Decatur Eagle, Volume 2, Number 6, Decatur, Adams County, 19 March 1858 — Page 1

r— — — -x-—- —— —-——— “ ‘ -t: -- — — THE DECATUR EAGLE.

VOL, 2.

TH E EAGLE. ' PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING. Offics, on Main Street, in the old School House, one Square North of J. & P Crabs’ Store. Terms of Subscription : For one year, $ I 50, in advance; $1 75, w ithin ; six months; $2 00, after the year has expired. [Er* No paper will be discontinued until ail i are paid, except at the option of the ; Publisher. Terms of Advertising: One square, thiee insertions, ~(j Each subsequent insertion, •>. IJ*No advertisement will be considered less j than one squ».n ; over one square will be counted and charged two; over two, as three, etc.' JOB PRINTING. We arc prepared to do all kinds of JOB WORK, in a neat and workmanlike manner,on the most reasouhlo trims Our material for, Ihe eorfipletion of job-work, being new and ol the latest styles, w. arc confident that satisfaction can be given. Law of Newspapers. ■ 1. Subscribers who do not give express not ice to the contrary, are considered as wishing to continue their subscriptions. 2. If subscribers order the discontinuance of their papers, the publisher may contitfuetcisend tl»em untilall arrearages are paid. 3. If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their papers from the« thee they are held responsible till they have settled the bill and ordered the paper discontinued. 4. If subscribers remove to other places with out informing tlw publisher, and the paper is still sent to the former direc ion,they are held responsible. CFThe Court have decided that refusing of take a paper from the office, or removed and leaving it, uncalled fur is i-ri.ua. facie evidence of intentional fraud. em n-7 a** a e» * a Os the Hon. S. A. Douglas. FROM THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES. (OONCI.I DEl> FROM LAST WEtll) 1 That, while the Convention recognised the ritrht of the people of Kansas to “ratify” or “reject” said Constitution, and provided that it should not take effect tor be submitted to Congress for acceptance. until so ratified, at an election to be beid for 'he purp «c of 'ratification' or rejeiiion,’ yet the mode of submission prescribed by the Convention was such as to render it impossible for the people to reject it at said election, even if there should be but one person offering to vote for it, and 23,000 against, since no per son was to be p-emitted to vote unless he would vote for the Constitution, and those who should offer to vote against the Constitution were to be excluded from the polls, and deprived of the privilege of voting at all, at said election. 2. That ti e mode of submission prescribed by the Convention did not fully present tb.e question to the people to be decided at that election whether Kansas’ should be a. -luveholding or a non-slavp-holdirg State, for the reason that while there was known to be many proslaverv men residing in the Territory who were anxious to vote in favor of making Kansas a slavebolding State, but were at the same time irreconcilably opposed to that Constitution, and while it was also known ' that there were many free State men res-! ident in the Territory who were equally opposed to the Constitution, whether the slavery clause should be letained or excluded; yet the Convention had promised in effect tint no pro-slavery man should vote in favor of making Kansas a slaveholding Stale, unless he at the same time recorded his vote in favor of the Constitution; nor should any free State mt-.n in f.ivo>- ’ f enl-ing Karens a free State, unless he ,■.■ the same time would recofd his vote in favor of the Constitu- 1 tion. 3. That inasmuch as the Convention did not possess any legislative power, it could not prescribe, and did not attempt to provide any penalties or punishments for illegal and fraudulent voting, or for J false and frandulent returns, except by a vague and vain reference to the Territorial laws. 4. That the schedule of the Constitution 1 had taken the whole management of the said election out of the hands of the Territorial officers, and placed it in the hands of Commissioners, Judges, and Clerks to be appointed by and under the authority of the President of the Convention; and even if the Territorial laws could be constructed as applicable to the persons so appointed Io conduct this election, yet fraudulent and spurious and | forged returns could be made with impunity, as had been the case in other elections, for the reason that, by some singular omission or inadvertence, the election laws of the Territory failed to provide I any penalties or punishment for such offenses. Do not these facts furnish sufficient reasons to justify the Territorial Legisla-1 turo in interposing its authority, as it did on the 17th of December, in the passage of a law which in effect postponed the election on the ratification or iejection of the Constitution until the 4th day of January, and provided that on the that day a

