Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

eels hi (Constitutionalist BY JAMES GARDNER. [COMMUNICATED.] Mr. lAitor: Non-intervention by the govern ment, and the sovereignty of the people of the Ter ritories over the question of slavery, to adjust it for themselves, is the principle embodied in the .Kansas-Nebraska bill. It was manifest years ago, to reflecting minds, that the strife between the North and South would ultimately end in disunion if not healed by the recognition of this principle, its establishment as a settled policy. InlSso, the same great principle was first successfWly as serted, by the Utah end New Mexico bills; it has been applied to the extensive Territories of Nebras- Aa and Kansas —sweeping away the Missouri re striction. The distinct guarantee in each of these measures is contained that the Territory shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as its Constitution may determine at the time of its admission; and in the acts of 1654, after de claring “inoperative and void” the .Missouri re striction, the principle is lucidly expressed in these words, “It being the.true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” The principle is firmly established by legislation, ratified by the people and vindicated from misconstruction by tbe Supreme Court of the United States. This decision of the calm tribunal of the Judiciary, is the most crushing blow that tbe enemies of our rights ever had, and in many respects the most valuable victory that the truth of our cause has ever achieved. I must forbear tr enlarge upon it, as I have another purpose in view; but the construction placed upon the power of the territorial legislature, touching the exclu sion of slavery, while the territorial status con tinued, denying ihat power, and at the same time ftilly recognizing the power to protect slave pro perty, is necessary to be embodied in every clear statement of tbe principles of our territorial bills. This decision, while it healed all divisions of opin ion between the northern and southern Democrats upon the question, has overruled the demurrer which the opposite party, m tbe S rath, made to the bill—charging them with confering the power of exclusion. They called it the northern construc tion, and while they espoused it themselves, as the true construction of the Kansas bill, they de nounced it as squatter sovereignty and “worse than the Wilmot Proviso.” The firm and unani mous adhesion of the northern Democracy to this judgment of the Court, is an evidence not to be mistaken of their fidelity to the constitutional rights and equality of the southern States, and to the true principles of non-intervention in these bills. Can as much be said of that party, in Geor gia, who, since this decision of the Supreme Court, vindicating the southern construction, and taking out of their mouths the objection of squatter sov ereignty to the bill, are yet found making war up on those bills? When they had this objection to the bill, they pretended to be friendly to it, and declared, in Macon, that opposition to its slavery But"sirlcithe n"grcat"o* moved, they have thrown off all friendly preten sions, and declared open “hostility,” in the recent resolutions at MiUedgeviUj. The better these hi ■ become, the more hostile they are to them. While they could sec the raw head and bloody bones of squatter sovereignty in them, they loved them, be at use they could abuse them and find food for clamor and strife ; but when that is taken away, they become desperate. The principles of this policy then are well set tled well understood, snstamed by the people, sustained by the judiciary, the executive and Con eress Hut in the practical administration of these principles in Kaunas Territory, and in Ui««ctol exercise of their sovereignty over the slavery ques tion by the people of U.at Territory, difficulties have arisen ; and we arc now upon the verge of re viewed agitation, which, in all probability, will in volve the country in a contest oyer questions u great delicacy and difficult solution. Hie threat practical question, and one which is apparently cringing with it a storm which may move the pub lic mind profoundly before it is quelled, is bow shall the popular will of the Territory be moulded into form? In other words, what is the proper course, aud tbe legitimate steps to he taken in form-, iog and adopting that fundamental law which is to shape the domestic institutions of the Territory . It is well kuown that Congress failed to pass a pre liminary act, as has been the practice in most cases, authorizing, or catling on the Territory to frame and adopt a State Constitution. 1 appre hend that it cannot be maintained that such an act, on the part of Congress, was indispensable or es sential to authorize the people ot the Territory to take ibis step. I shall comeud, in the course of this argument, that ample powers resided in the legislative assembly for that purpose. At any rate, it is sufficient for ihe present to Say, that upon the failure of Congress to pass such an act, it devolved upon the territorial legislature. ADd that body enact ed a law appointing a time for the election ol dele gates to a constitutional convention, and a day tor that convention to assemble ; and prescribing such regulations and qualifications of the elective fran chise as, in their judgment, were necessary and calculated to give effect to sovereignty of ihe pop ular will, and protect it from fraud, abuse or impo sition. Jo tins action of the legislature, all par ties in and out of the Territory, have acquiesced, except the Topeka factior of rebels in the Territory, and their equally rebellious adherents outside ot the Territory. The administration has also lully recognized the legality of these proceedings, and the power of the convention which has been thus datv called and elected, and is to assemble m September to frame a Constitution for tbe new State is not denied. Two questions, however, here’arise: First, shall the Constitution, when framed and organized by that convention, be con sidered as adopted by the sovereign will of the people, or shall it be necessardy referred back to a popular vote for ratification or rejection ? And secondly, if referred to a direct popular vote, what aha! 1 be" the conditions and qualifications accompa ny in»• that reference? Shall it be voted upon by the registered voters who were qualified under the law to elect the convention, or upon terms similar to those prescribed by the legislature, but provid ing a new registry of names, and periods