Marshall County Democrat, Volume 3, Number 5, Plymouth, Marshall County, 24 December 1857 — Page 1

i

Vol. 3---Wo. ö.) PLYMOUTH, nTDIAUTA, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1857. (Whole No, 109.

i i -

-A' 1 ' ih' s i A ? X V I 4 1 5 i ' I - i f i ; 7 ! $ r I.- -..

' ! 7

THE MARSHALL. DEMOCRAT, ft ILISHXD rtlV THTOtSDAV MOUSING, ST HXcONAIiI A: BROTHER. TERMS: If paid in advance, 1 00 At the end of six months, ' 1 50 If delayed until the end of the year, 2 00 ADVERTISING: One square (ten lines or less,) three weeks,. 1 00 Each additional insertion i Column three months j jJO l2 Column six months, ! o nn Column one year a nn U Column three months OO l Coluirn six months, ? JjJJ l Column one year, 25 00 l" Column three months, 'At nX 1 Column six months, 1 Column one year, : :v 45 00 Yearly advertisers have ae privilege of one hange free of charge. Democrat Job Office!

PLAIN RULES AJID iE TYPE CUTS, BORDERS. Our Job Department is now supplied with an ex tensive and well selected assortment of new styles plain and fancy TOB T"3mn2, Which enable us to execute, on short notice and reasonable terms, all kinds of Plain and OrnamenJOB PRINTING! NEAT. FAST AND CHEAP; SUCH ci rctlaxs, HANDBILLS, LABELS, CATAIOGCE3, FAMrHLETS, BUSINESS CARDS, BLANK DEEDS A MORTGAGES; And in short, Blanks of every variety and description. Call and see specimens. THE KANiSASjOJJESTION. SPEECH OF HOIL STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, OF ILL. In the Senate of the United States, on Wednesday, Dec. 9, 1857. On motion of Mr. Douglas, the Senate " resumed the consideration of the motion, made by him yesterday, to print the President's message and accompanying documents, with fifteen thousand extra copies. Mr. Douglas Mr. President, when yes terday the President's message was read at the Clerk's desk. 1 heard u out imperfectly and I was of the impression that the President of the United States had approved and endorsed the action of the Lecompton convention in Kansas. Under that impression, I felt it my duty to state that, while I Concurred in the views of the message,' yet so far as it approved or endorsed the action of that convention.! entirely dissented from it, and would avail myself of an early, opportunity to state my reasons for ray dissent. Upon a more careful and critical examination of the message, I am rejoiced to find that the President of the United States had not recommended that Congress shall pass a law to receive Kansas into the Union under the constitution formed at Lecompton. It is true that the tone of the message indicates a willingness on the part f . T-h t . 111.1 . X-i ot the rresiueni to sign any oiu mat uon crress may pass, if w shall see proper to pass one receiving Kansas into the Union under that constitution, uut, sir, it is a fact of great significance, and worthy of 1 1 . 1 T 1 consideration, mat ine rresiaent nas reif rained from any endorsement of the convention, and from any recommendation as to the course Congress should pursue with . the constitution there formed. 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 that result or not, that, consist ently, with his view 8 and his principles, he cannot accept that constitution. He has expressed his deep mortification and disap pomtmeot that the constitution itself has not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. He informs us that , he has unqualifiedly ex pressed his opinions oh that subject in his instructions to Governor Walker, assuming as a matter of course, that the const.tution was to be submitted to the people before it -could have any vitality or validity. He goes further, and tells us that the example set by Congress in the Minnesota case, by : i .i . i t ' . v inserting a clause in me enaming act requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become a uniform srule, not to be departed from in any case thereafter. - On these various propositions, 'I agree entirely with the President of the United Stales, and I am prepared now to .sustain that uniform rule which he asks us to pursue, in all other cases, by taking the Minnesota provision as our example.. I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the mes- : sage to find so much less to dissent from than I was under the impression there was, from the hasty reading and the imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance .In effect, he refers that document to Congress as the constitution of the United Sates refers it for us to decide upon it unklar our responsibility. It is proper that he should have thus referred it to us as a matiter for Congressional action, and not as an