[ fair election should be held, at which any I I legal voter in the Territory might record i his vote for or against the Constitution, and for or against the slavery article, I fully and unconditionally, and also made wise and effective provision to protect the ballot-box and returns from fraud and violence? i The result of the election of the 4th of ‘January on the ratification or rejection of , the Lecompton Constitution, was officially announced by the Governor and presiding officers of the two Houses of the Legislature of the Territory in the follow -. o • 1 ing proclamation: | Tn accordance with the provisions of an act I entitled ‘An act submitting the Con“tJtntion j r.uau-.-i L Compton, under the act us the Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territxiny, entitled I ■An act to provide TO? takifig a census and 1 election of Delegates to a Covention, passed j February 10. A. D. 1 H">7the undersigned announce the following as the official vote of the ; people of Kansas Territory, on the puestionsas j i 'herein submitted on the 4th day of January. , I = A it] 2 ~ o it ' 2* 8 5 ■ ~ ’3 a* ? M 5 S - EJ COINTIES. c *3 '7 !J £ *1 - 2.2 2 9 Su3 Z £ i jLe ven worth 1,997 It) 3 i Atchison. 53G 4 — Doniphan. 561 I 2 brown. 1-7 2 — Nemaha. 288 I — j Marshall. 16 — — Riley. 2 77 Pottawattomie. 207 2 — j Calhoun. ?49 Jefferson. 377 I Johns.>n. 392 2 — | l ykeus. 35S | ) Lil n. ;>!)!) I 3 j 800 bon. 268 55 — Douglas. 1,617 21 2 ; Franklin. 3()4 — — Anderson. 177 — Allen. 191 1 4 ; Shawnee. 8 >2 28 3 Coffee. 463 — 4 j Woodton. 50 — — j Richardson. 177 —1 Breckinridge, ]9I Madison. 40 — — Davis. 21 Total. -1t.22. 138 24 Some precincts have not vet sent in their re turns, buttiie above is the complete vote received up to th:, ’ ire. J. W. DENVER, Secretary and Acting Governor. C W. BABCOCK, President of the Council. G. W. DEITZLER. Speaker of the House of Representatives, January 26, 1858. I , J . . .I From this official proclamation, it appears that She Lecompton Constipation ! was repudiated and rejected by the peoi pie of Kansas at that election by a clear m -jority of ten thousand and sixty-four (10,064) votes j It is proper, however, to remark that ant withstanding the Legislature had provided by law that the vote on the ratification or rejection of the Constitution should take place on the 4th day of Janj uary, the friends of that instrument, in j disregard of the law, held an election on , i the 21st of December, under the pretend- 1 i ed authority of the Convention; and that , ; it appeared from a proclamation signed | by C- W. Babcock, President of the Counted, and by G. W. Deitzler, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Ter- ■ ritory, who were present bj‘ invention of John Calhoun, President of the Conven- ' tion, al the counting of the votes, that’ six thousand one hundred and forty-three ’ i (6,143) votes were returned ‘for the Constitution with Slavery, and that five ! .J Aad eighty-nine(sß9) votes were iieiH.ucd for the Constitution with no[Slavery. Showing a majority of five | thousand five hundred and seve n ty-four 1 (5,574) votes cast at that election for ‘the Constitution with Slavery, as preI sented to Congress for acceptance. It is also stated in the same proelama-l tion, that more than one-half of this majority was cast at these very sparsely ! settled precincts in the Territory, two of I them in the Shawnee Reserve, on land; not open for settlement, viz: Oxford, Johnson county 1,266 Shawnee, Johnson county. 729 Kickapoo, Levenworth County. 1,012 Total. ' 3,017 ‘Frnm our personal knowledge of the settlements in and around the above places, we have I .uo hesitation in saying that the great bulk of ' these votes were fraudulent, and, taking into i view the other palpable but less important I frauds, we feel safe in saying that, of the whole | | vote polled not over tow thousand were legal . votes, polled by the citizens of the Territory.’ | But assuming this election to have been fair and valid, although not held and conducted according io law, and assuming the returns to have been genuine, j , and the votes to have been all citizens of . the Territory, notwithstanding the recent developments of the enormous frauds at the polls, and in the returns—assuming all this, let us see how the matter stands ! when we compare the results of the two ' elections. At the election on the 4th of January, the majority against the Consti- ! tution was 10, 064. At the election on the 21 st of December, the majority in so-

“Our Country's Good shall ever be our Aim—V7tiling to Praise and not afraid to Blame.' 1

DECATUR, ADAMS COUNTY, INDIANA, MAR, 19, 1858.