oi resi dence so as to embrace subsequent immigration, as weil as the rebels who refused to obey the terms of the election for delegates? Or shall it be sub mitted to the actual resident population, who may be in the Territory “next fall”—without qualtflca tion at ail—or with new terms of qualification pre scribed by the convention, at their discretion, and without reference or analogy to the provisions of the law of the legislature calling the convention These are grave questions—grave prelim l narv questions —worthy to be discussed dispassionately, in advance of a still graver question, which may hereafter follow them in the course of events, ana which I trust ihe South, at least, will not need to discuss; and that is, if the convention frames a Constitution, and disobeying the dictation of the Governor, presents it to Congress as the Constitu tion of Kansas, shall she be admitted with it, or rejected on account of it? The organic law of Kansas does not prescribe the mode of proceeding in the adoption of a State Con stitution. It reserves ho powers to Congress to prescube the mode, or to declare the qualification of the elective franchise in a vote of ratification, or for members to a convention. No exception or re servation of power touching this proceeding, is found limiting the broad grant of jurisdiction giv en to the legislative au hority of the Territory, over “all rightful subjects of legislation. ihe nualiScation of voters tor members of the legisla ture and for all eleclive officers within the Terri tory’ is specifically within the powers of the legis lature Congress, in tbe organic act, having pre scribed the qualification of electors of the first legislative Assembly, expressly transfers the pow . er to that body in future. That power it has exer cised ever since. In the act originating this Con vention, and by virtue of the authority whereof, l it will proceed to perform the important task im i posed upon it. This function of qualifying the ex ercise of the elective franchise, was signally exert [ ed. If there were no express grants of specific 5 power, and no general grants in the organic act, 1 which would embrace the exercise ot this function , in that instance, it might be plausibly contended that it is Incident to the organized goverrment of [ the Territory, in the absence ot any reservation by Congress in the act creating aud endowing that 5 government. That it was rightfully exercised in • the premises, no one denies; and all must admit . the manifest propriety of its rigid exercise in , throwing such safeguards and conditions around ' the voter as were essential to protect and insure ? the free and fair operation of the will of a majority , of the people. The work to be performed by that f Convention was justly esteemed a delicate and . responsible business. It was no less than to “form and regulate” the fundamental law of a free peo ple ; a Constitution for a people about to emerge ‘ from Territorial dependency, into the full sorer f eignty of a Stale co-equal with the oldest in the . Union. It was needtul, therefore, that the mem bers of that body should be the true representa : tives of that people; and should embody the senti ments and will of a clear and legally ascertained majority, that whatever it might do'should reflect the popular mind: in other wordsjtliat what was done by them, should be done by the people through them. Another cogent reason —as all men know—for the extreme cauuon and rigidness of tbe terms of this election of the Convention, was the fact that this very question of slavery was to be decided by them; that question was to be the leading one in the election, and when th**| people had congested it at }the ballot-box, guarded against all fraud und abuse, and de cided it by the choice of their delegates, those delegates were to frame the Constitution and em boiv in it the verdict of the public mind. Is not this the true theory of the proceeding? And was it not manifestly the idea of the legislature, in prescribing with so much caution and under so many w holesome restraints, the mode and manner of the election of this body, that it should be pre pared a id empoweted to act authoritatively in the work t f framing a Constitution and settling for ever the vexed question? It will be conceded that a popular movement, outside of the legislative assembly, and without the forms and authority of law, to Irameandadopt a Constitution, would have | been the work of anarchy or rebellion, and contra- i ry to tbe genius of organized republican govern- , vnent. Such was the case in the formation of the < Constitution of California; for winch, wrong as it | was, there was more excuse than could be tor u , similar movement in Kausas, because in the for- | "roer they were without organized civil government < at home and had tailed to get relief from Con- \ greas. If then, the legislative assembly, either j in the view of original authority in tbe premises, ( or by virtue of a resulting power from the failure j of Congress to pass an “ authorizing act,” was the j proper authority to move in the matter, must not ( its plan be obeyed? Indeed, it is more consonant « t<> the principle of popular sovereignty in the Terri- i tory that their legislature should move in j matter than Congress. The former body must j regarded as acting in their legislation, under fw i delegated i.uthority of ihe people themselves who t elect them ; in other words, the acts of the legis lature is the reflected will of the people of the Territory, which can, in no sense, be true of the acts of Congress. Is not this the theory of A rep- < resentative legislature ? And is it, not. therefore. I doubly demonstrated that the Convention, elected < laa.Ti'ir.jiiiawiitiiiiwiiiqiifiiiw united‘VVltTj-: i.a people's will and the peo ple's power to pertdrrn ilie task legally assigned itieui? Are they not fully prepared to frame a Constitution lor that people? And may they not frame and adopt it under the powers vested in them by ihe aet, absolutely and without the con dition of a subsequent rat.filiation, it such was the intention and design of the legislature? As there are no conditions or limitations upon their powers, requiring them to submit tbe Constitution they frame to the contingency of a vote of ratification, are they bound to atiacb such conditions to the re sult of their labors? Or, in another view, us they are merely empowered by the legislative act tinder which they are called to make ft Constitution for the Territory, can they go beyond die plan and pur view