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

the United States from Kaesss and employ them on other branches of service w’uerc they are much needed?’ If it be true, as alleged, that ‘a large portion ol the people of Kansas are in a state ot rebellion against the Govern meet.’ and that the rebels so far outnumber the law-abiding citizen.-* that they would ‘Jong since have subverted the Territorial Government had it not been protected from their assaults by the troops of the United States;’ and that ’they have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it, and to establish a Revolutionary Government* in its place -nd that ‘up ',:.l tL;=> moment, the enecr.es us the existing Government still adhere to their revoiutionarj plans and purposes, w ith treasonable pertir.r.r.ilv,” if these allegations so gravely sei forth by the Presi Gni in bis spe a, message be true, do they furnish satisfactory evidence to authorise the belief or even grounds for hope, that ‘the speedy admission of Kansas into the L aion’ with the Lecompton Constitution would restore peace and quiet to the whole country,* and that ‘domestic peace will be the happy consequence of its admission?’ It is to be lamented that the President does no; teem to comprehend the nature andeharay.tr of the controversies which have so unhappily disturbed the peace and marred the prosperity of Kansas, and the grounds upon which they claimed to be j-isriS-.d in the course they have pursued. During ‘.he whole period from the 30thof March, 1855, when the first annua! election was held for members of the Legislature and other officers in that Territory until the general election on the first Monday of October, 1857, the tree S. it*. partv, so called, did boldly, firmly and persistently refuse to rec guile the Territorial Legislature of Kansas as a legally and duly constituted legislative body, with authority to pass laws which were ■valid and binding on the people of Kansas, for the reason, as they alleged, that the members of that Legislature were not elected by the people of Kansas, but were elected bv four or five tl.ou-and citizens of the adjoining State of Missouri, who; are said to have invaded the Territory on the day, and a few davs previous to the day of election, and dividing themselves into small parties, and spreading over all the inhabited parts of the Territory, took possession of the polls, and drove away the peaceable, legal voters, and thus forced legislature upon the people of Kansa' against their will, and in violation of the Kansas-Nebraska act. These arc the allegations aud ground? of justification urged by the fret State party in Kansas during the period to which I have referred. It is no part of my present purpose to inquire how t.ir these allegations arc sustained by the fa -is nor what number of the election distr; s were controlled bv these illegal votes; ..or the principles of law applicable to the facts, or the legal conclusions properly re-: suiting from them. These questions ». re all fully considered and elaborately dis-1 eussed bv m .- in a r» port from this Co ;-1 u-iiiec, on the 12th day of March, It; <6. . 1 refer to them >w not for the purpose of i reopening th it discussion, or of changing the conclusions to which I then arrived, but with the view of showing upon what grounds the free State party claimed that, it ey were jusiified in withholding theii allegiance to the Terriiorial Oovermentuntil a fair c ppurtnnitv was afforded the people of the Territory to elect t! eirown ■ 1.-.gi-’ature, in pursuance of the original j 1 v-: and that from the day on which the metrJ-ers elected in October assembled >r. 1 organized as a legislative body, all «r . opponents of tue Lecompton Constitution have recognized the Territorial Government as valid and legitimate, acknowl- * iging their allegiance l<> it, and their determination and duty to support it. The. O- tober election becomes a memorial period in the history of Kansas, for the additional reason that it marss the date where the Lecomptonites changed the » hole line of their policy, and formed the scheme of forcing the Constitution on the i eople without their consent, and of subverting the authority of the Territorial legislature without the consent of Congress. Up to this period it had been generally understood and conceded that the Convention had been called for the pur-, pose of framing a Constitution and sub-, milling it to the people f.r ratification or rejection, and of sending it to Congress for acceptance only in the event it should be firsl ratified by a majority of all the legal voters of the Territory. Upon this mint there is no room for doubt that the -,-sident and the Cabinet concurred with rise people of Kansas that it was the duty) of the Convention to submit the Constitution to the people, fairly .and unconditionally, for ratification or rejection, before it eould be considered the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and that its ratification by the people must be a condition precedent to the admission of Kansas in'o the Union by Congress. The President, in his instructions to Gov. Walker, through his Secretary of Slate, under date of March 30, said: "When such Constitution should be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must b*- protected in the exercise of their relit of voting for <.r ufrninst. that instrument, ami the fair expression of the popular will must m, be interrupu-d by Ijatid or violence.’’ Gov. Walker, in his official dispatch to th,? Secretary of S'ate, under date of Juie 2, said: “On one point th-' sentiment of the people is nirnor-t unanimous, the Constitution must b-sub-mitted for ratification or rejection, to a vole of the people, who shall be bona fide residents of t in- Territory, next fail.” \nd in his Inaugural Address to the : ..pie of Kansas, Gov. Walker said: With th. •' view? W*-ll l-> ■•wn t • tlie !’:• «i

dent and Cabinet, and approved ft them, I accepted the appointment of Governor of Kansas. My instructions from the Preside i,t through the Secretary of State, underdate of the 30th March la-t. sustain the -regular Legislature of the Territory in aseemblinga Convention toforra a Constitution.’ And they express the opinion of the President that when such Constitution shall be -übmitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument, and tiie fair expression of the popular will must not be ia.erfered with by fraud or violence. I repeat then my clear conviction, that unless the Cot vention submit the Constitution to the vote ■>f the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the e'ectiou be fairlv and quietly conducted, ’he C- nsti-ution will be, and. ought to be rejected by Congress. ’’ These official papers, containing the most solemn and unequivocal assurances on the part of the President, the Cabinet r.nl the Governor, that the Constitution would be submitted to the people for rat-ifi-ation or rejection, and ilia* in the event it should not Peso submitted, it 'will and ought to be rejected by Congress,’ were published and spread broadcast over the Territory prior to the election of delegates to the Convention, for the purpose of satisfying the people that, although they had been unjustly and foully treated in the apportionment of delegates, by the disfranchisement of nineteen counties, and the imperfect and unfair registration of voters in the other nineteen counties, yet the great wrong would not produce any injury in the end, for the reason that the Convention was compelled to submit the Constitution to the people for ‘ratification or rejection,’ and that, unless it should be thus submitted at a fair election ‘the Constitution will be, and ought to be rejected bv Congresa.’ The people reIvin" on ‘hese solemn pledges of the President, the Cabinet, and the Governor, supported by the assurances of all the Government officers in the Territory, and affirmed by the Democratic party unanimously, in their resolutions endorsing the 'policy of Gov. Walker, and nominating Gov. Ransom for Congress and confirmed bv Senators and Representatives in Con-grt-s who visited the Territory, and gave I rimilar speeches to the people, who were lulled into a false and fatal security, under the belief that the great wrong perpetrated in the apportionment fur the election of delegates would be corrected and rendered harmless by the submission of the Constitution to a vote of the people, at a fair election, for ratification or rejection.. Thus the matter stood when the election took place, on the first Monday of October la- 1, and resulted in the total defeat of the Democratic party, and the triiroph and election of free State men for the Legislature, for Congress and for county officers. This election dissipated the last ray of hope on the part of the j pro slavery men of m iking Kansas a slave bolding State by a fair vote of the people on the ratification or rejection of the Const: 'ution. for the obvious reason, that while it was conceded that whole free Slate party (so called) would vote to a man against a pro-slavery Constitution, ■it was well known that at least one half 'of the Democratic party would vote'he. ! same way on that question, thus proving by the data furnished by that election that four-fifths, if not nine-tenths of the people were in favor of making K tnsas a free Siate. The Lecompton Convention assembled and --rganized on the first Monday in September, on-- month previous to the elec|tion, and after appointing the committees and transacting some preliminary business ! adjourned until after the election, for the purp.se of avoiding a division in the D.