' vor of the Constitution as presented to i Congress was 5,574; showing a clear ma-' jority against the Constitution, on com- * parison of the returns of the two elections, and supposing each to have been fair and , legal, of 4,490. If from this calculation we depute the fraudulent votes according to the statements of the presiding officers of the two Houses of the Legislature, ! who were present at the opening of the polls and the counting of the votes by the ; invitation of the President of the Convention, and we have a majority of more j 1 than 8,000, or fourlio one of all the legal ! voters of Kansas in opposition to ■ i stitution. ' The manner in which the advocates of the fjecompton Constitution hope to avoid [the force of this overwhelming verdict 1 against it by the people of Kansas is explained in the following passage from the recent special message of the President of the United States, which contains , all that he says upon the subject: “It is proper that 1 should briefly refer to the 1 election held under an act of the Territorial Legislature, on the first Monday of Janna rv 18.>8, on the Lecompton Constitution. This ! election was held after the Territory nad been prepared for admission iuto the Guion as a sov | ereign State, and when no authority existed in ; the Territorial Legislature which w ould possi- I bly destroy its exl .tence or change its character. | j The election, which was p.jaceably conducted i ' under my instructions, involved a strange in□onsisteucy. A larsje majority of the persons who voted against the Lecompton Constiution were, at rhe very same time and place, recognizing iss valid existence in the most solemn and authentic manner, by voting under its provisions. 1 have yet recived no official information of the result of this election.” 1 It is to be regretted that on the 2d day of February the President has received no official information of the result of the election held on the 4th day of January,' which was published in the ‘proclama- ' ! tion’ to which I have referred, and was 1 republished in the newspapers of this city and of New York as early as the 30th of January, from which proclamation the President would have learned, if he »ad I received it, that the peopled of Kansas had repudiated and rejected the Lecompton Constitution by mure than 10,000 majority at that election. It seems, however, that the President attaches no importance to this overwhelming vote of the people against the Constitution, for the reason that he supposes “this election was I held after the Territory had been preparled for admission iuto the Union as a sov- ! ereign State, and when no authority exlisted in the Territorial Legislature which I could possibly destroy its existance or change its character.’ By what aut! >rity had the Territory been prepared for admission into the Union? Certainly not iby the authority of Congress, for I have I already shown that Congress withheld its assent when asked by President Pierce in a special message to grant it. Was it by authoritiy of the Territorial Legislature? It is a peculiar doctrine that a Territorial Legislature may assemble a Convention without the assent of Con- ■ gress, and empower the Convention, when | assembled, to abrogate or impair the au--1 thority of the Territorial Government es- ; tablished by Congress, of which the Legislature is a constituent part. The question does not now arise for the i first time in the history of our country. I It arose under the administration of Gen. Jackson, on the right of the Territorial ■ Legislature of Aukansas ‘to prepare that Territory for admission into the Union as a I sovereign State without any express aui thority from Congress,’ and, after mature [deliberation, Gen. Jackson delivered the decision of his Administration upon theproposition, through Mr. Butler, his At- ■ j torney-General. i 1 quote from the opinion: I “To supple that the legislative powers, gran- i i ted to tlie General Assmbly includes the author- j ity to abrogate, alter or modify the Territorial ■ Government established by the act of Congress and of which the assembly is a constituent part j ■ would be manifestly absurd. The act of UonI gress, so far as it is consistent with Constitu- ! j tii,n of the United States, and wi;h.the treaty I I bv which the Territory, as a part of Lousiaaa, i .' was ceded to the United States, is a supreme law lof tlie Territory; it is paramount to the power ■ lof the Territorial Legislature, andean ouly be rev. ke 1 or altered by the authority from which it emanated. The