il d;l moi ronu;rc sncb snb
,y;s1:,n i h,S oor,rI,, tbo r;oht un1.r tI,
ra,,,o I;ro,,,,atoncos "a eord Il EoI bccarce !
on,,o1l, 49, o,t 10 sc,d
i",1, di.toytor,I IN fla
"">N a.! aLar. ~. T.;
,,olI,' tho ,;obt 4,
'."i e. ,,;rS1, ~,
NY r Iii; aI M 20
vi ~ 80 "'l sII ~ ;,a,;foL nv,
C".'e,, " "lV "r'L w. rarlo,,s
.'"l ~ "y "o
90 ~ ''i'' S'''o' ~ '.,I1 tao,,,
sn'' any " a'' ,,,,,os,,
49, ".'D t.,t;a =, H. ,fa;rs !,
~ " sun rr
S'',ta o, ,hro,,a
il"n , .tI Go,,,,,,,naJ 90 ornnsoJ f.
go n,,I Iarios t hat on,
toP"%' y "" .t e,L ,I,ar,.o Ia
80 3 =, onrs J,,,.;n,
uS" ,nSt s,,o,,S oanvoSs wa ,hnn,J hnrl It horl
'''' ".''.''I .,,,.L9 r., 1erE 70 Wu nanoIos e,s
"lV" ,'S ,'o'o, L", u,o ro,,,,ts l,II ,,l;oI
a"nsG az" ~, II,.E b m ord adon,:on Of con-
ptV,'Gcn 20 r ''' ~, w. cav cc"yapton ,,Lon
sr1,uy.o1 W e. nnnuIor Totc IN Is5T-,s h
I ,,t,r,,ti,,,, os v,lIl onJ ro;d choo
opIo."Ii g Incons. i had nnt heon snh'nt,cd
n" ~ 19E5',G OK lis nnn,,r goyere;rntv consisted /
t;t,,I;o,, ,,,,,,,, naorio n,;tLout NOR
oit':5 ' .h ,,t;,,,.
.,,,' ,I r ,,orayo ,he Tinht rro
"S4iJ no '"i - " 20 o.
ham & should he submitted FIR their onnrovaI O
Jisan,,rnyJ lea, In 1857-,s lis nonular SOVEREIGN
""p -, "pprss,od n sondjnc h,ck cpnst,rtion an,
iorcinr cH, tbSm to vote nnon il ,Ger II hod hcc
Gau,n5 ,n3 nd aJonted in ,tcordarce viii h;sv;ew
~ I9s5N,G 0ne year he lsiI down a ruIe 70
H. oSo,,inr oCtbc rnonIs n( Kansas in fr,,nin
HS " ,W" ~ M and ,bo condemn
~ u,n,'7 C,r har,nn .Jo,teI hiS r,Ia Tho mr