Administration or Execu .e measure, for the reason that the constitution of the Uni

ted States says that "Congress may admit new States into tho Union." Hence we find tho Kansas questien before us now, not as an Administration measure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before ua for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in possession of the Federal government. Sir, I propose to examine this question calmly and fairly, to see whether or not we can properly receive Kansas into the Union with the constitution formed at Lecompton. The President, after expressing: his re gret and mortification and disappoiniment that the constitution had not been submitted to the people, in pursuance of his instructions to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of Governor Walke's assurances to the people, says, however, that by the Kansas-Nebraska act the slavery question only was required to be referred to the people, and the remainder of the constitution was not thus required to be submitted. He acknowledges that as a general rule, on general principles, the whole constitution seould be submitted; but according to his understanding of the organic act of Kansas there was an imperative obligation to sub mit the slavery question for their approval or disapproval, but no obligation to submit the entire constitution. In other words, he regards Ihe organic ant, the Nebraska bill, as having made an exception of the slavery clause, and provided for the dispo sition ef that question in a mode different from that in which other domestic or local, as, contradistanguished from Federal ques tions should be decided. Sir, permit me to say, with profound respect for the Presi 1 e , TT !i -i - .1 . t ueni oi ine unueu oiaies, mat i conceive that on this point he has committed a fun Uduicuuu cnui, an ciror wincu lies ai the foundation of his whole argument on this matter, I can well understand how that distinguished statesman came to fall into .this error. He was not in the country at tne lime tne iMeDraska bill was passed; he was not a party to the controveisy, and the discussion that took place during its pas sage. He was then representing the honor and the dignity of the country with great wisaom anu uisuncuon at a loreign court. Thus deeply engrossed, his whole energies were absorbed in conducting great diplomatic questions that diverted his attention from the mere Territorial questions nd discussions then goingonin tho Senate and House of Representatives, and before the people at home. Under these circumstan ces, he may well have fallen into an error. radical and fundamental as it is, in regard to the object of the Nebraska bill and the principles asserted in it. : Now, what was the principle enunciated by. the authors and supporters oi that bill when it was brought forward? Did we not come before the country and say we repealed the Missouri restrictions for the purpose of substituting and carrying out as a general rule the great principle of self-government, which left the people of each State and Territory free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tho constitution of the United States? In support of that proposition, it was argued here, and I have argued it wherever 1 have spoken in various States of the Union, at home and abroad, everywhere I have endeavored to prove that there was no reason why an exception should be made in regard to the slavery question. I have appealed to the people if we did not all agree, men of all parties, that all other local and domestic questions should be submitted to the people. I said to them, "We agree that the people shall decide for themseles what kind of -a judiciary, system they will have; we agree that the people shall decide what kind of a school system they will establish; we agree that the people shall determine for themselves whatr kind of a banking system they will have, or whether they will "have any banks at all; we agree that the people may decide for themselves what shall be the elective franchise in their respective States; they shall decide for themselves what shall be the rule of taxation and the principles upon which their finances shall be regulated; we agree that they may decide for themselves the relations between hus band and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward; and why should we not, then, allow thftm to decide for themselves the relations between master and servant? Why make an exception of the slavery question by taking it out of that great rule of selfgovernment which applies to all the other relations of life?" The very first proposition in the Nebraska bill was to show that the Missouri restriction,, prohibiting the people from deciding the slavery question for themselves, constituted an exception to a general rule, in violation of the - principle of self-government, and hence that that exception should be repealed, and the slavery question, like all other questions, submitted to the people, to be decided for themselves. 1 v Sir, that was the priaciple on which the Nebraska bill was defended by its friends. Instead of making the slavery question an exception, it remered au odious exception which before existed. Its whole oDj'ect was to abolish that odious exception, and make the rulo general, universal, in its application to all matters which were local and domestic, and not 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 the Missouri compromise, was