ol that act, and assume tbepowerof prescrib ing a different mode from that legally ordained by Ihe legislature? If it be objected that the Conven tion in this view, imghtabuse theirpowerand frame a Constitution objectionable to a majority of their constituents, I reply that tbe same objection might be made to tbe power of every representative body —to Congress—to tbe legislatures ot the States, and to every lorm of representative power. These abuses, though possible, are not to he presumed ; and such presumption would overthrow the integ rity of republican institutions, and the theory ol popular government. Now, it must he granted, that it was within the power of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas to limit the powers of the Convention, and to have prescribed that such Con stitution as they might ft ame, should be referred back to the people for a direct vote of ratification or rejection. This, if it had been done, would have been us obligatory as the conditions of residence and registry attached to the exercise of the right of voting lor the delegate. But it was not done. Aud from the absence of such requirement, or any reference in the law to a ratification, the following, | inlerenee is irresistible—either that, the legisla ture intended ihat the Convention should frame a Constitulion for the people, without further test or ratification, or that it should be left to the dis cretion of the Convention, whether it should be submitted or not. The former 1 have assumed to be their inteqtion ; and I think it much the most natural conclusion from the premises. For it must strike every reflecting mind, that if further pro ■ ceedings were contemplated by the Legislature, than merely that the Convention socautiously elect ed and constituted, should frame the Constitution of the Territory and present it to Congress for admission, something would have been said in the act in relation to it. The time and manner of such : ratification, and particularly t lie qualification of voters on the question, would either have been ex pressly prescribed, (which is far more reasonable to conclude if a ratification was contemplated,) or else expressly referred to the Convention to pre ■ scribe. For surely a legislature which had been : so vigilant and cautious in prescribing the time I and mode, and the period of previous residence, I and the condition of registry, and had thrown so : many safeguards around the election of the dele gates who should frame a Constitution, would not ’ have deemed these precautions and restraints the : less needful, when the vote should be taken upon • the question of ratification or rejection. Would • they guard tbe election of the delegates from abuse ■ and fraud, and throw open the doors when the , people voted upon the Constitution itself? Would i they frame it with so much caution, and then let - it be destroyed at the will of rebels and outlaws? : We caDnot impute to them such folly. We there - fore reasonably conclude that the Legislature in - tended that the Convention so solemnly chosen bv 1 the people, should embody the will of a majority f of their constituents in tbe frame-work of the Con > gtitution they were empowered to make, and that . 3uc h i t should be regarded, and as such presented to Congress. Again, upon the hypothesis that the 1 legislative assembly intended the Convention to 1 submit the instrument, when framed, to a popular o vote the least they could have done, would have a been to have referred that power to the Con e vention, and thus given them the apparent - sanction of law for the proceeding, and for r the solemn power of prescribing the conditions and qualifications of the popular vet®- the e assembly had done this much, would it have been - sufficient for the purpose ? Could the Legislature > have thus delegated to that convention the legis u lative faculty of prescribing those conditions and r qualifications, aud especially of accompanying :- those regulations with such penal sanctions as s would be absolutely necessary to vindicate those - w'holesome restraints from violation? It will readt ', ly be perceived that rules regulating the election e would, without legislative authority, and without - legal penalties, be nugatory aDd powerless in a - land of Topeka rebellions, and where treason - stalks abroad unmasked and unpunished. In this - view of the case, it is not only improbable that the t assembly intended the convention to refer tbe in- AUGUSTA, PAN., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1857. slniment to a popular Tote—but it is absolute!? impossible that that convention could make such a reierence in an effective legal manner, and with such restraints and penalties as all must admit would be idispensable to the preservation from abuse, fraud and violence, of the legallv ascertained will of a majority of the people. What would the boasted principle of popular sovereignty be worth —what the rule of the majority worth—if that will and rule could be trodden underfoot by rebels . and outlaws, whose crimes and violations of the rules of the election there is no law to punish ? Am I mistaken in assuming that the power of the convention is thus limited, and inadequate to the exercise of legislative functions? Inadequate to prescribe valid ond obligatory legal regulations for the vote upon the Constitution ? Where would the convention derive the power to pass these lavra—regulating the exercise of the highest fran chise of freemen, and enforcing their regulations by the necessary penalties ? Would they derive it from the legislature which provided by law for the election and assemblage of the convention ? No such power is vested in them by the act. Not a word about the submission of the instrument to a direct popular test. All the powers given by the act are exhausted when that convention meets and accomplishes the work expressly assigned (hem of framing and adopting a Constitution for the new State of Kansas. If it be contended that these other powers, w hich I affirm are legislative in their nature, could have been delegated bv the legislature to the convention, which is denied upon principle, then it may be answered that if it could have been done, it was not done, and notattempted. Hut surely no man will contend that the legislature of the Territory could have em powered the convention to make a rule or regula tion touching the right to vote on the Constitution, and prescribed a penalty for violation, which any judicial authority on earlli would enforce against a citizen. The insuperable objection would be that it is not a law. Neither is it any reply to this argument to say that the same reasoning wouW deny to the convention the authority to frame a valid Constitution for the people, for that Constitution when framed, although it be the 1 Constituting which the people, through their 1 delegates in convention have adopted, is yet not 1 valid m a legal sense until the act of Congress 1 gives it vitality by udmiling the Territory 1 which presents it, into the full enjoyment of 1 the sovereignty of un equal State; then it becomes 1 the fundamental law of that people as a State. 