The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-07-18
KANSAS AFFAIRs..ooNrINuEp.


The "constitutpnalist, one of the ablest demo-
cratic papers in the South defends the resolutions of
the Georgia convention, but in such spirit that
do not doubt our ultimate concord,
The editor makes attempt 10 deny the propriety
of taking the opinion of the people Of Kansas the
constitution which is shortly to be framed for them by
convention; the contrary, he says that this is
question upon which "all those who voted for the
resolutions of the Georgia convention may consist
emily concur with us" We arc glad to know this
1t settles the only matter about WHICH there ever
could be any serious apprehension of dispute. On
this basis the democracy of the whole country will
stand firmly united.
The democratic party is the common sense and
common honesty of the country, organized and act
ing together for political purposes. To leave the
question Of slavery in Kansas entirely with the peo-
pie Of Kansas is consistent with both these qualities
but for Congress to legslate slavery out of the
State force to remain against the will the people
who live there, would be unwise as well as dishon-
est--unwise because it would leave dangerous
question unsettled and dishonest because the party
is pledged not 10 insist upon either slavery free
dom for the negroes Of Kansas without the appro-
baton OF the white inhabitants.
We do not deny the abstract proposition that the
convention has potrer to form constitution, and put
it in operation, without submitting it to vote of
the people. But is this power that ought to be
exercised? Most assuredly not. If majority be
in favor of it their votes will show it and put all OBJ
jectons to silence If the people be against it they
are entitled to have chance of saying so.
10 the people, win define the qualifications Of voter
The fear expressed quarters that every person
who happens to be in Kansas at the time will be al
lowed the right of suffrage, is idle phantom We
solemnly trust that no such folly will ever be pro-
posed by any member of the convention certain
period Of previous residence, long enough to show
the good faith of the voter, viii undoubtedly be re-
CURED
The :" ConstitutoIast" insists that Gov. Walker
wrong in declaring that the constitution if not
submitted to popular vote, would be, and ought to
be, rejected by Congress; and we asked to an
swer whether this is not presumptuous interfer-
cnce We answer that it was federal interference
with the slavery question for the governor to express
the opinion that constitution not submitted to
popular vote would be rejected by Congress Con-
gress have power to reject constitution framed
by the people of a new State for anything that
is put into left out Of it, provided it be
republican,. But whether it does or does not
express the popular sentiment is question of
fact, which Congress must determine on evidence
The best evidence which the nature of the case
admits Of is the vote of the people directly upon
it after it is framed If that evidence should
I.ax ,I,aJ ,tl L IN
liar circumstances, the chances are thousand to
that Congress will not be satisfied with any other
evidence. The prediction of Gov. Walker was there
fore true, in all human probability and if true, his
warning was timely and just
At the last session Of Congress an act was passed
authorizing Minnesota to form constitution prepar.
atory to her admission into the Union 1t prescribed
that the constitution should be framed by conven
ton, and expressly made it "subjcd TO the approval
and ratification Of the people Of the proposed State This
provision was inserted without word Of objection
or the smallest sign of disapproval from any member
of either house, and the bill was formally approved
by the President. Indeed, some of our most distin
guished southern statesmen voted for it, who are
now Directing to the course of Governor Walker
because he insists upon submitting the Kansas
constitution when framed, to the people. Was
this federal interference? If it was, why did
not somebody raise his voice against it? And
if it was not why is this complaint made
that federal official merely expressed an opinion
in the same way? In the case of Minnesota the fed
eral government, both houses of Congress, and the
Executive not merely threw their influence in favor Of
vote tho constitution but decided by an authori
tative command that there must be vote; and the
Constituencies looked on the deed with silent APP
probation. In the of Kansas single officer of
the federal government, in communication to the
people, assures them that in his opinion, Congress
will be apt to require something similar from them ;
and we have dcnuncation without limit If the
Constitutionalst could swallow that camel why docs
it strain at this gnat?
Werepeat that though the people Of Kansas alone
make constitution for the State, yet if an in
strument purportng to be constitution is laid be-
fore Congress- that body has the authority to deter
mine whether it is is not authentic expression Of
the popular WILL Such power il is absolutely neces
sary that Congress should have. 1t viii be remem-
bcrcd that the abolitoniss Of Kansas presented to
Congress at the session before the last what they al
legged was a constitution made by the people but it
ascertained to be not only fraudulent and ille
GAL but part of il actually forged here in the