repealed because it was repugnant to the principle of non-intervention established by the compromise measures of 1850, "it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it "therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States." We repealed the Missouri restriction becauso that was confined to slavery. That was the only exception there wa3 to the general principle of self-government. That exception was taken away for the avowed and express purpose of making the rulo of selfgovernment general and universal, so that the people should form and regulate all their domestic institutions in thcr own way. . . Sir. what would this boasted principle of popular sovereignty have been worth, if it appneu oniy to tne negro, and did not extend to the white man? Do you think we could have aroused the sympathies and patriotism of tnis broad republic, and have carried tho Presidential election hstyear in the face of a tremendous opposition, on the principle of extending the right of self-government to the negro question, but denying it as to all the relations affecting white men? No, sir. We aroused the patriotism of the country and carried the election in defense of that great principle, which al loue-l all white men to form and regulate tlisjir domestic institutions to suit them selves institutions applicabl to white men as well as to black institutions applicable to free mei a3 well as to slaves institutions concerning all the relations of life, and not the mere paltry exception of the slavery question, öir, 1 have spent too much strength and breath, and money too, w establish this great principle in the popular heart, now to see it frittered away by bringing it down to an exception that applies to the negro, and does not extend to the benefit of the white man. As I said before, I can well imagine how the distinguished and eminent patriot and statesman now at the head of the government, fell into the error for error it is, radical, funda mental, and, if persevered in, subversive of of that platform upon which he was raised to the Presidency of the United States. Then, if the President be right in saying that, bv the Nebraska bill, the slavery question must be submited to the people, it follows inevitably that every other clause of the constitution must also bo submitted to the people, The Nebraska bill said that the people should be left "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic mslitu tions in their own way" not the slavery question, not the Maine liquor law question not the banking question, not the school question, not the railroad question, but their domestic institutions," meanin each and all tho questions which are local, no', national, State, not Federal. I. arrive at the conclusion that the principles enun ciated so boldly, and enforced with so much ability, by the President of .the Uuited States, require us, out of respect to him and the platform on which he was elected to send this wIioIb question back to the people of Kansas, and enable them to say whether or not the constilution 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 metsage with mere clearness and forco than' any language which I can command; but I can draw your attention to it and refer yon to the argument in the message, hoping that you will take it as a part of ray speech as expressing my idea more forcibly than .1.1. ?i nri T-k am HDie io express in. in fresuient says that a question ot grert interest, like the slavery question, cannot be fairly decided i . i I ny a convention or neiegates, tor the reason that the delegates are elected in districts, and in som.) districts a delegate is elected by a small majority; in others by a large majority; so that it often happens that a majority of the delegates are one way while a majority of the people are the other way; and then-fore it would be unfair, and inconsistent with the great principle of pop ular sovereignty, to allow a body of delegates, not representing the popular voice. to establish domestic institutions for the mass of the people. This is the Presi dent s argument to show that you cannot have a fair and honpst decision without sub muting it to the popular vote.' The same argument is conclusive with iegard to every otner question as wen as witn regard to slavery. But Mr. President, it is intimated in the message that although it was unfortunate 1 circumstances, mucn to be regretted, that fiL. T IM I . me jjecompioR convention uia not suomil the constitution to the people, yet perhaps it may be treated as regular, because the convention was called by a Territorial Legislature, which had been repeatedly recognized by the Congress of the United States as a legal body. I beg Senators not to fall into an error as io the President's meaning on this point. ,He does not say, he does not mean, that this convention had ever been recognized by the Congress of the United States as legal or valid, on the contrary, he knows, as we here know, that daring the last Congress I reported a bill from the Committee on Territories to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves.

Subsequently, the Senator for Georgia

(Mr., Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed in the Senate. It is known in the country as "the Toombs bill." It au thorized the people of Kansas Territory to assemble in convention and forma constitu tion preparatory to their admission into the Union as a Suite. That bill, it is well known was defeated in the Hou3e Representatives. It matters not, for the purpose of the argumen i, what was the reason of its defeat. Whether the reason was a political one; whe ,her it had reference to the existing contest for the Presidency; whether it was to kfeep open the slavery question; whether i( was a conviction that the bill would not be carried out; whether it was because there were not people enough in Kansas to justfy the formation of a State no matter what the reason was, the House of RepresenU,ives refused to pass that bill, and thus denied to the people of Kansas the right to form a constitution and otate governmen at this time. So far from the Congress of tho United States having sanctioned or le galized the convention wh'ch assembled at Äjecompton, it expressly wunueiu its assent. The assent has not been given, either in express terras or by implication; and being withheld, this Kansas constitution has just such validity and just such authority as the Territorial Legislature of Kansas could impart to it without the assent, and in opposition to the known will, of Congress. Now, sir, let me ask what is the extent of the authority of a Territorial Legislature as to calling a constitutional convention without the assent of Congress. Fortunately this is not a new question; it does not now arise for tho first time. When the Topeka constitution was presented to the Senate nearly two years ago, it was referred to the Committee on Territories, with a variety of measures relating to Kansas. The committee male a full report upon th-3 whole subject. That report reviewed all ther irregular cases which had occurred in our history in the admission of new States. The committee went on thq supposition that whenever Congress had passed an enabling act authorizing the people of a Territory to form a State constitution, the convention wa3 regular, and possessed all the authority which Congress had delegated to it; but whenever Congress had failed or refused to pas3 an enabling act, the proceeding was irregular and void, unless vitality was imparted to it by a subsequent act of Congress adopting and confirming it. The friends of the Topeka constitution insisted that, although their proceeding were irreg ular, they were not so irregular bu'- that Congress could cure the error by admitting Kansas3with that constitution. They cited a variety of cases, amongst others the Arkansas case. In my report, sanctioned by every member of the committee on Territories, except the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Collamer, I reviewed the Arkansas case.as well as the others, and affirmed the doctrine established by General Jackson's administration an enunciated in the opinion of Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of which opinion was copied into the report and published in the country at tho time. Now, sir, in order to ascertain what we understood on the 12th of March, 185G little more than a year and a half ago to be the true doctrine on this point, let me call your attention to the opinion of Mr. Butler in the Arkansas case. The Governor of the Territory of Arkansas sent a printed address to President Jackson, which he stated that he had been urged to call together the Territorial Legislatura of the Territory of Arkahsas, lor the purpose of allowing them to call a convention to form a constitution, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State. The Governor Stated that, in his opinion, the Legislature had no power to call such a convention without the assent of Congress first had and obtained; but he asked instructions on that point The President referred the case to the Secretary State, and he asked for the advice of the Attorney General, whose opinion was given, and adopted as the plan of action, and communicated to the Governor of Arkansas for his instruction. . I will read some extracts trom that opinion: "Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to form a constitution and State government, or to do any other act, directly, or indirectly, io create such new government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the Governor of the Territory, would be null and void. If passed by them, notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two thirds ot each branch, it would still be equally void. "If I am right in the foregoing opinion, it will then follow that the course of the governor'in refusing to call together the territorial Legislature for the purpose in ques tion, was such as his legal duties required; and that the views he has expressed in his public address, and also in his official communicatioR to yourselt, as ur as tney maicate an intention not to sanction or concur in any legislative or other proceedings to wards the formation oi a btate government antil Congress shall have authorized it, are also correct." That is what I have understood to be the settled doctrine as to the authority of a Ter ritorial Legislature to call a convention without tha consent of Congiess first had and obtained, A Territorial Legislature po3ieiss whatever power its organic act