General Assembly, and the people of t’ua Territory, are as much bound by its provisions, and as incapable of abrogating ; them, as the Legisla ure and people of the American States are bound by and incapable of abrogating the Constitution of the United I States. It is also a maxim of universal law that, when 1 a particular thing is prohibited by law, all j | means, attempts or conbivances to effect such I | thing are also prohibited. Consequently it is not in the pow- r of the General assembly of Ar- | kansas to pass axy law for the purpose of elect- ' ing members to a Convention to form a Consti- i tution and State Government, nor to do my other act, directly or indirectly, to create such , new Government. Every such law even though ' - it were approved by the Governor of the Terri-1 | tory, would be null and void. If passed by them I I notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two thirds of each branch, it would still be equally , | void.” Thus it appears that under the Administration of General Jackson, the doctrine ! obtained, and I have never heard its correctness questioned until the pressent session of Congress, that a Convention assembled under the authority of a Teroitorial Legislature, ‘without an express

i authority from Congress,’ had no right ! or power to prepare the Territory for ad • mission into the Union as a state, and I thereby abrogate or impair the authority ;of the Territorial Legislature over all | ' rightful subjects of legislation consistent , with the organic act. If this view of the! subject be correct, it follows, neccesaarily ' that the Lecompton Convention, iu form- ; ing the Constitution, did not, by that act, and could not by any act, impair, dimini ish or restrain the authority of the Terri - 1 ; torial Legislature, and hence that the Constitution formed at Lecompton an pre- ; stnted to Congres for acceptance, should I be considered and treated like any other memorial or petition, which Congress may accept, or reject or disregard, according! I to the facts and circumstances of the case. ‘ This point was also considered and decided by Gen. Jackson’s Administration in the Arkansas case, as appears hy the following extract from the same opinion of , Attorney-General Butler: “But I am not prepared to say that all pro- j I ceedings on this subject on the part of the citi- j I zens of Arkansas, will be illegal. “They undoubtedly possess the ordinary' privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Among these 's the right ot' < the people ‘peaceably to assemble, and to peti- I I tion the Government for the redress of grievances.’ In the exercise of this right the inhabitants, of Arkansas may peaceably meet togeth-' er in primary assemblies, or iu conventions ; chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the Ten-i orial Government and to admit them into the Union as an independent State. The particular form which thee may give to their petition cannot be material so long as they confine them- I selves to the mere right to petitioning, and I conduct all their proceedings in a peaceable | I manner and as the power of Congress over the | subject is plenary and unlimited, they may ac j cept any Constitution, hovever framed, which, i in their judgements merts t’e sense pf the people 'to he. affected by it. If, therefore, the citizens of I Arkansas think proper to accompany their peI tition by a written Constitution, framed anil, ■ agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a , I Convention of Delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceived no legal objection so their power to do so, nor to any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it. provided always that such measI uresbe commenced and prosecuted in a peace- ; Iful manner, io strict subordination to the existing Territorial Government, and in cniire siibservie » i ; regard th/ in at their pleasure. “It is, however, very obvious that all measI eves commenced and prosecuted with a design |to subvert the Territorial Government, and to I establish and put in force in its place anew | Go.'eruiiieriL, v. i lioui the consent of CotlglOsS, ! will be unlawful. The laws establishing the. ' Territorial Government must continue in force ■ until abrogated by Congress and in the mean time it will ba the duty of the Governor and of all the Territorial officers, as well as of the Pres- , ident, to take care that they are faithfully executed. Il we apply the principles to Kansas which received the sanction of Gen. Jack -' son and bis administration in the