Decatur Eagle, Volume 1, Number 48, Decatur, Adams County, 8 January 1858 — Page 1

THE DEUATIJR EAGLE

VOL. 1.

' r-HE EAGLE. PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING. Offloo, on Stain Street, in the old School House, one Square North of J. & P Crabs' Store. Terms of Subscription : For one year, $1 50, in advance; $1 75, within j [six months; $2 00, after the year has expired. I i [f}r No paper wrll be discontinued until all i arreragesare paid, except at the option of the : Publisher. Tern- i of Advertising: One square, three insertions, $1 00; Each subsequent insertion, _ 25 lETNe advertisement, will be considered less j than one square; over ene squaic. ill ba evwtt- ; fed and charged as two; over two, as three, etc. JOB PRINTING. We are prepared to do all kinds of JOB j [WORK, in a neat and workmanlike manner, on j the most, reasonble terms. Our material for the completion of Job-work, being new and of j the latest styles, we are confident that satisfac- ; lion can be given. Law of Newspapers. I 1. Subscribers who do not give express notice j Ito the contrary, are considered as wishing to i (continue their subscriptions. I I 2. If subscribers order the discontinuance of ■their papers, the publisher may contiuuetosend j [them until all arrearages are paid. i I 3 If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their ■ papers from the office they are held responsible ■ till they have settled the bill and ordered the | ■ paper discontinued. I ■ 4 if subscribers remove to other places with-: ■ out informing the publisher, and the paper is j I ktill sent to the former direction, they are held | I responsible. i (Jj’The Court. have decided that refusing of ■ take a paper from the office, or removed and' ■ leaving it uncalled for is crima facie evidence of I I intentional fraud. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, of Ilinois, On the President’s Message. I Delivered in the Senate of the US , Dec. 9. I 1857. On motion of Mr. Douglas, the Senate I resumed the consideration of the motion I made by him yesterday, to print the I President’s message and accompanying I documents, with fifteen thousand extra I copies. Mr. President: When yesterday the I President’s massage was read at the I Clerk’s desk, I heard it but imperfectly, lof the impression that the President of I the United States had approved and inIdorsed the action of the Lecomp’on con- | vention in Kansas. Under that impresI sion, I felt it my duty to state, that while II concurred in the general views of the | message, yet, so far as it approved or inI dorsed the action of that convention, I | entirely dissented fiom it, and would I avail myself of an early opportunity to I state my reasons for my dissent. Upon a more careful and critical examination of the message, I arn rejoiced to find that the President of the United States has not recommended that Congress shah j pass a law to receive Kansas into the ■ Union under the constitution formed at > Lecompton. It is true that the tone of j the message indicates a willingness on the I part of the President to sign a bill, if we I shall see proper to pass one, receiving I Kansas into the Union under that constiI tution. But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, and worthy of consideration, that the President has refrained from any I indorsement of the convention, and from any recommendation as to the course I Congress should pursue with regard to the constitution there formed.

j The message of the President has made an argument—an unanswerable argument in my opinion, against that constitution, which shows clearly, whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that consistently with bis principles, he tinnot accept that constitution. He has expressed his deep mortification and disappointment that the constitution itself lias not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. He informs us that he has unqualifiedly expressed his opinions on that subject [in his instructions to Governor Wulker, assuming as a matter of course that the constitution was to be submitted to the people before it could have any vitalitylie goes further, and tells us that the example set by Congress in the Minnesota case, inserting a clause in the enabling actrequiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become a ■ nninform rule, not to be departed from lhereafter in any cause. On these variIjtts propositions I agree entirely with the Irresident of the United States, and I am Iptepared now to sustain that uniform tale which be asks us to pursue, in all ■other cases, by taking the Minnesota pro-. I'ision as our example. j I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the Ijiessage, to find so much less to dissent |[[°m that I was under the impression ■’■’■ere was, from the hasty reading end ■'“perfect hearing of the message in |[! ;r; first instance. In effect, he refers ■'Jat document to the Congress of the ■ jilted States, as the constitution of the ■ n 'ted States refers it, for us to decide ■"Pen it under our responsibility. It is ■lroper that he should have thus referred ■ to us as a matter for congressional aet■*Jn> and not as an Administation or Ex-