gives it, and no more. The organic act of Arkansas provided that the legislative power should be vested in the Territorial Legislature, the same as the organic act of Kansas provides that the legislative power and authority shall be vested in the Legislature. But what is th. extent of that legislative power? It is to legislate for that Territory under the organic net, and in obe dience to it. It does not include any power to subvert the organic act under which it was brought into existence. It has the power to protect it, the power to execute it, the power to carry it into effect; but it has no power to subvert, none to destroy; and hence that power can only be obtained by applying to Congres3, the sume authority which created the Territory itself. But while the Attorney General decided, with the approbation of General Jackson, that the Territorial Legislature had no power to

can a convention, anu mat us action was void if it did, he v.ent further: "No law has yet been passed by Congress which either expressly or impliedly, gives to the people of Arkansas the authority to form a State government." nor has there been any in regard to Kansas. The two cases are alike thus far. They are alike in all particulars so far as this question m voir mg the legality and va lidity of the Lecompton convention is con cerned. The opinion goes on to say: - OT .1 I 1 T lor tne reasons aoove stated, i am. therefore, of opinion that the inhabitants of that leiritory havo not at present, and that they cannot acquire otherwise than by act of Congress, the right to form such a gov ernment." General Jackson's administration took the ground that the people of Arkansas, by the authority of the Territorial Legislature, had not the power to hold a convention to form a constitution, and cjuld not acquire it from any source whatever except trom Congress. While, therefore, the legisla tive act of Arkansas was held to be void, so far as it assumed authority to authorize the calling of a convention to form a constitution, yet they did not hold, in those days, that the people could not assemble and frame a constilution in the form of a peti.ion. 1 will read the rest of the opinion, in order that the Senate may understand precisely what was the doctrine on this sub ject at that day, and what the Committee on Territories understood to be the doctrine on this subject in March, 1C5G, when we put forth the Kansas report as embodying what we Nebraska men understood to bo eur doctrine at that time. Here it is Thin was copied into that report: "But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess tho ordinary privilege? and immunities of citizens ofihe United States. Among these, is the right to assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances. In the exercise of this riht the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the Territorial government, and to admit them into tho Union a3 an indepen dent State. Tho particular form which they may gire to their petition cannot be material, so long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and con duct all their proceedings in a peaceable manner. And, as the power of Congress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited, they may accept any constitution. however framed, which in their judgment meets the sense of the people to be atfected by it. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accompany their petition with a written constitution framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen bv such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power tö do so, nor to anv measure which may be taken to collect tht. sense of the people in respect to it; provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the Territorial government, and in entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt or reject, or disregard them, at their pleasure." while the .Legislature of Arkansas had no power to create a convention to frame a constitution, as a legal constitutional body, yet, if the people chose to assemble under such an act of the Legislature for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievan ces, the assembling was not illegal; it was not an unlawful assemblage; it was not such an assemblage a3 the military power could be used to disperse, for they had a right under the constitution thus to assemble and petition. But if they, assumed to themselves the right or the power to make a government, that assumption was an act of rebellion'which General Jackson said it was his duty to put down with the military force of the country. If you apply these principles to the Kan sas convention, you fini that it had no power to do any act as a convention forming a "government; -you find hat the act calling it was null and void from the beginning, you find that the Legislature could confer no power whatever on the convention. '. That convention was simply an assemblage of peaceable citizens, under the constitution of the United States, petitioning for the redress of grievances, and, thus assembled, had the right to put their petition in the form of a constitution if they chose; but still it was otaly a petitionhaying the force of a petition which. Congress