Arkansas ‘ i ease, it becomes apparent that the Lej compton Convention had the right to as- ; emble under the protection of that clause ‘ |of the Constitution of the United States I which secures to the people the right' i ‘peaceably to assemble and to petition : ! Government for the redress of grievances;, and in the exercise of this right of petition they might ‘pray Congress to abrogate the Territorial Government, and to ‘ admit them into the Union as an independent State,’ provided ‘they confined themselves to the mere right of petion- ! ing, and the Constitution inclosed in their petition meets the sense of the people to be affecledby it,’ and also that ‘such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing Territorial Government, and j in entire subserviency to the pouter of Con\gress, to adopt, reject, or disregard them 'at their pleasure,’ but that said Convention could not establish a Government, or ordain a Constitution or do any other I act under pretence of preparing the Territory for admission into the Union as a i sovereign State,’ calculated or intended, to abrogate, impair, or restrain the Leg-; islative power of the Territory over all j rightful subjects of legislation consistent ! with the organic act. If these principles be sound—if the doctrine of General Jackson's Administration iu the Arkansas i lease be correct, the President is mistaken in suppossing that Lecompton Convention did or could do any act, depriving the Territorial Legislature of the power and right to pass a law referring the Consti -1 i tution to vote of the people on the sth of I January, with the view of ascertaining the ! essential and all-important fact, whether i it “meets the senses of the people to be 'affected by it.” The power of the Territorial Legislature over the whole subjects was as full and obsolute ol the 17th day of December, when the law was enacted providing lor the admission of the Constitution to the ueople at the election on the 4th of January, as it was on the 19th day of February, 1857, when the Legislature 1 passed the act calling the Lecompton ; Convention into existence. The Conven- ! tion was the creation of the Territorial > Legislature: was called into existence by j its mandate, derived whatever power it possessed from its enactment, and was I bound to conduct all its proceedings “tn 1 strict subordination to the existing Tcrrito-'

rial Government,” as well as ‘in entire subserviency of the power of Congress to ' adopt, reject, or disregard them at their 'pleasure.' Such being the case, whenev--ler the Legislature ascertained that the j Convention, whose depended I upon its will, had devised a scheme to force a Constitution upon the people without their consent, and without any authority from Congress, and which was believed to be repugnant to the feelingsand ' hostile to the interests of the people to be ■affected by it, it became their imputative I duty to interpose and exert the authority ' conferred upon them by Congress in the • organic act and arrest and prevent the i consummation of the scheme before it | had gone in'o operation. The Legislature deserves credit for the promptness, wisdom, and justice, which characterized its proceedings in this respect. The members were familiar with the wishes of the people, having been I I elected after the Lecomton Convention [assembled, and before it concluded its lai hors, and at the end of an exciting cani vass, in which the oi igin and organization I of the Convention, the circumstances un- i i der which the delegates wereelected, and I their pledges to submit, the Constitution; Ito the people for ratification or rejection, i and the various provisions which were to be incorporated into the Constitution, were all fully and freely discussed by [ both parties before the people. The Leg- ' islature not only passed the. act of the , ; 17th of December authorizing the people ito vote for or against the Constitution I before it should be sent to Congress for [ acceptance, but in order to prevent any i action by Congress before the people ■should have an opportunity of making their wishes known in any authoritative and legal form, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted, aspublshed in the public prints by the unanimous votes of the two Houses: ‘Preamble and joint resolutions in relation to llie Constitution framed at Lecompton, Kan i sas Territory, on the 7th day of Nov.anbei', ■; ‘ , i I "Win nirts, A small minority of tae people, living in nineteen of tlie thirty-eight counties of llie Territory, availed