1 Docs the Convention derive the powers in question ' from the people as their constituency? This can- < not be maintained, for the people elected in obe- I diencc to the law of the legislature, and by that election gaTe them only the power to do what the 1 law had prescribed. Though the people are the 1 original source of power, in an organized govern- * ment powers are vested in the legislature, anil < cannot reside in two distinct bodies at the same 1 time. This, if nut an imperium inimjserio, would * present the unomnly of two supreme powers—the one exercising its functions under organic luws ' and limitations, and the other without them. It < is need to pursue such a iallacy as this. It is < enough to say that the people, when they elected f delegates to frame a Constitution for them, did not • vest them, nor to attempt to vest them, with any J power to legislate upon their exercise of the elec- 1 live franchise, to prescribe rules or regulations in 1 regard to a vote of ratification or rejection, or pen- * alties for Ibe violation of the same. They were sim- * ply empowered by that election in obedience to 1 law, to prepare for them the form of a Constitution * which, upon iheir admission inlo the Union, un t der the Constitution of the United States, would I be vitalized into their fundamental law. Hut < one oilier aource for these bowers assumed, MMHMwiNnai The vague idea which seems to prevail or the unlimited power of discretion of this Convention,.if it hns any definite foundation at all, must he based upon the words of the bill; and, in deed, I think, I have observed some plausible ar guments in support of the proposition in dispute; drawn from the words “in their own way.” It Av ia// the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery iulo any Territory or State, jior to exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the jkoulc thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic in stitutions in their men tray, sulycct only to the Om stitutwn of the United .States." From these words, it is argued that the convention is not confined to the plan of the legislature, hut has unlimited dis cretion to submit the Constitution or not to the popular vote, and whatever regulations they sec proper. Hut it is clear from the contest that the words, “in their own way,” mean with or without slavery. No point is here made as to the mode of framing oi adapting the Constitution. If these words arc synonomous with mode or manner, and are to he understood as empowering the people or their Convention to set about the woik of framing and adopting a Constitution in any way, or upon any plan, then there is an end of all law ; and it may be said that the rebels involved iD the Tope ka movement, have at least brought themselves w ithin the perview of that construction, for they have certainly gone "their own way.” These words do not support that idea. Indeed, it may well be observed, that if the hill was intended to give all possible freedom to the people of the Territory as to the character of their institutions, and the mode and mauner of proceeding, it certainly never was intended as an abandonment of all the forms of law, and all the principles of organized govern ment. It did not intend to turn them over to Cali fornia mob law in the adoption of their Constitu tion. It is well remembered that one objection to ’the California proceeding was, that there was no law to authorize and regulate the plan, to qualify voters or to punish abuses—nothing Lut the mob to protect tile sacred will of a majority of the peo ple in its highest franchise, the choice of its own institutions. I ask, what more protection would the people of Kansas have in the ratification vote, if the Constitution is submitted by the Convention without any legislative regulations What au thorities would enlorce the rules prescribed, and who would protect an election resolved upon and appointed bv the Convention ? The answer is, the mob. Now ! admit that if the legislature, when 11 provh ed for the Constitutional Convention, had gone a step further and provided for a vote of rati fication or rejection bv the people at a subsequent day, and had prescribed the qualification of voters in Ibis election, as well as in the election of dele gates ; and in short had made it in every essential respect as legal and well guarded against fraud and abuse, then u submission of the instrument to that test, would he legitimate and proper, and wor thy of the favor of the Governor and President. This course might have been adopted; and the on ly objection that 1 have to it, is that it was not the course the legislature di-l aslojit. My belief is that they never desired hut one election open the exciting’issue, and that was for members of the Convention, and as that plan was sufficient, and as well sanctioned by precedent as the other the Con vention should carry it out firmly and in good faith. Ido not believe that the honest people of Kansas in the legislature or out of it, ever thought of a renewal of the strife by a ratification vote, till Hubert J. Walker inaugurated the idea. The leg islature could have done it, but as they did not do it, and did not authorize the Convention to do it, that Convention cannot properly do it. The insu perable objection is, that they have no power to go beyond the act of the legislature—no power to ad'd to or take from the plan of that act—no power to make the submission in due form of law—no power under heaven to say who shall vote and who not, and less power to enforce it if they were to will be remembered that those who advocate the submission, claim for the convention plenary power over the qualification of the right of voting on the question. They do not even confine the discretion which they claim for the convention to the qualifications already prescribed by the Legislature in the other election, nor to any other legal qualification of that important right. In deed, tile