ecutive measures, for the reason that the i Constitution of the United States says ■ that ‘ Congress may admit new States into the Union.’ Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, as an Administration measure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in possession of the Federal Government.— Sir, 1 propose to examine this question calmly and fairly, to see whether or not we can properly receive Kansas into the Ufilbli with the constitution formed at ! Lecompton. The President, after expressing his re- I gret and mortification and disappointment ; that the constitution had not been sub- I mitted to the people in pursuance of his instructions to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of Governor Walker’s assurances tn the people says, however, that . by the Kansas-Nebraska act the slavery question only was required to bo referred to the people, and the remainder of | the constitution was not thus required to Ibe submitted. He acknowledges that, as a general rule, on general principles, ■ the whole constitution should be submitted; but according to his understanding lof the organic act of Kansas, there was ian imperative obligation to submit the ' slavery question for their approval or i disapproval but no obligation to submit I the entire constitution. In other words, j he regards the organic act, the Nebraska ■ bill, as having made an exception of the I slavery clause, and provided for the dis- ( position of that question in a mode differI ent from tiiat in which other domestic or I local, as contradistinguished from Federal questions, should be decided. Sir, perI mit me to say, with profound respect for the President of the United States, that I I conceive that on this point he lias coin- ' mitted a fundamental error, an error ! which lies at the foundation of his whole I argument on this matter. I can well unj derstand how that distinguished states- ■ man came to fall into this error. He was 'not in the country at the time the Nebraska bill was passed; he was not a par- | t.y to the controversy discussion that look I place during its passage. He was then representing the honor and the dignity of the count: y with great wisdom and distinction at a foreign court. Thus deeply ( engrossed, his whole energies were absorbed in conducting great diplomatic questions that diverted his attention from ilie mere territorial questions and discusI sions then going on in the Senate and the i House of Representatives, and before the people at home. Under these circum- ; stances, he may well have fallen into an error, radical and fundamental as it is, in j regard to the object of the Nebraska bill ! and the principle asserted in it. Now, sir, what was the principle enuniciated by the authors and supporters of ; that bill when it was b. . light forward?— Did we not come before the country and Isay that we repealed the Missouri resUicj tion for the purpose of substituting and ; carrying out as a general rule the great I principle of self-government, which left the people of each State and each Territo- | ry free to form and regulate their domesj tec institutions in their own way, subject I only to the Constitution of the United i States? In support of that proposition, I it was argued here, and I have argued it I wherever I have spoken in variius States ' of the Union, at home and abroad, everywhere 1 have endeavored to prove that there was no reason why an exception I should be made in regard to the slavery j question I have appealed to the people |if we did not all agree, men of all parties 1 that all other local and domestic questions ■ should be submitted to the people, I said , to them, “We agree that Zhe people shall decide for themselves what kind of ajudiiciary system they will have; we agree I that the people shall decide what kind of I a school system they will establish; we agree that the people shall determine for (themselves what kind of a banking systhey will have, or whether they will have i any banks at all; we agree that the peoI pie may decide for themselves what shall I be the elective franchise in their respective States; they shall decide for tbemj selves what shall be the rule of taxation ■; and the principles upon which their finance . i shall he regulated; we agree that they may . I decide for themselves the relations be- [ I teen husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward; and why should we , I not then allow them to decide for themsel- ■ ! ves the relation between master and ser-1 I vant? Why make an exception of the, [ slavery question by taking it out of that ■ great rule of self-government which ap- ( plies to all the other relations of life?”—, The very first proposition in the Nebraska bill was to show that the Missouri restric-! i tion, prohibiting the people from deciding the slavery question Lr themselves, constituted an exception to a general rule, in violation of the principle of self-govern-! ment, and hence that exception should be repealed, and the slavery question, like all other questions, submitted to the peo- ■ pie to be decided for themselves.

“Our Country’s Good shall ever be our Aim—' billing to Praise and not afraid to Blame.’’

DECATUR, ADAMS COUNTY, INDIANA, JAN. 8, 1858.

