Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 September 1858 — THEN AND NOW-SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY REPUDIATED. [ARTICLE]

THEN AND NOW-SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY REPUDIATED.

The following article was published in the Jasper Banner on the 9th day of December last. The first two paragraphs were written by the editor of the Banner, and the balance of the article was copied from the State Sentinel, which the Banner indorsed: “The Kansas Is.sce.—We have nfit heard any’ plausible- reasons assigned in favor of the position of the President and iiis CabineVin refererice_to the Kansas Constitution-al-Convention. They may good to justify the stand they have taken; bur. unfortunately, they are evi’den" lv at variance with the views entertained by th--mass of the Democratic partv. “A strict conformity to the doctrine ot—‘popular sovereignty ■’’and the provisions of ■ the Kansas Nebraska Bill wilt be maiYftaincd |by the Democracy. We are glad to see the \ State Snllnet. as well as most of the other. Teliding Democratic pipers, taking-a. bo.hl I aiiff manly’ position, as is evident from tile following'article: •We Stated in an article upon the subject yesterday that there might be Circumsta ~'ces which would justify the admission of Kansas as a State umler tire Lecompton Constitution. \V e Won id acquiesce in its rec ept ion “ with that provided a inajoritv of the citizens should so eject, and that expression of sontfm’-nt was tairlv and equivocany 'obtained. Ni -thing' sh.irt of this ct‘iii'l induce us to tavor the measure, ami this elm! itige.ncy i < ti t likely to'happen. •it is not. a di batnble qui^sti >:i t !mt the people .have a .right to net upon flseir organic, law. Tl'.fi ■ basis of popular sovet eigtity- is that the will of life people must govern when legally am! fairly expressed. In a Republican government the m ijorilv must [rule. How is it with Kansas'! Hit Territorial charter guaranteed th it-the- people [ thereof sliinild be perfectly tree to form and regulate their domestic, institutions in their own way-’ The right of tin#- people, actino through the lega lv and lairjv exp.ressed will of. a majority ol actual residents, not vnlv to regulate the question of slavery, l ot to [y’orwi a Constitution. was distinctly recognized in the Cincinnati resolutions. This right of the- people to -ileteriiiine their own iristit til ions—poptlar so\ ereignl v—was made the isstie in the last Presidential canvass and was accepted by all Democratic conventions and speakers. Mr. Buchanan in his letter of acceptance, in his inaugural message and in his instructions to Governor Walker asserted, recognized and reaffirmed 'the principle. The Democratic party is responsible for the faithful application of this principle in the legislation and determination of their domestic instructions, not billy by the people of Kansas, but those of all the Territories, of the Union. Tho power to make their Constitution was specially vested in-tjie people of Kansas. To use the emphatic, language of the Washington Union, of July 7, r last— other power to make such an instrument there is..not under the sun.’ “No one can assert that the action of the Lecompton Convention was in coni’ormitv with this principle. Its members were elected.by about one-eighth of the legal voters of Kansas. After their election the sentiment of the people of Kansas was fairly expressed in the election of a fcegisI lature and delegate to Congress. The total [ vote for Parrott, Free-State, was nearly G.fjflO, and that for Ransom was 3;82-4. This vote puts beyond all doubt the character of the constitution and institutions which they desired should govern thein. The attempt ot tlie Lecompton Convention., representing as it di<£ only a small portion nf the citizens ot Kansas, in the face of _ what they knew to be the undoubted sentiment of the people of that territory, to force a constitution upon them which they knew could not be otherwise than obnoxious, isnn usurpation of power—an aet of despotism,, which should be reprobated by tlfe Democratic party and prompt ly rejected by tho Democratic Representatives, if presented to. Congress for acceptance in violation of the expressed will of the people. “It is said that the only question at issue, that of slavery, is submitted to the people for their rejection’ or adoption. If they have a right to vote on that isssue, they are equally entitled to vole upon tho constitution as a whole. It may contain other un.acceptable provisions. It may do violence , to the sentiment of the people upon the question of bank's—tlfe manner of selecting a judiciary, and many other mattemot general concern. If the constitution was submitted to a vote of the people it might be rejected for some unacceptable provision other than-the issue ol slavery. It is not the province of Congress to form a constitution for the people of a territory—-to force upon them institutjons and a government in