Walker policy clearly indicates for the convention qualifications which would embrace all the resident inhabitants who may be in the Terri tory “next fall”—the time when it is supposed the ratification vote would bo taken —thus utterly dis regarding all the laws ot the Legislature, and all analogy to those laws. Even in the cases alluded to by the advocates of ratification, I know ot no instance in which a convention has undertaken to ex/ rcise such powers. The case of Virginia, in the aaoption ot tier State Constitution by populcr vote has been cited But did the convention, when it refered the Con stitution to a popular test, undertake to regulate the right of voting? ' Or was the submission made and the vote taken upon legal qualifications already established by law? The case of the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States has been cited by the editor of the Washington Union. But did that contention assume the regulation of the right °* * n the States on the question, or did each State control that matter under its own laws? If that convention had assumed to designate who should h# allowed to vote in the respective States, it ib manifest that such designation would have been powerless unless enforced by the laws of the States. This case of the Federal Constitution was an unfofcjMnate illustration for the editor, for the States adopted it through their conventions, and the only jtonular vote they took was just the one already bjsa in Kansas—the election of delegates to their conventions. And if it conld have been possible fo£ any one of the States to have had no such legajjgfuafifications of the vote already estab lished by the convention deemed proper, will any man ny that the convention could have made such qualfSkjLtion and rendered it effective without the actio* «Nhe Legislature of that State ? And so I conU*t« in Kansas, the Convention, if they make the Kwance at all, would go beyond all pre cedent if tJLidv undertook to obey the suggestions of Gov. Walker, by prescribing new qualifications and such as have no authority in existing laws. Indeed, it ttfcatConvention makes this reference — which T denflLthai they arc bound, or even have the power ttjMo—all they could do by authority of the be to refer the question of adoption to Impose voters who are qualified by the registry lawg! And that would fall far short of the reqmrementsffef the advocates of submission; for the great pasft with them is confessedly a9 to the class and qs|&fic&ti<m of the voters. They would not be to have it referred back to those ■ qualified bylS# existing law. This is the most serious pomfoi this whole contest. And it is upon this groundjrSyprotest most strenuously against the policy l>r It involves the ex ercise of a pc* ft pver the elective franchise which a coi mention jtaes not and eanuot possess, and ought not 9a the case before us, 1 main tain that thfttMpV€j£sf‘declaring what class of in habitants shaHyotf on the question of ratification, or any quests *0 Voting the rights and interests of that people to the legislative authority of Kansas Since the organization of the Territorial t’vy~annMitnot even Congress possess es the posse v« such powers in and over the Territory, as neceiaary tor its proper govern ment and cot^Rrand jiot inconsistent with the Constitutionally 1 {jrani it was competent for Congress to an act providing for an election of d yy. fc| ft constitutional conven tion, present the qualifications of voters, and also to have p- vid&dfor § submission of the Con stitution to a iHodttot® of the people—preserib mi.-I, for that vote as were deemed prop AHNflnLinight even have been done, and pet JfjjHjreryjttpperly in the organic act itself. B vf'Wpffirm that this power no longer resides in Coireside in two de positaries at /meAnd when Congress, m pursuance the government in relation to Tei* .organized a territorial sys tem of goven* its powers ! thither, the Territory by di- • rect legishui klj. Calhoun m aintained might be done constpfthen Ip* power to declare j the legal qualim£j»kjff| the^election franchise , passed from t Ira % Jjecame vqated in the , Tcrntqriftl M Abe polL> Con- 1 oi djf tect Tbx •* ( * rto enact. be J bling act *k * the UnUTu t wnTcn TT is usual X jMf calling on a Territory to prepare itself for admission, and apply, argue anything against this position. For those acts cannot invade the province of the Territorial leg islature. Those are not legally necessary, and in this instance it has not been done, lint what says the Kansas bill upon the point now un der consideration? “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.” Is it not a “ rightful subject of legislation,” to de clare who shall vote, and upon what conditions in so important a matter as the ratification or rejec tion of a Constitution ? These words clearly em brace the point. Again: In the fourth section of the bill, are the following words—after providing for the first election—itgoeson to say, “ but, there after, the time, place and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, shall be pre scribed by law :” that is by an act of the legisla ture. Again : in section fifth, after declaring who shall vote in the first election, it proceeds, “ but the qualifications of votors, and ot holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the legislative assembly.” These provisions in the bill afford abundant proof that all power upon these subjects is vested m the leg islative assembly. Now, if the same power exists in both the legislature of Kansas and Congress, which body is entitled to assume the exercise of it in opposition or defiance of the other? It cannot consistently reside in both, at the same time. If I am wrong upon this, as a general principle, it is at least, observable that, in this instance, Congress has failed to pass any law ; and all parties, the government included, recognize the validity ol‘ the action of the territorial legislatures. If then, the legislature had the power, and the sole power, as l contend, to move by efficient legislation in the works of organizing a .State Constitution—the plan of that authoritative movement should be earned out by the convention in good faith. That plan, as already observed, does not contemplate a sub mission—no such idea is incorporated in the act of the legislature. But, apart from the legal view of the question, is the plan of a reference back to the people defensible, even upon grounds of expe diency? Is there any propriety or reasonable ne cessity for it, growing out of the peculiar condi