Sir, (hat was the principle on which I the Nebraska bill was defended by its I friends. Instead of making the slavery j question an exception, it removed an odious exception which before existed. I Its whole object was to abolish that odi-1 ous exception, and make the rule gener- j al, universal, in its application to all mat- ; ters which were local and domestic, and ' national or Federal. For this reason was the language employed which the President has quoted; that the eighth section' of the Missouri act, commonly called (reMissouri compromise, was reper.M )u—---"cause it was repugnant to the principle of non-intervention established by the compromise measures of 1850,‘it being the intent and meaning of this act not to legI islate slavery into any Territory or State, I nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave ( I the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in ■ their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’ We repealed the Missouri restriction because that was confined to slavery. That was ( the only exception there was to the genj oral principle of self-government. That exception was taken away for the avowed I and express purpose of making the rule of self-government general and universal I so that the people should form and rtgu- . late all their domestic institutions in their ; own way. Sir, what would this boasted principle ‘of popular sovereignty have been worth, | if it applied only to the negro, and did not extend to the white man? Do you think we could have aroused the sympathies and the patriotism of this broad Republic, and have carried the presidential election last year in the face of a tremendous oj>position, on the principle of extending the right of self-government to the negro question, but denying it as to all the relaI tions affecting white men? No, sir. We aroused the patriotism of the country and ; carried the election in defence of that great principle, which allowed all white 1 men to form and regulate their domestic I institutions to suit themselves—institutions applicable to white men as well as to ] black men—institutions applicable to freemen as well as to slaves-institutions conccrning' all the relations of life, and not ; the mere paltry exception of the slavery I question. Sir, I have spent too much I strength and breath, and health, too, to I establish this great principle in the pop- | ular heart, now to see it fritted away by | bringing it down to an exception that apI plies to the negro, and does not extend to the benefit of the white man. .As 1 said ! before, I. can well imagine how the distinguished and eminent patriot and statesi man now at the head of the Government I fell into the error—for error it is, ••adical, fundamental—and, if persevered in, sub- | versive of that platform upon which he was elevated to the Presidency of the I United States. Then, if the President be right in sayj ingthat, by the Nebraska bill, the slavery I question must be submitted to the people i jit follows inevitably that every other j I clause of the constitution must also be ' subininitted to the people. The Nebraska bill said that the people should be left I ‘perfectly free to form and regulate their ‘ domestic institutions in their own way’— ' not the slavery question, not the Maine I liquor-law question, not the banking I question, not the school question, not the railroad question, but‘their domestic inI stitutions,’ meaning each and all the quesI tions which are local, not national, Slate, I not Federal. I arrive at the conclusion : that the principles enunciated so boldly, , and enforced with so much ability by the I President of the United States, require us, out of respect to him and the platform, on which he was elected, to send this whole question back to the people of Kansas, and enable them to say whether or not the constitution which has been framed, each and every clause of it, meets their approbation. The president in his message has made an unanswerable argument in favor of the principle which requires this question to be sent, back. It is stated in the message with more clearness and force than any 1 I cau command, but I can draw your attention to it and refer you to the argument I in the message, hoping that you will take j jitas a part of my speech —as expressing I ' my idea more forcibly than I am able to , I express it. The President says that a ! I question cannot be fairly decided by a ' [ convention of delegates, for the reason j I that the delegates, are elected in districts i ' and in some districts a delegate is elected j by a small majority; in others by an over- ■ whelming majority, so that it often hupi pens that a majority of the delegates are I one way, while a majority of the people | are the other way; and therefore it would i be unfair and inconsistent with the great ■ I principle of popular sovereignty, to allow , a body of delegates, not representing the 1 popular voice, to establish domestic institutions for the mass of the people. This is ’ the President’s argument to show that 1 you cannot have a fair and honest dici--1 sion without submitting it to popular vote. I The same argument is conclusive with rc-