-m---1 oerntic party, by disclosing the character of ti.e C. iistiiulion, until they should as- , certain the relative strength of parties in the Terr.lory. The result of the election ■demonstrated beyon 1; ,i mtroversy that an immense majority of the people of | Kansas were opposed to making Kansas a slave State, and that if the Convention framed and presented a slave-State Constitution for approval, it would inevitably be rejected at the election. Under these i circumstances, the Convention determined that instead of conforming their action to the known wishes oftlse people of Kansas- they would from a slave-State Constitution, and submit it to the people in such a form as to render it impossible for ‘hem to reject it, by allowing those to ' vote onlv who would vole/;;- it, and excluding from the polls all who proposed to vote against it. By this disreputable trick they hoped to save themselves, the President and his Cabinet, and all who co-operated with them, from the disgrace of violated pledges, at the same time that they defrauded the jieople of K .r.s-ts of the snored rights ufseii’-governnient guaranteed by the organic act, by forcing a Constitution upon them, without their consent and their wishes. Il is but just to remark that the moment this scheme of trickery and fraud was promulgated, a large majority of the Democratic party including the better portion of the pro-, slavery party, who had acted with the L>-eomptonites up to that time, instantly wiihdrew their confidence and support, and denounced the measure as a base betrayal of the rights of the people. The Lecomptonites were loyal to the Territorial government so long as they filled the offices and controlled its power; but the moment they were defeated at the election, and the power passed into the hands of their opponents, they rebelled against it, defied its authority and devised schemes to destroy its existence.— Thus they provided: ‘This Constitution shall take affect and be in force from and after its ratification Ly the people, as hereinbefore provided;' that is, from and after the election on the 21 st of December when the people wr-re permitted to vote i'. ''it h"' ''O'i'i'\t it. In '.his mode they

propose to abrogate and subvert the Territorial Government established by Congress, by putting in force a state Constitution without the consent of Congress.— What is this but rebellion —open, marked undisguised rebellion? Where is the difference between this and the Topeka movement, which, the President denounces as a ‘revolutionary Government,’ organized in defiance of the authority of the United States, which it was his duty to suppress wi:h the Federal troops? He says: Tsit Topeka Government adhere! t» with suck treaso ab.epertinaey, ts a Government indirect oppysilion to the existing Government proscribed and rec-iganized by Congress ” Might not the President have said with as much fairness ana justice that this Lecompton Constitution adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a Constitution in direct opposition to the existing Government prescribed and recognized bv Congress? If it be said that the Topeka Constitution was framed and declared to be in force without the consent of Congress, and therefore revolutionary, it may be answered with equal truth that the Lecompton Constitution was framed and declared in force without the consent of Congress, and consequently ‘revolutionary’ for the same reason. But we are told that the Lecomj%>n Convention assembled under the*authority of the Territorial Legislature. It is true that it commenced its proceedings under the sanction of the Legislature, and terminated its action in open rebellion against the euthority of the Legislature. When the Legislature, on the 17th of December, interposed its kwlnl au’hori’.y to prevent the Lecompton Consiiution from going into effect until ratified by the people on the 4th of January, and accepted bv congress, the Lecomptonites defied the authorily of the Legislature established bv Congress, and treated the law with contempt, refusing to yield obedience to it, or respect its mandetes, or abide by the decision under it. Thusit will be seen that flora the time the Lecomptonites lost possession of the officers under the Territorial Government by a fair election or. the first Monday in October last, in the language of the President, ‘they have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it and establish a a revolutionary Government under the so called Topeka (Lecompton) Constitution in its stead.’ feo it appears that the Lecompton Constitution, as well as the Topeka Constitution, was declared to ‘take effect and be in force,’ not only without the consent of Congress, but in defiance and cont.