themselves of a law i which enabled them to obstruct and defeat j fair expression of the popular will, did. by the i odious and oppressive application of the pro- ( visions and partisan machinery of said law, ! procure the r< turn of the whole number of the ; dekgates ofllie Constitutional Convention re- ; centlv assembled at Lecompton . And whereas, By- -ason of the defective pro ; visions of said law, in Connert ~,n v-1 I, the neg [ J lect and misconduct of the authorities chained ' wit’ll Ihe execution of the same, t , p .q-le livI ing within the remainig nineteen comities of | the Territory were not permitted to return del- ■ egates to said Convention, were not recognized 1 in its organization, or iu any other sense heard 1 or felt in its deliberations. I ‘And whereas, 11. is an axiom in political eth ; ies that llie people cannot be deprived oi their [ rights by the negligence or misconduct of pub- ■ lie officers. I i An.dm}:e"eas, A minority to-wit: Twenty eight oniv of the sixty members of said Conven , lion have attempted, by an unworthy contri-| . vance, to impose upon the whole people of this I Territory a Constitution, without, consulting , their wishes, and against their will. ‘And toAereaa, The members of said Conven- | tion have refused to submit their action for the j approval or disapproval of the votes of the Ter-j I ritory, and in thus acting have defied the : known will of nine-tenths of the voters thereof. ‘And whereas, The action of a fragment, of j said Convention, representing as they did a | small minority of the voters of the Territory, i repudiates and crushes out the distinctive prinj ciple of the Nebraska-Kansas Act,’ and violates j and tramples under foot the rights and the sovI ereignty of the people. “And whereas. From the foregoing statement. ■ I of facts, it clearly- appears that the people have not been left ‘free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,’ but, on the contrary, at every stage in the anomalous proceedings recited, they have been prevented from so doing. ‘Be it, thcre'ore, ed, Ry the Governor and | Legislative Assembly of Jl.i,. :. ' r - ♦’■••• I the people of Kansas being opposed to said Constitution, Congress lias no rightful power i under it to admit said Territory into the Union [ as a State, and the Representatives of said peo-; | pie do hereby, in their name and on their behalf j solemnly protest against such admission, i “Resolved, That such action on the part of | Congress would, in the judgement of the mem- ■ bers of the Legislative Assembly b« an entire ; abandonment of the doctrine o. non-interveu-I tion in the affairs of the Territory and a subi stitution in its stead of Congress >->al intervention in behalf of a minority engaged in a disreputable attempt to defeat the will and viu late the rights of the map-.. ‘Resilved, That the peolp- ui’ Kansas territory j claim the right, through a legal ami fair ex- 1 I pression of the will of a majority of her citizens | to form and adapt a Constitution for themsilves. ‘Resolved, That the Governor of this Territory be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the president of the I United States, the President of the Senate the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the Delegates in Cong rcss from the Territory.’ In the face of all these evidences that the Lecompton Constitution is not the act of the people of Kansas, and does not embody their will—that it was formed by a Convention under an act of the Territorial Legislature without the consent of Congress —that thesixty delegates . composing the Convention were chosen by nineteen of the thirty-eight counties j in the Territory, while the other nineteen I counties were entirely disfranchised with- ! out any fault of their own; by the failure or refusal of the officers whose duty it 1 was under the law to take a census, and 1 register the voters in vrffet to entitle them