I gard to every question as well as with re-1 gard to slavery. But, Mr. President, it is intimated in th- message that although it was an unfo lui'.ate circumstance, much to bere1 g-etted, that the Lecompton convention jdi 1 nut submit the constitution t 6 the people, yet perhaps it may be treated as regrelar, because the convention was cal--1 • I by a Territorial legislature which had been repeatedly recognized by the Congress of the United States as a legal body, t beg S 'lrelors not to fall into error as to 2 the A.*r-tere:'.,ng on UUb —I He does not say, he does not mean, that, this convention had ever been recognized I Jby tlie Congress of the United States as j legal or valid. On the contrary, he I knows, as we here know, that during the ’ last. Congress 1 reported a bill from the I committee on Territoiies to authorise the people of Kansas to assemble and form a , constitution for themselves. Subsequently I the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) ; brought forward a substitute for my bill, i j which, after having been modified by him ( ■ ' and myself in consultation, was passed by . the Senate. It is known in the country as j “the Toombs bill.” It authorised the 1 1 people of Kansas Territory to assemble in > convention and form a constitution prepe- j 1 ratcry io their admission into the Union , ■ 1 as a State. That biil.it is well known, I j was defeated in the House of Represents- ■ tives. It matters not, for the purpose of I this argument, what was the reason of its j defeat. Whether the reason was a polit- . ical one; whether it had reference to the | : ‘ then existing contest for the Presidency;! , I whether ii was to keep open the slavery ; question; whether it was a conviction that I the bill would not bo fairly out; whether ■! it was because there was not people enough >! in Kansas to justify the formation of a • Stati.— no mattei what the reason was, the House of Representatives iefused to ’ I i pass that bill, and thus denied lo the :; people of Kansas the right to form a con- ■ Lstitution and State government at this : I time. So far from the Congress of the [ i United States having sanctioned or legal-, II ized the convention which assembled at, • Lecompton, it expressly withheld its as- | - sent. The assent has not been given, eith- : er in express terms or by implication; and ■ being withheld, this Kansas constitution: re has just such validity and just such au-1 < thoiit/as the Territorial legislature of ■ Kansas could impart to it without the as-1 ■ sent, and in opposition to the known will of Coigress. i Nov, sir. let me ask what is the extent of the luthority of a Territorial legislature ai to calling a constitutional convention without the assent of Congress? Fortunately this is not a new question; it does ix.>t now arise for the first time.— When the Topeka constitution was presented to the Senate nearly two years ago. it was referred to the Committee on Ter- 1 ritoriei, with a variety of measures rcla- j ting to Kansas. The committee made a) full report upon the whole subject. That: report reviewed all the irregular cases j which had occurred in our history in the I admission of new States. The commit-1 tee acted on the supposition that when- S ever Congress had passed an enabling! act authorizing the people of a Territory i to form a State constitution, the conven-1 tion was regular, and possessed all the authority which Congress had delegated ! to it; but whenever Congress had failed or refused to pass an enabling act, the . proceeding was irregular and void, unless vitality was imparted to it by a subsequent | act of Congress adopting and confirming, j The friends of the Topeka constitution I insisted that although their proceedings were irregular, they were not so irregular but that Congress could cure the error by admitting Kansas with that constitution. They cited a variety of cases, amongst others the Arkansas case. Ini my report, sanctioned by every member of the Committee on Territories, except ■ the Senator from Vermont, (Mr. Collamer.)l reviewed the Arkansas case as well the others, and affirmed the doctrine . established bv General .Jackson’s admin-; istration and enunciated in the opinion of I Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of; i which opinion was copied into the report! | and published to the country at the time. ■ Now, sir in order to ascertain what we I Understood on the 12th of March, 1856—■ little more than a year and a half ago—to be the true doctrine on this point, let me j I call your attention to the opinion of Mr. Butler in the Arkansas case. The GovI ernor of the Territory of Arkansas sent a 1 I printed address to President Jackson, in which he stated that be had been urged, : to call together the Legislature of the Territory of Arkansas, for the purpose of I allowing them to call a convention to I I form a constitution, preparatory to their ! admission into the Union as a State.— : . The Governor stated that, in his opinion, I the Legislature had no power to call such a convention without the assent of Con- ' gress first had been obtained but lie asked instructions on that point. The President ’ referred the case to the Secretary of State and he asked for the advice of the Attor-. nev General, whose opinion was given, 1