-mptof the authority of the Territorial Legislature established by Congress. Hence, if it be true that the Topeka Constitution was revolutionary (and 1 have always held that it was so), for the reason that it was declared to take effect and be m force without the consent of Congress, and in defiance of the authority of the Territorial Legislature, it is undeniable that the L“ utnpton Constitution was ‘revolutionary’ for the same reason, . and that the President of the United States wa; utxler the same official obligations to maniain law ovei the Lecompton Ccnstitution until Congress should otnerwise order and direct. Upon what principles of feirness of justice, then, can it be urged that we should admit Kansas into the Union with the Lecompton Constitution? Certainly not upon the ground that it is the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and fairly embodies their will, lor it has been conclusively shown that it ’nas been repudiated by the people by more than 10,000 majority, at a fair election held in pursuance of a valid law.— Not upon the ground that it was adopted ‘in strict subordination to the existing Territorial Government,’and entire subserviency to the power of Congress to reject or disregard it at their pleasure, ‘as was held by Gen Jackson in the Arkansas case to be necessary, for it has been shown, beyond all controversy, that it was declared to lake effect and be in force’ in defiance of the authority of the Territorial Legislature, and without the consent of Congress But the speedy admission of Kansas is urged by the President as a question of mere expediency, in order to restore peace and quiet to the-whole country ‘and pre vent a revival of the slavery agitation.— Upon this point, the President addresses a plausible and ingenius argument to that portion of the anti-slavery feeling of the country, which, overlooking the great principle of self-governmen involve’’, opposes the Lecompton Constitution mainly up-.-n the ground that it. recognizes and establishes slavery in Kansas, and is willing to adopt the shortest and quickest mode of abolishing slavery, and making Kansas a free State. In order to reconcile this anti-slavery feeling to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, the Presi- • dent and enforces by argument the following propositions: I. That it has been solemnly adjudicated by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas bv virtue of the Constitution of the United States, and that Kansas is therefore at this moment as much a slave Slate as Georgia or South Carolina. 11. That slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a Constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be done so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under the present Constitution. 111. That thenr-.ple will then be sovereign, and can regulate their own affairs in their own way. If a majority of them desire to abolish domestic slavery within the State, there is no other possible

mode by which this can be efiected so speedily as bv prompt admission, nnd that the Legislature already elected way at its very first session submit the question to the vote Os the people, wlietherthey will or will not call a Convention to amend . their Constitution and adopt all neces-ary means for giving effect to the popular will. IV. Inasmuch as the Lecompton Constitution provides a mode of amendment after the year 1864, and thereby excludes the possibility of any lawful change until that period, the President suggests that Congress may remove this obstacle by inserting a clause in the act of admission annulling so much of the Constitution as prohibits any change until after the year 1864, and requires two-thirds of each House of the Legislature to authorize the people to vote for a Convention, and declaring the right of the Legislature already elected to call a Convention, by a majority vote, in violation of the Constituunder which its members were elected, am! which they were sworn to support. Let us read the President’s langauge on this point: “If therefore, the provisions changing the Kansas Constitution after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-fo'ir, could possibly he constructed into a prohibition to make Miclra change previous to that period, this prohibition would be wholly unavailing.” And again: “If a majority of them (the people of Kansas, I desire to abolish domestic slavery within the State, there is no other possible mode by winch tins cat- lie affected so speedily as by prompt admission. The will of the majority issupreme aad irresistable, when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They can make and unmake Cousiitu’ions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say that they cau impose fett.is i-u their own power, which theyconnot afierw rd remove. If they could do this, they inight tie their own hand’s for a hundred as well as-fOt-ten years. These are fundamental principles of American freedom and are recognized, I believe, in some form or other, by every State Constitution -a id if ssinthe act of admission, should think proper to recognize them. I can perceive no objectiinto such a course. The President can perceive no objection to Congress inserting a provision in the act airaitiiig Kansas iato the Union, which abrogates and annu's an imperative