violence to their wishes anil will, It is not even for a convention fairly elected l.y a majority of the people to say that their work shall not bo reviewed and passed upon by those who gave them the duty' to perform, much less a body whose presiding officer admits and tells them they only represent a small minority of the people. “The'great body of the Democracy of the 1 North utterly repudiate and condemn the action of the Lecompton Convention. It cannot be approved without doing violence ’ t.o justice, to right and to the principles of the party in power. It is not oily unfair, a breach of plighted faith, but unmanly to 1 attempt even to force the 'constitution of a faction upon, a people to whom fair dealing, has been pledged and a legal and fair expression of their will boen'guara.n.tied. » j “The Democratic party are itFcdged to" a faithful administration of the principles oil the Nebraska-Kansas act in the affairs of Kansas. That responsibility should Hot be evaded. The majority of the citizens of Kansas must be protected in determining their domestic institutions. No State or-I gatiizafion must be acknowledged by Congress which has’not, beyond a doubt, the approval of a nnijojrity of- the people of that Territory, fairly and legally expressed. With thisi the country will be satisfied,-rind they will not. be with anything else. The Democracy of the North' have fuhlrfti ily ' battled, for the constitutional rights of the. South; and they now ask tho I ■»sin jera.e-y -I of the South to stand by them in honestly and fairly' carrying these principles into practical opera* ion, or in sustaining the cit-i izens of Katifsns who r.’ry endeavoring to do so, principles w'nich were .'designed .to pro- ' tect and [-.reserve those rights. The !)■?- tnpcracy. "of the- North will aes with justice and integrity upon the question efTTUtnsns am! her Constitution’ whiitevor may.be the consequences.’' e. -

That is manlyy independent talk, and it is a pitv that our Domocta.tic friends had not back-bone to stand up to it, in opposition : to the frbwns of the. President. Some' l weeks ago 1 'uuglas made a speech at Free-/ port. Illinois, and in rrifefiiing lo' it, the Washington Union, (-t,he aj kno.wledged organ of the Administration, and from Which-the Democratic editors throughout the' cdunirv. , take tin ir cue,) said: “'rhe reader will d server from it to his : turpriir l , tliTt its autJm.r.J>acks ri-it m the: doctrine of the Nebrask i-'dasisas Pi if, aban-dons-tlib < iminnil i platform, :.nd : , . itps, the’Drod Scott decision; and t!i...‘ he does so by reassert in-g the odious S-'i'AT iUK S-..V- . k ß'El<';srV" doctrine in its met radio.;! and obnoxii u- : 'lftlTm. - 1 i “Wliat wi.l now be said, of Judge Dniglas's advocacy of t h >' !.',■■! S ;i. ■ i ■•’irl of h i-: .soundness or..t lie dec,’ ri:u ..('tie- < ’inc;nn::l i pI:• t f tri:'•,• as c.■ >:i:;. • r hr thal decision. 1 11 e asserts liie [lev : L ; i n ’ s pri t ters a.iid 11: ,‘i rL■ :i- L. 1.. ■' • 1 > ,-! iv'.'i'v from a Terri: or v. Wt if; I lii:ck rstaiid him. to d -i.v even- t!..- p ..er <■ J’bngress to c.\ ■ !ud>»l .v.-rv fr i.i, ti;j Territories. Logically h,.■ a. ris this •. v. ~ • r Congress-, though we d i ti >; fri i be •does it in express Words; I ;• :J dir.s the Terri; ry, as t : tlr'm.by '■ :i yr.-,-s in power for the j.r/nd b r ; he A ;;-e of tiie Nebrask ibi 111; an-.' hov, ■x: : ; e.-s give a power whig!: it does itself ; soss! ■ ••'Thus does Judge D ug' :s b.-d.'.’v and nnIdiishingly repudiate tltg Dr. d Scott iecisIn regard to the humbug ■: tmpirl.ir sovereignty as expeuhded by Done:.--. i'nicn “But lu-iwi. useless, yvolild it lie-in [ir-’i’icp-to deny 11>0 power of a uY"! rilvo; C- ::-;re: » to prohibit the eiitr ii.c ■ m' -d e -rv i: ,i i a Territory, if a Territorial J. ■J ■ .'.re, elected by, perchance, a hundred ’or a thousand isqiiatters, pre. i; it .t“>i ip:', , its borders by abolition aid soci-eties f:'jm the Free States; undei-! the auspices o! such ' men as 'Thayvr, lleoi h; r, .-t.tid e:i i i :,..in, cou|d prohibit its. eiitraifcu there! We ..will; not, however, go ever the objections to' the exploded doc'riues of squatt.i r ’■sovereignty, abominable enough . before the Di ed Sc.,t-t decision. i ut«:.cend;ary| now. , “The doctrine of • p.opii 1.-ir sovcriffiffnt v,’ ; s laid down by the Deuiocr tie. p w.'g in its who hl* advocacy of the \i-bi ;;.-Mj,t-J>?ir>s.;s bit;, nnd in its promulgation. of’TL [i|:.f;,riii.uf principles at ('incinnati, is, thyL.t.ho people of a Territory at the time oi IritSiii 'l'-a Constitution preparatory to ailmissiiTOa.s a Slate into the Union, am! not before,. havO' -the power to form their domestic, in-o ilu.n- in 1 their own way, neither (•'■nipr ■ s no-igginy other authority having the ph,ver t.o iiit :- tore, then, or any time bilore, t > for; sfa 11 or eohtrol t heir action. This was the doctrine ot tli.q Democratic parly tefurd the Dreil S'ut t. decision was rendered; ; rjl the .decision was but. the coniirmalion m theldoctrine.” Here is [talent Democracy for you—-un’i-dult era ted L'‘eoiiipton,ism throughout.