I and adopted, as the plan of action, and I communicated to the Governor of Arkansas for his instruction. 1 will read i some extracts from that opinion: ‘Consequently, it is not in the power ot : the General Assembly of Arkansas to oass any law for the purpose of electing members to form a constiiuiion and State government, or to du any oU.i i- net, directly, to create such in w guvi-rnnu nt.— Every such law, even though it wt re ap- ! proved by thejGovernment of the Territo- < ry, would be null and void. 1. p u sed by 'of two thirds of each branch, ii, would ! still be equally void. ‘lf I am right in the foregoing opinion Jit will then follow that the course of the ' , Governor, in declining to call together the ■ Territorial Legislature for the purpose in question, was such as his legal duties required and that the views he has expressed in his public address, and also in his I official communication to yourself, so far jas they indicate an intention not to sanction or concur in any legislative or oilier (proceeding towards the formation of a State government until Congress shall ; have authorized it, arc also correct.’ , That is what I have understood to be j the settled doctrine as to the authority of a Territorial Legislature lo call a convenI lion without the consent of Congress first j ! had and obtained. The reasoning is very ' clear and palpable. A territorial kgis- I I lature possesses whatever power its or-1 igantic act gives it, and no more. The: organic act of Arkansas provided that the legislative power should be vested in the I territorial legislature, the same as the ' organic act of Kansas, provides that the I legislative power and authority shall be i vested in the legislature. But what is the extent of that legislative power? It I I is to legislate for that territory under the ; | organic act, and in obedience to it. 11l i does not include any power to subvert the ; : organic act under which it was brought! into existence. It has the power to pro- j I tect it, the power to execute it, the power ‘ j to carry it into effect; but it has no power jto subvert, none to d'stroy; and hence i ! that power can only be obtained by ap- ; ; pljing to Congress, the same authority! j which created the territory itself. But j while the Attorney General decided,; with the approbation of the administra-1 tion of General Jackson, that territorial ! legislature had no power to call a con- 1 I vention, and that its action was void if it j did, he went further: “No law has yet been passed by Con- | gress which either expressly or impliedly gives to the people of Arkansas the nu- ! thority to form a State government.” Nor has there been any in regard to I Kansas. The two cases are alike thus I j far. They are alike in all particulars so 1 j far as the question involving the legality I I and the validity of the Lecompton conven-! I tion is concerned. The opinion goes on ! I to say: “For the-reason aliove stated, 1 am, J j therefore, of opinion that the inhabitants I j of that Territory have not at present, and I that they cannot acquire otherwise than ! by an act of Congress, the right to form I such a government.” | General Jackson’s administration took : : the ground that the people of Arkansas, . by the authority of the Territorial legis-; I lature, had not the power to hold a con-1 | vention to form a constitution, and could ! I not acquire it from any source whatever! except from Congress. While, therefore, | the legislative act of Arkansas was held j as void, so far as it assumed authority to | the calling of a convention to form a con-1 stitution, yet they did not hold, in those | days, that the people could not assemble and frame a constitution in the form of a! pitition. 1 will read the rest of the opinion in order that the Senate mav understand precisely what was the doctrine on > ; this subject at that day, and what the corn-1 ! mittee on territories understood to be the I doctrine on this subject in March, 1856, ( when we put forth the Kansas report as j embodying what we Nebraska men un- ; deistood to be our doctrine at that time Here it is. This was copied in that re- ( port: ‘But I am not prapared to say that all I | proceeding on this subject, on the part of' I the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal i They undoubtedly possess the ordinary! 'privilegesand immunities of citizens of! j the United Slates. Among these is the right to assemble and to petition the gov- i eminent for the redress of grievances.— ( |ln the exercise of this right the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, the pur-1- ' pose of petitioning Congress to abrogate ! the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent | State. The particular form which they j may give in their petition cannot be raate-rialso-long as they confine themselves to j the mere right of petitioning, and conduct, all their proceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Congress over I the whole subject is plenary and limited, they may accept any constitution, however framed, which in their judgement 1 meets the sense of the people to be affect-'