provision of the Constitution, and declares the right ot the Legislature already elected to take the initiatory steps to change it by a majority vote, in the face of the | provision in the Constitution that such steps shall not be taken until 'two thirds r,f the members of each House' concur, and not even ip that ease un'il after the year 1864. V hat right has Congress to intervene and annul, alter or even construe t-’ie provisions of a State Constitution, and license the members of the Leg- ' islature to disregard their sworn obligatiens to support the Constitution under vhich they hold their offices? Where does Congress obtain its authority to tell the members of a State Legislature that they are under no obligations to respect and obey the Constitution with which such State was admitted into the Union, and that they may proceed to alter or abrogate it, in a mode and at a time different from that authorized and permitted in the instrument? If the Lecompton Constitution be the act and deed ot the people of Kansas, and if it be accepted bv Congress as such, and the State be admitted into the Union under it, I hold that there is no lawful mode on earth to ; change or amerd it, except the one provided an 1 authorized in the Constitution itself. I agree that ‘the will of the majority is supreme and irresistible, when expressed in an orderly and hwfu! manner.’ But the question is, when a Constitution has once become the supreme iawofa State, what ‘lawful manner’is there of changing it, except the one provided and permitted by the Constitution? I agree with the President, also, that ‘the people can make an-d unmake Constitutions at pleasure.’ But how? In what manner is thia to be done? There are two modes—the one lawful and the other revolutionary. W hen a Constitution lias once become the fundamental law of a State, there is no ‘lawful manner’—there can be no ‘lawful manner’ of altering, changing, or abrogating it except in pursuance ot its proi i.-ions. It is true that the right of rev olution remains—that great in alienable right to which our fathers resorted when submission was intolerable, and resistance a less evil than submission. Hence, if the Lecompton Constitution be accepted by Congress and the State admitted under it. while there will be no ‘lawful manner’ of amending or abrogating it until after the year 1864, and then only by the concurrence of two-tnirds ot each branch of the Legislature, in the first instance, fallowed by a majority vote of all the citizens of the State, and the concurrence of tne two houses of the next Legisture all prior to the election of delegates, and the assembling of a Convention—yet the revolutionary right will remain to the people of Kansas, to be resorted to or not, according as they determine for themselves that it is a less evil to resist than •o submit to a Constitution which was never their act and deed, and never did embody their will. It may be true that under that this terrible right of revolution, ‘if a majority of the people desire to abolish domestic slavery within the State, there is no other possible mode by which this can be affected so speedily as by prompt admission;’ but if this ‘mode’ be resorted to under the impression that it will abolish slavery in Kansas more ‘speedily’ than any other possible it must be understood to mean revolution if successful and rebellion in case of failure. But suppose the line of policy indicated by the President should be’ pursued that Kansas be admitted under ths Lei compton Constitutkn, that Congress in

act of atoion recognize the right 1 of ‘the Legislature already elected, at its - very first session, to submit the question .to a'vote of the people whether they will . or will not have a Constitution o amend 1 their Constitution, and adopt all neces ®*' r rv measures to give effect to the p°p u will;’ suppose all this to have been done, of what belief will it be to the oppressed t people of Kansas, unless Mr. Calhoun 4 should set aside the fraudulent returns 1 from Dele-ware Crossing, or go behind t the returns and reject the fraudulent . votes at Kickapoo, or Oxford, or other precincts, in order to insure a majority in s both branches of the Legislature opposed - to the Lecompton Constitution, and in fa- , vor of an immediate change? Unless the . President is prepared to inform us that this is to be done, it is worse than niock- . erv to talk about the right of the Legis- . lature, ‘at its veryjirst session,’ to submit . the question D the people, and to insert a clause in the act of admission declaratory of a right, which can be exercised ■ only in violation of the Constitution and bv revolution; and especially if it is understood that, by forged returns and fraudulent votes, a majority of members are to be declared elected in both branches of the Legislature, who are determined to mantain the Lecompton Constitution, and rr>ist any and all efforts to change it? By the express command of the Consti- ' tutioß the returastof that election were to be made to the President of the Convention ‘within eight days’ alter the election. On the ninth day after the election, towit, on the 13:h day of January , the retuiti?