New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-11-24

Oar 6yAky TO The sertd and third rStes ohy pf0ves
the degree Of devotion that Wiz be prepared for ne
first class, should il ever chance 70 sppear among
such ,et Of barbsrians. II "a really disgusting 70
witness the sut servien.y and tosdysm which are 70
Noticeable hereabOu.s, and which mus be ~ revoH-
ing 70 the dehcste proprietIes OF those who are
the victims as j. is to the perception OF proper
minds which regard with contempt the meA
votariss The substantial and cultivated society OF
Washington has been much amused at the CON-
plas,nt airs which few little upstairs without Pc
sition have put on aimee they have undertaken 70
patronize the English, and people are beginning TO
Apply the Vice ou H'AA'-'' -''' INDEX
Froa Our Own CorespoIess.-
WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. IL, 1857.
Although The Union talks confidently Of the
"peaceab'e snd satisfactory adjustment Of the kaA-
"sas difficulties" !. is certain this the President
and the Cabinet are greatly embarrassed by the
compile ,tiOn into which the extreme zeal of their
partisan. in Kansas mas go. them. L. is manifest
that the game which was tried st first, OF pretend
ing that the submission of single clause TO popu-
lar vote was he submission of the whole Constitl
ton to rejection approval by the people, wild not
avail The humbug, the evasion of such dodge
was too palpabe. 1t was political s.rs.agem OF
the nature, and easily seen through, as the
military ruse of the japanese, who raise long lines
| of canvas fo,tifcation when an eDemy's feet APP
proaches their coast. 1t did not require tel
escape to expOse the trick: It was visible at first
| sight 10 all who were not wlfuuy blind.
| subtler evasion suggested oy The y. \. Times
ia now in vogue. 1t lOw pretended that by voting
| on the question, Constitution with Slavery" or
Constitution without Slavery, the people of Kan
sas can substantially decide whether or not Slavery
.hal exist among them; the rest of the Constitution
| being OF no consequence and as drawn up by the
| LeconptOn Convention in no sense Objectionable.
vote on the article relating to Slavery, it j, main
| taiped, will be- full and fair decision of ali the
points at issue between the cOntendiDg parties in
| Kansas, and will, therefore be equivalent to a vote
| upon the entire Constitution.
To the objections urged against this line Of srgu-
| meIt, and against the adoption by Congress OF the
Lecompton Constitution, the ground thl. the Le-
| compton Convention represented only small mi
norty Of the legal voters; that the Constitution,
apart from the article submitted recognizes the per-
petual right of property in the slaves no~ in the
| Territory: tha. it precludes ts own revision or
| amendment until after the year 1884, and that It
| emuOWers persons who cannot be trusted by the
Free-State men 10 receive and count the returns of
votes upon the Slavery articleto these objections
| the Democrats here reply:
First: That the Lecompton Convention represent
ed a minority because the Free-State party fac
tiousy refused to vote for delegates to the Conven-
tion-a reply which admits the fact of the minority,
and explains it, without, however, demonstrating tbs
right OF the minority to form Constitution.
Secoad: That the Constitution ought TO recognize
the right to property in slaves, because that right is
recognized by the Constitution Of the United States
where or how j. not specified and cannot be), and
because property in slaves now in Kansas is vested
right which cannot justly be violated. If this reply
be valid it follows that slavery may be introduced
into all the States in spite OF their Legislatures, I'M
der color of Constitutional and vested right. 1t fol-
lows, also, that the people OF State, IN accepting
thr Constitution, may vote that there shall be NJ
Slavery among them, while yet their Constitution
itself recognizes and confirms perpetual property In
slaves within ts jurisdiction.
Third: That the clause in the LecOmptOn schedule
about revsions Of the Constitution after the year
1864, may be 80 Interpreted as TO allow Of revision
at any time previous and that at all events 1t will
BE- i possible TO prevent the people of Kansas from
changing their Constitution when they pesse. The
substance of this reply obviously is that, after all,
Constitutions Of great account because they
can be ohaDged-a mode OF argument that would
recomu end present submission 10 all manner OF evil
and injustice, on the ground that by and by you
would be strong enough to right yourself
Lastly 1t il argued that he designation of the
,ifite of tae Convention as c4nyassers Of the
turDs of votes ia in conformity with uniform prece
dent In t6is reply the fact is overlooked that tbs
LecCmp.oD Convention was partisan IN its character
10 degree unknown before 10 our history. Prece-
deIts can only be safely followed when the crcum-
stances OF the cases somewhat alike.
These arguments in favor of the course pursued
BY the LecOmptOn Convention papable subter-
ugeS petti6ggsg special pleas, which have not even
the merit of pausiblEty Those who use them know
that They are fully conscious of the weakness of
their position. Why did not the Convention submit
the Constitution entire to the vote OF the People Of
Kansas That il the question and no Democrat
has vet given 70 the public reasonable solution Of
IT, The reasons why j. should have been submitted
were stated with much force and ciearDess by the
organ of the A6ministraton-Th The faiOa-On the
7th of last July:
"Wben there il no serious dispute upor the Const-
tutien either the Convention or among the people,
the power OF the delegates alone may put II IN oper
s,ion But such is not tie case IN Kansas. Inc most
violent struggle this country ssw, upon the mos;
important issue which the Const ution s 10 DETER
mine, has been going on there for several years
between parties evenly balanced that both CLAIM
the majority, and so hostile to ore another that
numerous lives have been lost in the contest Oader
these circumstances there ran b. ~ SWch thing az as
ccrtoiaAg clearly and icitsOnt aoHot ne tW 81 tae
teo1e an any ray except by thar orS darect er0resstoH
Of n al tie POLLS Constitution not subjected y AtG'
t,f no matter rkat Ic9a,ains riH Ger Be acknor
| edged be- as opponents Il be anything bw trfEd.
A plausible color might Dc given to tins assertion oy
the argum.n: that the members OF the Convention
ccuo have 10 motive for refusing to submit tneli
ok their constituents, except conscou.ne- thsi
the ueic rity would condemn Il. We COME" tfGt re
Should md some J.tcnhy an Gnsc:r'ng hs. Vhf
osher m9tirr c0uld ahty hGre Nedo most devoa9'y
believe that unless the Constitution ofh8nsas Dc $40
nit,eo 70 direct vote of tie people, tire unhappy
controversy which has heretofore ragged n thst Ter
rfory will be prolonged for an indefinite time to corne
IL is impossible to repel or evlde the force OF
this argument. And yet The Cn,oa Is now engaged
in pettilogglng defense OF the LecOapton owen
ti.n yhch refused 70 submit their Constitution to a
- Al nd he