ed bv it. If, therefore, the citizens of Aikansas think proper to accompany their neiiiion with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies I perceive no ■ legal objection to their power to do so, nor any men-tires w hich may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect !to it; provided, always, that such measures be cominttcr.ed and prosecuted in a peaceable manlier, in strict subordination ,to the existing T. rritori .1 government, - it> entire subserviency to rtie power of Congress Zo adop/, rejeeZ, or disregard !zhein, nt Zheir pleasure.' While Zhe LegislaZure of Arkansas had no power Zo creaZe a convei Zion Zo frame a consZiZuZion, as a legal contGZuZion body, : vt Z if Zhe people choose Zo assemble under such an acZof Zlie legislaZure for Zhe pur- ! pose of peZiZioning for redress of greivances, Zhe assemblage was noZ illegal; iZ was noZ such an unlawful assemblage; iZ was i.oZ such tin assemblage as mill/ >ry power (could be used Zo disperse, for Zhey had a ! righZ under Zhe coiisZiZuZion ZhusZo assemble and pcZ'Zion. BuZ if Zhey assumed Zo Zhemstdves Zlie righZ or Zhe power Zo make a governmenZ, ZhaZ assumpZion was an acZ of rebellion which General Jackson said iZ : was his du/y Zo puZdown wiZh Zhe miliZary ; force o( Zhe counZi y. ■ If you apply Zhese principles Zo Zhe | Kansas convenzion, yju find ZhaZ it had !no power Zo do any acZ as a convenZion ! forming a governmenZ; you find Zhai Zhe. acZ calling iZ was null and void from Zhe beginning; you find ZhaZ Zhe legislature ! could confer no power wbaZevcr on Zhe. (convenZion. ThaZ convenZion was simply lan assemblage of peaceable cizizens, unj der Zhe consZiZuZion of Zho UniZed SZaZes, I peZi/ioning'for Zip- redress of grievances, (and Zhus assembled, had zhe riyhZZo puZ I Zheir peZiZion in Zhe form of a comZiZuZion lif Zhey choose; buZ .‘Zill iZ was only a pejZiZion—having Zhe force of a peZiZion— I which Congress could accept or rejccZ, or (dispose of as iZ saw proper. ; That is what. I understand to be just, the exI tent of <ll,. power and authority of this convention as‘<-mt ded at Lecompton." It. was not an ; uuliiwlul uu ; oi,iblnge like that, held ol Topeka; I for the Topeka constitution was made in oppo- ' sit ion to the territorial law, and as I the tight, : intended to subvert the government without the I consent of Congress, but as contended by their iiiendr, not so intended. Il their object was to subvert it without the consent of Congress.it ‘ was nn act of rebellion, which ought to have | been pit down ‘ y force. If it was a peaceable assemblage simply to petition and abide the di- ■ vision ul Congress on the petition it was nut an unlawful assemblage. I hold that this LecompII nn eonvui.t:, ,n was not tin tin law ful assemblage; nut. on the other hand, 1 hold that they hadTJ legal power and authority toesltrblish n govern mem. They had a right to petition for a re- : dress of grievances. They had a right in that petition to ask for the change of government I ii-oin a territorial to a State government. They , had a right to ask Congress to adopt the instru- ■ ment which they sent to us, their constitution; I and Congress if it thought that paper embodied the will of the people of the Tiiritory, fairlv ex- | pressed, might, in its discretion, accept it"as a and admit them into ili»r»t ... ... laSlnle; or if Congress thought it did not emI body the will of the people cf Kansas, it might. I reject it; or if Congress though it was doubtful I whether it did embody the n ill of the people of Kansas or not, then it should send it buck .and I submit it to the. people to have that doubt ro- | moved in order '.l.at the popular voice, whateve r !it might be, should prevail in the constitution 1 under which that people were to live. | So far as the act of the Tetrilorial 1,, gislatuhl I of Kansas calling this convention was concerned,! have always been under the impression i that it was fair and just in its provisions 1 I have always though tin ' icnpli. sin u'd I a egore together on tnusae m,d voted or delegates, so that the voice expressed by the convention ■ should have been the unquestioned and united I voice of the people of Kansas. I have always I thought that those who staid away from tint, election stood in their own light, and should I have gone and Voted, and should have furnish'ed their names to be put i.n the registered list, so as to be voters. 1 have always held that t i wax their own fault that they did not thus go ■ nod vote; but yet. ifthev chose they had aright Ito stay away. They had a right to sav that i that convention, although not an unlawful asi semblage.is not a legal convention to make a ' government, and hence we are under no obligaI tion to go and express any opinion about it They had a right to say, if they choose, ‘AVe ; will stay' away until we sec the constitution j t' ey shall frame, the petition they shall send to ! Congress; and when they submit it to us for ratI ifiettion '• e will vote for it, if wc like it <ir vote |it down if we do not like it. 1 say they had a j right to do either,though I thought, and think i yet, as good citizens, they ought to have gone and voted; but that was thoirjbusiness and not I mine. Having thus shown that the convention at 1 Leccmpr in had no power no authority, to form and establish a government, but had power to j draft a petition, and that petition, if it embodied the will of the people of Kansas; ought to be taken as such an exposition of their will, vet, ■ if it did not embody their will, ought to be rejected—having shown these facts, let me proceed and inquire what was the understanding -of the people of Kansas, when the delegates were elected? I understand, from the history of the transaction, that the people who voted for j delegates to the Lecompton Convention, and i those who refused to vote —both parlies—under- ; stood the territorial act to mean that they were to beelected only to frame a constitution, and ' submit it to the people for their ratification or rejection. 1 say that both parties in that territory' nt the time of the election of delegates, so under- • tood the object of the convention. Those who voted for delegates did so with the understanding that they had no power to make a government but only to franio one for submission; and those who staid away did s<> with tho same ’ understanding.

NO. 48.