- were opened and counted by Mr. Calhoun, as appears by the proclamation of the presiding officers of the two houses of the Legislature, who were present by invitation of Mr. Calhoun to witness 'be opening and counting of the votes. More than a month has elapsed since the returns were opened and votes counted, and Mr. Calhoun being in this city, we are not permitted to know the result of his deliberations; whether die rumor of yesterday that the anti-Lecompton members were elected, or the rumor of to-day that Lecompton party had triumphed, or whether the policy is to withheld the decision until the State shall have been admitted, and, leaving each pt ty to infer that the ! decision is to be in lheir saver, compel Congress to actin the daik, and wait patiently to find out the result of its action. But suppose there should be a majority in both branches of the Legislature opposed to the Lecompton Constitution, and in favor of a change, what can they do toward relieving the people of Kansas from a Constitution they abhor, since i' is well understood that, in consequence of a large number of votes cast for the antiLecompton ticket having been returned to Gov. Denver instead of Mr. Calhoun, the Lecompton ticket for Governor and State : officers is to be declared elected thus rendering it morally certain that any bill which the Legislature might pass, having for its object a change in the Constitution would be defeated bv the Governor’s ' veto, it not being anticipated in any contingency that the opponents of the Lecompton Constitution would have a majority of two-thirds in each branch of the Legislature. Hence it must be apparent to ail that, in the event that Kansas is admitted under the Lecompton Constitution any argument or proposition founded on the idea that the people of Kansas will have the opportunity of changing the Cons itution by peaceful means through the instrumentality of the Legislature, mast in all probability prove deceptive and delusive. In the event that the deed shall be consummated, their only alternative will be submission or revolution. Revolutions are sometimes peaceful and bloodless.— Constitutions and governments have been changed by revolution without violence or bloodshed, but this is the case only when the public sentiment in favor of the change is unanimous or approaches so closely to unanimity as to silence all opposition. It this should prove to be the case in Kansas, the people will be able to reassert their violated rights of self-government, and form a Constituiion which will embody their will, without violence or force; but if, in the progress of the revolution, they should meet with de- . termined resistance, civil war or unconditional submission must be the inevitable consequence. Do the history of this Lecompton Constitution, the character and purpose of the men engaged in the movement. and the means employed to force i' upon an unwilling people, furnish us assurance that after they have realized ‘ all their hopes by making the Cunstitu- _ tion the fundamental law of the State, unalterable until after 1864, and then only ! by a two-thirds vote, that they will, on ( the day they come into power’ under it, permit it to be subverted and abrogated by a revolutionary movement, when they wiil have acquired the right under the Cons'itution of the United States to demand of the President th*> rse of the ’ Federal army, to put down the insurrection, and protect the State ‘against domestic violence? > .i th's demand shall be made upon ; 'be President by the ‘Legislature already , elected at -is v fcry first sessio? or bv the , Go 'ernor‘when the Legi- ..ure cannot ’ L C n°?V"t ’ ~ iU ,lcnot Brider himself 1 r y h ‘- oath ’ aad in obedieoc ; o be Constitutran of the United States, t £ USe lbe lederal to protect the s-tate against domesuc violence, bv putlog down the revolution, and suppr’esrin" -th r r ° n #nd maintaiain g the authority of the Constitution, until lawfully chanZ • men’’ e 0 r a ir. rpre t Cr l k ' 1 lbe inßlr “- i •> r•/ F ' !l could be converted into > ’P heal mstead of a politic.'.