tion of affairs in Kansas, apart from questions of principle? Let us look hastily upon this aspect of the controversy. It is principally upon such grounds that the advocates of Walker’s policy place the question. Does the fact, that the Topeka re bels refused to vote in the election of delegates, create any necessity for the reierence ? I ask this ! question, without referedee to their number; let j it be granted that they might have prevailed in the election. Are they not bound by the action of the law-abiding citizens, who qualified them selves under the law, and exercised their right? Mr. Walker himself, in his inaugural address, ar gues this point to them, and shows by irresistible reasoning, that they who refuse to vote, are bound by the action of the voling citizens. He makes this point with much force, though I think he knocked down his own argument, when he told them afterwards, in his Topeka speech, that wheth er they voted or not, they should have another chance to vote on the ratification question, and a chance to destroy the work of the convention; and gave himself as security for it, by promising to join them, if the convention should hold them “ bound” by the votes of the law-abiding citizens. His argument upon the point referred to, 19 good, however, and 1 commend it to the reader who may stand to it, even if its author deserts it. If these men are outlaws —refusing obedience to the con stituted authorities of the country, and forfeiting the rights which are offered them by those laws, rather than acknowledge their authority, they de serve no deviation in their favor from established | principles. They deserve no extraordinary sym- : pathy from the government, against which they array themselves in open rebellion. Nay, I should say that it furnishes a sound reason to the contra ry. If they prefer the Topeka plan of making a State by rebellion and treason, let them abide the consequences, and let it not be claimed for them that they shall be allowed to come in and over throw the work of law-abiding citizens. Let them not be allowed to render nugatory the proceedings of the!"proper authorities wnose action they will not recognise and obey. If they are bound by the action of the honest, law-abiding People of tbe Terr Very—as Mr. Walker argued—let them be held bound. For it is plain to perceive that if they are allowed to vote ou the ratification ques tion, and thereby overthrow and destroy the Jon stitution framed in obedience to tbe will and the votes of the law-abiding citizens —they render nu gatory the entire proceedings of the legislative assembly, and rebellion and treason triumphs over law and order. Will any man, North or South, except Robert J. Walker,” have the face to say these men have a claim for a reference of the Constitution to a direct vote ? Secondly—is that reference proper in view of the immigration sub sequent to the election of delegates, or the period fixed in the law qualifying tbe voter in that elec tion? Must the Constitution be submitted for their benefit ? If so, then between the ratification votes and the admission of the Territory into the Union, another flood of immigration will pour in, and upon the same principle, they must have a chance. They will all be equally impregnated with popular sovereignty, and thus the Constitu tion—upon this principle—will be an ambulatory instrument, and Kansas must undergo an indeh nite series of experiments in electing conventions, framing Constitutions and rejecting them. This principle would quiet sectional agitation “with a vengeance.” Indeed, the true conclusion from this ground is just the reverse. Let the process of forming a Constitution, if legally begun, go on to its legitimate conclusion, m its own proper time. Let it not be turned to the right or the left by the forced efforts which have been made to control the destiny of that Territory—let no en couragement be given to fanaticism, let not a poli cy be pursued which, while it professes pefice and pacification, will only add fuel to the ftatnes of war. This will be the result whenever it is tried. The Constitution, after its adoption, and after it is made valid by the admission of the Territory, will contain provisions for its own amendment. Let subsequent immigration, if they do not approve it as they find it, look to these pr visions. If this position had been taken and firmly adhered to by Mr. Walker, he might have accomplished the ob ject which he professed to have at heart—quieting ihe troubles in Kansas. He will not quiet them by re-opening the issue which was made in the election of delegates, and whi»h those delegates were fully empowered to quiet aod settle forever. He may get up a breeze in which hi 9 official robes will flap ungracefully—a storm on which he will ride as uneasily as did his immediate predecessor. There are some curious reasons for this submission plan urged by the editor of the Washington # Union. One is, because the) movement was “no t done in pursuance of an enabling and authorizing act of Congress, but on the mere motion of the territorial legislature it self.” That this is not is easily de monstrable; but he admits himself that the “irregu larity is not fatal, and in other cases has been over looked.” I will simply ask if it be an irregulari ty, and whether fatal or not, how a submission of the Constitution could obviate it, how would that supply the place of “an authorizing and enabling act*’? He uses very strong language in pressing this argument; he says, “nay it has been begun and carried on in the very teeth of a refusal by Congress to pass such an act.” This puts it in a very strong light, but it is easily pressed into the service of hi 9 ratification policy, and can be “over looked,” as it has been in otbqr cases, if the suk mission is made of the instrument to the required : test. Suppose Congress should continue to refuse from the identical causes which defeated Mr. J Toombs’ bill,and the Territory had a legislative as- < sembly vested with power upon all rightful sub- < jects of legislation, and had the proper number of * inhabitants to become a State ; and had the right i under the Constitution to be made a State, how t long must tbe Territory stand still and wait for s “the authorizing and enabling adC” belore she t framed her Constitution and applied for adirns- y sion ? Unti c UV J-*”' r V** jf a Territory is I admission, let it not be done by in direction, hereupon pretexts invented for the pur pose, but let it be openlv and directly done, and if there is wrong in it to the South, she will know ber remedy. Again, “We repeat,” says the editor, “that the Constitution must come from the people 1 of Kansas. Other power to make such an instru- I ment, there is none under Heaven.” True enough. 