Year: 1859




ter, because the new States are democratic Their
hatred Of democracy their pretended love of
freedom And when Kansas asked admission with
save-hoding constitution, they laid aside their
sayeState idea, and voted for It's admission with such
constitution in voting for the Crttenden Montgomery
amendment, coupling the admission only with condi


ton equivalent 70 declaration OF the right of Congress
TO interfere with the domestic affairs OF the Territoya
condition they knew dstasteful 10 democrats and
would be opposed by them They hated slavery none


the less but hated democracy the more They charged
that our doctrine OF noninterventon popular
eighty committed to acquiescence in all the monstros


tiles, usurpations and rcbelions In Utah EXPRESSIONS
OF the popular will-popdar sovereignty of It's people
But they were at the same time nsgang rebeons
equally great in Kansas Our their charge
WAS that our popular Sovereignty Is of constitution
and law, not of riots lnobs and anarchy. And when
the President asked appropriations TO enable him TO sub
due, as his duty, the rebellion in Utah, of which
they had complained well that in Kansas of wkich
we complained, they denounced the appropriations
contemplated useless expenditure to force law and order
and observance of the constitution upon people who
should be left to govern themselves in their way
though the way notorously anarchcat and uncon-
stitutonai Much the state of civil afirs existed


In both Territories the rule of action applica
bic to both This republicans saw, and knew they must
hence either vote money subdue their emgrant aid
rebel friends in Kansas justify similar rebellion in Uah
They adopted the latter alternative What then, had
become OF their previously proesed horror OF Mormonm
and its attendant evils?


These territorial difficulties with others growing out
Of Indian and foreign relations required expendi
lures to meet them The President aaked for the
sary appropriations The republican representatives voted
for many of them-then denounced the administra-
ton for extravagauce in expcnding the money-and,


to sustain these denuncations exaggeate the expendi
lures ope-haif


This is fancy sketch but factsriatters of history
and record The most important recent party issueat
least that which has created the most feeling to
our territorial possessions, especially Kansas


All democrats hold to the policy OF .non intervention
or popular sovereignty - believing Congress has
no constitutional right to dictate interfere in any
manner with the domestic institutions of an organ
ized Territory others, though claiming the right,
believe its exercise to be inexpedent and unwse. OPP
posed to this il the republican doctrine of sovereign
power in Congress over the Territories, and repeat
ed demands for its exercise. This issue is thus broad
and well defined; though, as already stated. the
republicans have upon several occasions temporarily
abandoied their doctrine of sovereign power from
tves of expediency, and directly implicitly defended
open rebellion in Kansas and advocated the right of
portion of its people govern the Territory in their own
way though the way was in defiance of all law national
and local This they did in their defence of those en-
gagged an the Topeka movement, aud of the same men
when opposing the Iecompton constitution. Both these
movements the formation of the Topeka constitution
and opposition to that of Lccompton--werc guided In
kansas by the same men. They first formed pretended
to adopt and sought to enforce the constitution
without shadow of law to sustain the movement in its
incpcncy progress but the contrary in open de-
fancc of law and legal authorities and opposed the


latter every step in the formation and adoption of which
was IN strict conformity with law. All democrats
opposed to the recognition of the former majority of
the party in Congress willing to admit Kansas with
the batter, accompanying the act of admission with
declaration Of the right of its citizens change
amend their constitution whenever they saw proper.
They were thus willing not from any preference for
the latter instrument per Both republican in
'or and the provisions of the former acceptable
To the North but the awess of its formation and
adoption fatal objection to its support by democrats
and they found opposition to the latter in Kansas be
OF the same awcss character with support of the former
and led by the same men. All republicans supported
the former and opposed the latter thus consistently
sustaining the same and lawless measures
throughout All democrats were and are in favor OF


popular sovereignty, but there is difference among
them as to the practical application of the doctrine and
especially difference to facts connected with its APP
plicaton in the Kansas. The great body of
the party hold 'non Intervention and popular
eighty to be reconciabe, convertible analogous
terms they hold that when Congress does not inter-
to go behind local constitution and laws the c-
of that locality must of necessity be left free to form
and regulate their domestic affairs in their own way
Others would make them irreconcable and contradictory
terms and have Congress interfere with the local affairs
OF people in the of popular sovereignty. IL
that body has the right TO interfere in of popular
sovereignty it has equally the right to interfere against
lt The principle of interference admitted and the
sovereign power Of the republicans quickly follows
and Congress- instead OF being the guardian of Terri
tory under the constitution would become its tyrant and
opprcssor We see in this for the sup
port by the republicans of the proposition to pcrempor
lily send back the Kansas constitution IL propo
stion which favored their designs by producing dscord
in ranks and it in accordance with their dogma
of sovereign power. snd there difference Of opn-
ion among democrats in relation TO the practical appc


ton of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the of
Kansas majority OF the party in Congress believed all
the citizens of that Territory had full and fair oppor-
tunty of avaipg themselves of the doctrine but that
many from factious personal party motives, refused
TO do 80 and by abscntng themselves from the polls,
permitted elections by the result of which they
bound to go by their default Others though the citi
zens OF the Territory acting under their laws
which must of necessity be under their own control
thought no such opportunity had been afforded them,
and therefore united with the republicans in asking Con-
grcss 20 interfere to go behind the local and send
the constitution back for another popular vote This
difference to facts connected with The app
pcation of principle than to the correctness of
the principle Let MS look into the facts. por-
tion Of the people of Kansas dissatisfied with their
laws, refused to vote under, obey, in any man
recognise them and charged election frauds upon
those who did vote Their duty clearly 10 seek the
legal peaceful remedy of repeal of any laws obnoxious 10
them for, however distasteful laws may be TO ndivd
uas they nevertheless binding upon all until repeal
Ell annullcd Their charge OF election frauds well
based Frauds doubtless perpetrated in Kansas,
but perpetratod nearly alike by both parties. They
could mutually balance their fraud account have
word for those frauds but of strong condemnationno
feeling relative 10 those who pcrpetted thcm he they
who they may of whatever party but of desire that
they may be severely punished But the trial aud punish
be by their local authorities and under herlo
cal laws Congress sdicon ia the matter IL has
right TO investigate alleged frauds at local elections
except where the election Of its members Is
cd Well IL is that Congress possesses such right
otherwise its time would be exclusively occupied in i'm
yestgatng the yecurrng allegations of frauds
t,. p,