and brought before the of the United States for adjm]; ca .; ll,l 1 sny one doubt the decision? Woqj 1 ' r the court be compelled to decide th , Constitution, having once M = fundamental liw of the State, nj a *.'* ' respected and obeyed as such until (j, ed or annulled in pursuance of g/'’ T? provisions? Would not the court tV pelled to declare as an inviolable F iversal rule of interpretation, that w ; ' *“ Constitution prescribes one 1)1 amendment, it must be understood . “J constructed as having thereby p rec ? ! " all others modes, and prohibited alf/ means of accomplishing the sanieobi.. , Suppose the people of Kansas sbouitl, ! tempt to change the Constitution ;,’ mode and at a time different from ■. authorized in the instrument, and proceed so far as to adopt a new CoJ turion, and set up a State Governij, under it by an overwhelming maj ot it T antagonism to the Constitution amjS Government with which Kansas mitted into the Union, which oftheS*' Governments would the President * bound to recognize and ‘protect a-; domestic violence,’ when applied to j t , manner provided in the Federal Cot; tution? He would be compelled to the whole military power of the States, or so much of it as shall be j t . sary to put down rebellion, and p r(| ., the State against domestic violence, «■ prooerly applied to for the purpose, lleuce, the question will arise, ajj ( important to know bow it is to bedeefe in the event there shall be two State G? ‘ erments in Kansas, in antagoni«m wt each other—the one organized under Lecompton Constitution, and the oils- Tr established by the people, in opposition, herd the Lecompton Constitution—which » t,ief the President recognize as valid and k ; fJu" ititna'e, and which will hedenonneej, one’ ‘revolutionary government, adhered C° u ' with such treasonable pertinacity’ sr. £‘ jm ’ make it his duty under the Constits of the United States to put down theii ’ions surrection and crush out the rebtlliaj a with the federal troops? It is imports; m, that this question should be determent: - —1 in o'der that the p< >ple of Kansas nc $ know how they are to exercise that great Datr , indefeasible right of which the Preside * . peaks when he says, ‘they can makeai * C unmake Constitutions at pleasure.’ Dot. he mean that inalienable right of revolt The; tion to which every people may resor. sett' when their oppression is intolerable, sr. cl , r | submi; sion is a less evil than rssistanct ~ If «o, 1 feav that the bright antiripatiMof the President would not be fully rri ,T|l ' iz“d when he imagines that the speea that, Luission of Kansas into the Union unor Tl the Lecumpton Constitution ‘would r«.| n(J store peace and quiet to the whole couu^ n( | try,’ and enable him ‘to withdraw thi troops of the United States from Kuuv ire r and employ them on branches of the.ser' ire n ice where they are much needed.’ a litt Keep Togethev. “Democrats,” savs the Cleveland (0 « Plain Deafer, “stand together! Don’t;- ott l a temporary question divideyou. Whett 8 er Lecompton or anti-Lecompton, youw pei stilt be Democrats. Don’t read orberealieed; out of the party. Diller, but not divide -—_ Kansas will be admitted, either under iti Lecompton constitution or some ant: Leomptou constitution, during the preset; session of Congress. There is no differ ' ence between the President, B<n»:W|rpr, Douglas, or any one else, in regard to thrinvi propriety, yea the necessity of ah futurJ conventions submitting constitutions to tit people before asking admission as a The Democratic rule will be, submit‘Jw® ’he About such a rule there wiil be no ence of opinion. We shall all be togeilitf Mrs on that subject. The difficulty the President does not propose to adopt , mo( the rule in the present Kansas whereas, Douglas and the mass uh'Mrs Northern Democracy go for enforcing ’m* in all cases, now and forever. Plofi ai «■» in— — The Tiive Doctbink. —No constitute: has been put into operation of late ycvi tPW without a submission to the popular ro'-t f a and we may safely predict, says the stown ( Ky.) Gazettee, that none ever wa be put in operation hereafter. Th« o r ijoetrine is, that sovereignty in this no--1(,i 1( , t«r resides in a majority of the legal volt' nm in the State, and cannot be delega - anybody. If the general voice is particular constitution need not be s»-‘ nn mitted, we are all for it; it may be r».-to into operation without a violation of p rl - )t |' ciple; but it is unsafe to omit the for' l even where it is not called for; because.serves as a precedent for just such squ*- ,E( bles upon popular and State-rights, « ' . now .hreatened in the case of K»ns* s - 1 The Honor Disclaimed. —John f o] ' Astor, jr., writes a note to the ' * .n < saying that bis name was used as I ' ' the vice-presidents of the I*®®“'’ meeting, without his knowledge ot e J . o( ’ sent. Mr. Arthur Leary states tb.a. OPr use of Lis name as one of the secre* ds was unauthorized. >S I - —— -ri mi> if « Lecompton in the New York L ? S lS ,,'' j’’ r 1 ture. The New York State _ r passed anti-Lecompton resolution* - w- '■ Saturday, by a large majority, ooff C< L votes being recorded in the neg* 1 '’ 6 ' J’ / 1 The Democratic strength in the A»=ebly is, we believe, about 60. \y — I M ... . J The Kansas Frauds. _ j v The investigation of alleged frauds itk-. >y r ele-’iona in Kansas on the t 's-r, reduces the legal vote on to 4C J ’ tution to about 2,500, instead of 6,<l* •, heretofore reported. > — .1 VTO ■»■ v 7 . i The St Marr ’» river is very high-