to vote for delegates, that the mude of submission to the people for ‘ratification or rejection. ’ as prescribed by the Constitution, was such as to render it impossible for the people to reject it allowad no person to votes who would not vote for the Constitution, and excluded from the polls all persons who desired to vole against it, that the only reason assigned or believed to exist for not allowing the people to yote against the Constitution, ns well as for it, is, that a large majority of the people were known to be opposed to it, and would have rejected it by an overwhelming majority if they bad been allowed an opportunity, that the mode of submitting the “Slavery article” was .such that no man was permitted to vote for making Kansas a slave Slate, unless he would vote for the Constitution at the I same time, nor was any man permitted to I vote against making Kansas a slave State, j unless he would vote for the Constitution, that this by system of trickery in the mode of submission a large majority, i prabably amounting to four-fifths of all the legal voters of Kansas, were disfrnaj chised and excluded from the polls on the 21st of December, that in order to prevent the injustice and wrong intended to be j perpetrated by the trickery resorted to to this mode of submission, and to secure in I place of it a fair and honest election, the Legislature on the I7the of December passed a law providing for such an election on the 4th of January, at which the whole people should have an opportunity freely and unconditionally to vote for oi j against the Contitulion and for or against “Slavery Article,” as they pleased; tha’. at said election, a majority of more than ten thousand of the legal voters of KanIsas repudiated and rejected the Lecomp- ! ton Constitution; that the election, on the i 4th of January was lawful and valid, having been fairly and honestly conducted under, and in pursuance of, a valid law ’ which the President was not only bound to respect, but to see faithfully executed, the same ns all other Territorial laws Which are no’, inconsi.-tent. with the T'on stitution of the United States, and the J organic act of the Territory; that the election on the 2lst of December was not valid and binding un the people of the Ter- ' ritory, for the reason that it was not held ;in pursuance of any law of the Territory or of the United States nor under the ani thority of any body of men duly authorjizvl to ir.i.kc laws—l repeat that, in the I face of all these facts, showing conclusive ■ Ily that, the Lecompton Constitution is not i the act and deed of the people of Kan'as and does not embody their will, we are told by the President of the United S. tes that, ‘To the people of J\ ;nsa tin only nraclical difference betivi en admission or rejection depends simply upon the fact whether they can themselves more speed • ' ily change the present Constitution if it ■ does not accord with the will of the maIjority, or frame a second Constitution, to be submitted to Congress hereafter. There is a ‘practical difference’ far more important than the mere question ! of time, and there are principles involved 'infinitely more important than the practical difference. There is a serious dif- | ereuce, in practice as well as in principle whether the people of Kansas shall be permitted to make ami adopt the Constitution under which they are to live, and with which they are to be received voli untarily into the Union, or whether Conj gress will, force them into lb? Union I against their will, and with a Constitution which they have repudiated, by an overwhelming majority of their votes at a fair election held in pursuance of law, and then maintain it by Federal bayonets. If it he true, as represented by llie Pre<e- ; dent, that ‘ever since the period of .ay [his] inauguration, a large portion of the people of Kansas have been in a state of rebellion against the [Territorial] Gov- . ernment;’ that ‘they have never acknowledged. but have constantly renounced and defied the Government to which they ■ owe allegiance, and have been all the time : in a state of resistance against its author ity;’ that ‘they would long since have subverted it, had it not been protected ■ from their assuafts by the froops of the j United States; that Gov. Walker consid- . ered at least two thousand troops under the command of Gen. Harney were nec essary for this purpose;’ end that ‘I [the President] have been obliged iu some de gree to interfere with the expedition to Utah, in order to keep down rebellion in Kansas,’ I repeat that, if these statements bt a fair and impartial representation of the character, feelings, and purposes of the people of Kansas, does it follow as a ; logical and natural consequence from j these premises that ‘the speedy admission of Kansas into the. Union,’ with a constitution to which they are unalterably opposed, and which they have repudiated by an overwhelming majority of their voles at a fair election held iu pursuance of law, 'would rastore peace and quiet to the whole country?’ that ‘domestic peace . will be the bappy consequence of its admission,’ and that ‘I [the President] shall then be enabled to withdraw the ‘ruops of

NO. 6,