could accept or reject, or dispose of at it

saw proper. That is what 1 understand ta be just the extent of ths power and authority of this convention assembled at Lecompton. It was not an unlawful assemblage like that held at Topeka; for the Topeka constitution was made in opposition to the Territorial law, as I thought, intended to subvert the government without the consent of Congress, but, as contended by their friends, not intended to subvert the government without the consent of Congress. ii tneir opject was to suoven it without the consent ol Jongress, it was an act of rebellion, which ought to have been put down by force. If it was a peaceablo assemblage simply to petition and abide tho decision of Congress on the petition, it was not an unlawful assemblage. I hold, how ever, that it was an unlawful assemblage. I hold that this Lecompton convention was not an unlawful assemblage; but on the othhand, I hold that they had no logal power and authority to establish a government. 1 hey had a right to petition for a redress of grievances. They had a right in that petition to ask for the change of government from a Territorial to a State government. They had a right to ask Congress to adopt the instrument which they sent to U3 as their constitution; and Congress, if it tho't that paper embodied the will of the people ol the Territory, fairly expressed, might, in its discretion, accept it as a canstitution, ;uid admit them into the Union as a State; or, if Congrcs thought it did not embodv the will of the people of Kansas, it might reject it; or, if Congress thought it was doubtful whether it did embody the will of the people or not, that it should send it back and submit it to the people to havo that doubt removed, in order that the popular voice, whatever it might be, should prevail in the constitution under which that people were to lire. So fis as the act of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas crdling this convention, was concerned, I have always been under the impression that it was fair and just in its provisions. I have always thought that the people should have gone together en masse and voted for delegates, so that the voice expressed by the convention should have been the unquestioned and united voice of the people of Kansas. I have always thought that those who staid away from that election stood in their own wrong, and should have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be put on the registered list, so as to be voters. I havo always held that it w.s their own fault that they'diJ not thus go and vote; but yet if they chose, they had a right to stay away. They had a right to say that that convention, although not an ulawful aesemblage, is not a legal convention to make a government, and hence we are under no obligation to go and express any opinion aloutit. They had a right to say if they chose, "We will stay away until we see the constitution they shall frame, tho petition they shall send to Congress; and when they submit it to us for ratification we will vote for it if we like it, or vote it down if wo do ot like it." I say they had a right to do either, though I thought and think vet, as good citizens, chey ought to hav& gone and voted; but that was their business and not mire. Having thus shown that the convention at Lecompton had no power, no authority to form and establish a government, but had power to draft a petition, and that petition, if it embodied the will of the people of Kansas, ought to be taken as such an expose of their will, yet, 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 tho delegates were elected? I understand, from the history of the transaction, that tho people who voted for delegates to the Lecompton convention and those who refused to vote boih partiesunderstood the Territorial act to mean that they were to be elected only to frame a constitution, and submit it to the people for their ratification or rejection. I say that both parties in that Territory, at the time of the election of delegates, so understood the object of the convention Those who vo ted for delegates did so with the understanding that they had no power to mako a gov ernment, but only to frame one for submis sion; and those who 6taid away did to with the same understanding. Now for the evidence. The President of the United States tells us, in his mes sage, that he had unequivocally expressed hi? opinions, in the form of instructions to Gov'nr. Walker, assuming that the constitution was to lie submitted to the people for ratification. Wheu we look at Governor Walker's letter of acceptance of the oftico ot Governor, we find that he stated express -ly that he accepted it with the understanding that the President and his whole Cabinet concurred with him that the constitution, when formed, was to be submitted to the people for ratification. Then look into the instructions given, by the President of the United States, through General Cass, the Secretary of State, to Governor "Walk er, and you there find that the Governor u instructed to use the military power to pro tect the polls when the constitution' shall be submitted to the people of Kansas for their free ratification or rejection. Trace the history a little further, and you will find that Governor Walker went to Kansas and proclaimed, in his inaugural and io his speeches at Topeka and elsewhere, that it was the distinct understanding, not onlv of himself, but of those higher in powsr than 1 " (Concluded on fourth pge.)

Is.

o vv 7