The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-12-23

thority alike Of the people and Of the convention
would have given Congress no ehApce to act, and
might keep Kansas out Of the Union forever, and
forever prey TO agitation and discord DO the peo-
pie want such result as thati
SENATOR GREENS GREAT ARGUMENT IN REPLY
TO SENATOR DOUGLAS.
We have rarely ever published an ADLER or more
admirable argument than that which fills our columns
to-day. AS first effort in the Senate. it is one Of
the most successful ever delivered, and has placed
its author at in the front rank Of debate in that
conspicuous body. II is conclusive in its facts,
searching and exhaustng in its argument, adnira-
bly, terse, clear, and vigorous in STYLE and elevated
in tone and temper. AS areply,i il is complete and
triumphant and, measuring by tho ability and rep
utation Of the competitor bafed and ovcrthrown il
ranks its author among the first intellects in the
Senate.
1t is greatly to be regretted that this speech could
not have reached Kansas before the election, which
TRANSFERRED there on Monday. That Of Senator Doug
las doubtless did reach the Territory in time to effect
great deal of mischief and the causes by which
the delivery of Mr.. Green's delayed are to DO
deplored public calamity. The poison was adj
ministered, while the antdotc was withheld.
And this, indeed, is the great wrong inflicted by
the senator from Illinois in his recent movement 1t
is not that abstractly considered, there could be
any heinous wrong in demanding that constitution
should be submitted to the people Of new State for
the expression of their will upon its provisions 1t
is not that in ordinary cases. and under ordinary cir
cumstances, senator may not change his position
at WILL without censure, upon aquestion whether the
authorities of aTerrtory may not originate proceed
ngs for the framing ola State constitution or wheth
er Congress should originate them in every case.
Ii is not that democrats may not differ consistently
and may not agree to differ tremendously, on these
points, of much theoretical interest but of little
practical Importance. The HARM the wrong is this
that the angry sectional question Of slavery divest
ed of all ENHANCEMENT with other questions being
about to be settled by free vote of all the people
of Kansas in the manner contemplated by the Ne
braska Kansas act by the author OF tho act, by the
democratic party Of the Union by the whole nation
in that could not fail to have been satsfac
tory to all conservative and fair nen-this very mo-
ment chosen by Mr.. Douglas and by Governor
Walker to step in between the expectation of their
party and Of all honest men in the Union and it's re-
alization. Their movement by entangling the ques-
ton of slavery with other issues confusing and
plicating the troubles in Kansas, and preventing
settlement of the fierce controversy that has agita
ted the Union long, has powerfully aided tho abol-
tionsts, anxious to keep open the controversy, in
persuading the people from the polls, and in moving
heaven and earth against the accomplishment Of q
peaceful and final vote. Men that at such a juno
ture of affairs in manner 80 wanton and mischiev-
ous, could separate from their political friends and
abet with their support agitators like Lane Brown,
and the Topeka militia, in an effort dabolcal as
that of defeating settlement of the slavery question
in Kansas in the absolutely fair that has been
provided will invoke fine theories and abstract
principles of government in vain for their ustifca-
ton.
What has struck us as most remarkable in the late
speech Of Judge Douglas, to which Senator Green
replies with overwhelming array of facts, is
it's glaring inconsistency with his whole former
course the subject of congressional power in the
Territories. His claims of power for the inhabitants
of the Territory and their representatives had been
strongly objected to by constitutional statesmen for
position is, that instruments legaizing forbid
ding slavery, OF any other domestic institution Of
Territory, can only be framed by body authorized
by Congress- and then can have no validity UNI
less ratified by tho people at the polls. Yet, until
now, he has always held that such institutions may
be established abolished by ordinary statutory
legislation which is submitted to the people
for their approval and that territorial Legislature
is not only competent to all possible Legislation for
Territory, but that any interference by Congress with
it is impertnent. In proof of this allegation we
have only to quote from his concluding speech on
the Nebraska Kansas BILL delivered just before it's
passage, March g. 1854 1t will be seen that he de-
liberateIy and earnestly claimed those powers for
Territory and its legislature which have been char
acterized by the obnoxious epithet of squatter SOW
ereignty, and insisted that territorial legislature
could do by ordinary statute, without the sanction
either Of the people or Congress, what now he con-
tends cannot be done even by constitution unless
authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the peo-
pie He said:
Extracts from Judge Dogg,oss closing pserh ne Ne5rata
Kansas BIZ, March 8, 1854
The Utah and New Mexico bills Of 1850 proposed to
leave the people of Utah and New Mexico decide
the slavery question for themselves in the precise Ian
guage of the Nebraska bill under discussion few
weeks afterwards the Committee of Thirteen took those
two bills and put wafer between them, and reported