1 But when the people’s delegates in convention frame and adopt it, will it not come from the peo- * pie? It is the practice of representative Repub- v lies for the people to speak their will upon all ques- 1 tions through the medium of elective assemblies. J Republics make their laws in this way. They enun- 1 ciate the pounlar voice upon the gravest o.uestions ( in this way.* Will he say the Cuustitution of the ( United States was not properly adopted by the J people of each State, because the States adorned it through the action of their conventions? lie pro- I ceeds, “ But the Georgia convention, without de- ( nying this great principle, seems to think that the • Constitution of Kansas ought not to be submitted to a direct vote ot the people in their primary ca- . nacity. We admit that this is not in all cases a sine trua non. It is a fair presumption (if there be no circumstance to repel it) that a convention of delegates chosen by the people will act in accord ance with ihe will of their constituents. When, therefore, there is no serious dispute upon the Constitution, either in the convention or arnoug the people, the power of # the delegates alone may put it in operation. But such is not the case in Kansas. The most violent strug gle this country ever saw, upon the most im portant issue which the Constitution is to deter mine, has been going on there for several years, between parties so evenly ballanced that both . claim the majority, and so hostile to one another, that numerous lives have been lost in the contest,” Ac. How he ascertains the opinions of the Geor gia convention upon this question, 1 am at a loss to know. Their resolutions intimate no opinion of the question. But the argument here advanced that the “circumstance” oi a dispute among the people upon the important question to be settled in the Constitution, “repels” the idea that the Con vention will act in accordance with the will of their constituents, is a novel conception to me. Was not that dispute made in the election of delegates? Did not that violent struggle enter into that elec tion? And were not the delegates chosen upou the very issue? Really the argument points the other way. The very circumstance that there was a dispute and struggle upon the important issue which the Constitution is to determine, and that point the controling question in the election of delegates, is the highest evidence that those dele gates will act in accordance with the will of their ‘ constituents. If this question had not been agi tated bv the people, and were sprung upon the convention after their election, there might be some reason for invoking their action to ratify or reject the decision of the convention. But euough for the arguments of that paper. And enough upon expediency and necessity. I will conclude this branch of the argument by asserting that if there ever was, or is to be a case in which expediency, necessity and propriety of the strongest imagina ble nature combine to support tbe adoption of a State Constitution without the form of a subsquent ratification, more clearly and forcibly than in all others, that instance is the very case of the Terri tory of Kansas. The peace of the people of that Territory themselves, and the peace and safety of the entire Union demands that the agitation should not be re-opened upon this dangerous issue, which was so nearly settled, and would in September have been buried forever, if that convention were allowed to do what it was empowered by law—by the votes of their constituents—and expected by the entire country to do; and that is, make and adopt a Constitution for the new State of Kansas, to be “ratified” by ber prompt admission into the confed eracy. This, in my humble opinion, is the true con clusion, and the true course of that Convention — ture upon principle—true upon grounds of expedien cy, and as well sustained by precedent as any other. That branch of the argument which leads into the history of precedents,! shall not now undertake to unfola. Georgians may find one illustration near at hand ; in the history of a State whose footsteps none need be ashamed to follow. In this position, if she will take it, Kansas will be sustained, in my opinion, by sound men of all partits and sections. If Walker deserts her, aud givw her enemies, let him go. She will have power to defend her cause, stronger than his feeble arm; stronger than he with Black Republicanism at his back. I shall ootyct be lieve that those noble rnet at the North who fought her battles on the passage of the organic act, and in the late election, and who achieved her sover eignty, will turn against her in the trial of its ex- VOL. 36-NO. 34 1 cise. Nor do I believe that James Buchanan wilt be against her. W alker had no authority for Bat tering Topeka rebels with a promise. There is not a w-ord in the written instructions to author ize such an inference. For a word in the editorials even sf the Utuon, to authorize such an inference. It is true, the organ argues the proprietv of the submission of the Constitution to a direct vote" and the instructions proceed upon the idea that such submission will be made; but without direct ing, and without a word to authorize the dicta tions, the threats, or the foul promises of Walker It is one thing to believe, that the submission should be made ; and another thing to oppose the sovereign will of that people, if through their con vention they decide otherwise. There is no evi dence to prove that Mr. Buchanan will oppose her admission into the Union upon that ground, or that he will deny the sovereignty of their free-will over the question, whatever he'may think of the expediency or propriety of their mode of adopt ii n This is quite a distinct issue—graver in its impor tance and its consequences, than the other. And as to what course Mr. Buchanan would take in such an event—Robert J. Walker was not author ized to speak—it was no part of his business to know, and no part of his mission to conjecture. His “convictions,” or his stump-speech con jectures will have as little influence on Mr. Buchanan’s course in that event, as I trust his dictation and threats will have upon the convention itself. There are two points of vast difference in tie po sition and purposes of Walker as shown by him self, and those of Mr. Buchanan as indicated by the Washington Union. Walker proposes that all shall vole on the question of ratification, who may be actual residents "next fall,” the time when it is supposed the question will be voted upon if at all. The organ argues the propriety of needful periods of residence and proper qualifications for the vote. Walker avows his purpose to be, to join the Tope ka rebels if his view is not sustained and his will obeyed by the convention. The Union savs, “will Mr. Buchanan, in any event, ta-etlie Abolition side of the question V" “Will lie lend bis brow to the shame with which 3uch an act will blacken it forever?” Here is a difference wide as that be tween the characters of the men. Walker cannot dictate James Buchanan’s course in the event al | Hided to; he cannot shape the course of the north ern Democracy; both the President and they will have better counsellors than he, and an integrity to true principles less pliant than he has manifest- 1 ed. I shall not lose my confidence in him or them, because the Governor of a Territory moves erratically and unfaithfully iu the little orbit of bis distant office. The rebellious influences which / move him from the line of duty, und impel him | off at a tangent, will not reach the great centre of the administration. The great power of the prin ciple of non-intervention will be unimpaired at that central point, and will be preserved as the gravitating principle which holds together the beautifully revolving system of the Union. With out it, all men know that that system will be driven into wildest confusion. And he who touches with ruthless hand—“let him be anathe ma marinaiha.” Much as 1 condemn the ollicious ness of Walker—and the resolutions of Georgia or Mississippi are not stronger than the sentiments of my heart—l shall not lay condemnation at the door of the President, particularly, when the in structions have been manifestly transgressed, and wheD 1 know tbefreemen of Kansas are not bound to obey the impudent dictator. If, however, subsequent events and time sball develop Jhat these trusts are not well founded, and nun-tnter ventiop shall be grossly violated in inure Union requires—the .South will know sfr and her duty, ard if she bo true to berstif, she will stand prepared to join her, either in the union or out or it. Here will be the issue upou which I am willing that “the fidelity of the administration to the principles which carried it into office" shall be tried. And here, in my opinion, is the only point at which it is necessary to contemplate the idea of opposition. It Kansas herself sliull choose tbe other policy, whatever we think of its legality, expediency or justice, we must yield to her will. The South may war for her, but not against her. She may submit her Constitution or not—whether right or wrong—according as her otvn judgment and sovereign will may determine. And upon the line plan or the other, she may adopt a pro-slavery or anti-slavery Constitution, and the South will open not her mouth. But if she will be true to her independence and rights, and the w ill of her people shall decide through her convention, to couform herself to the likeness of her southern, sisters in her “domestic institutions,” and she of fers herself to the Union thus—the day she is re jected upon that ground or upon mere pretext, will be the darkest day the world has beheld since “the veil of the temple was rent in twain.” It. G. 11 Department News. Lt.Ucr from Minnesota Territory. —The Commis sioner of Patents received several day 9 since an interesting letter from Mr. O. 11. Kelley, of North wood, Wright county, Minnesota Territory, dated July 16. Mr. Kellev writes that the prospects of the*farmers on the Mississippi, above the Fa Is of St. Anthony, were certainly rather discouraging this season, owing to the havoc made by the grasshoppers. He hoped to be able to harvest about one-half of the ground he had planted, as everything left bv the grasshoppers looked prom ising, and the weather was hot, and showers were frequent. Several davs previous to the date of ‘ his letter, about ten o’clock in the morning, the grasshoppers rose simultaneously for a distance of over thirty miles on the river banks, and went in to the air." Which way they Dew, or where they now were, he knew not; he only knew that they had started all at once by teDS of thousands, and were gone, he hoped never to return. 1 Navy Department. —Capt. Johu Pope has been ■ ordered to the command of the Navy \ ard at i Portsmouth, N. H., m place of Commodore New i ton, deceased. i Captain William W\ McKean has been appoint ed Governor of the Naval Asylum, at Philadel phia, to relieve Com. Storer, the appointment to f take effect on the 2nth inst. — Washington, Union* The Augsburg AUgenieine Zeitung has advices ! from Alexandria to the sth July. The Viceroy, it was reported, was about setting out for the oasis of Jupiter-Ammon, (Shiva,) in the Lybian Desert, he intends to annex this fertile tract to his dominions, though its inhabitants refuse to recognise his au thority. The advance detachment of a carayau of four thousand camels, bringing cassia, tamarinds, gums, ivory, gold-dust, Ac., from Darfour, lately arrived at Cairo. This is the first caravan that has reached Egypt from Darfour in thirty years; its arrival is an event of great importance, as it opens the trade formerly existing between the two countries. A company from Nice has entered intoa contract with the Egyptian government to light Alexandria with gas, and has already commenced the con struction of the works. _ . „ . The Nile Steam Navigation Company has al ready three steamers running, and is expecting nine others from Holland and England. The arrival of M. Lesseps in Egypt was anxious ly looked for. Great interest is felt for the suc cess of his scheme for a canal across the Isthmiu of Suez. - The Chickassabay (Miss.) Advertiser says ‘hat James T. Balance, formerly of that place, and the publisher of the first paper ever issued there,.has recently inherited a fortune of ninety thousand dollars. . .. St. Louis, Aug. 11- The following is the result, as far as heard from, ot the election in Nebraska for delegate to Congress: lerguson,fourteen hun dred and seventy; Thayer thirteen hundred and nine- Chapman, eleven hundred and fourteen. Rankin, one thousand and ninety. There is one county to hear from. Boston, Aug. 12.— The steamer Europa sailed hence to day at noon for Liverpool, with eight hundred thousand dollars in specie. Columbus, Aug. 12.—The Republican Conven tion has re-nominated Salmon P Chase, for Gov ernor.