The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-12-13

his opinion was quoted and adopted as met the
case of Topeka, and that the paragraphs now
quoted and relied on by Judge Douglas were not
quoted and adopted in his report of the 18th OF
March, 1856 1t would seem to to be strange
commentary the doctrine Of territorial selfgoy-
eminent to maintain that the people of Territory,
through their regular Legislative body could not IN
itiae proceedings to make application for admission
as a State. Yet Judge Douglas to sustain his argu-
ment compelled to deny that the Legislature of Kan
sas could legally call convention TO frame constitu-
tionths, too when in his report of the 18th March,
1856, he had recognised valid precedents several
cases in which "he proceeding has originated wih,
and been conducted IN subordatio to, the authority Of
the local governments established, . the in
regard to the late convention in Kansas. We think
the Legislature Of Kansas had right to regard Judge
Douglas as conceding them authority to originate
the proceeding for State convention. 1t is certain
that Governor Walker and Mr. Stanton. and, as far
as we know all other democrats, concurred in re-
garding the Kansas convention as legtimately called
and legally organized. Such was the view taken OF
it by the President, and in that view he is amply
sustained by reason and by legal precedents.
Judge douglas makes Quiet oDJtCuuub W Hc Nail
sas convention, which, though of minor Importance,
it may be best to notice. He takes good deal of
pains to show that the President Governor Walker,
and Secretary Stanton were committed to the people
in favor of the submission Of the constitution. He
shows further, that those who voted for delegates
to the convention, well as those who refused to
VOTE understood that the constitution was to be sub
mitted, and that portion of the delegates elected
were pledged to have the submission made. In
view of all these pledges, understandings and prom
Uses, Judge Douglas thinks it great outrage
on the people of Kansas that none other than
the slavery question was submitted to them. The
answer to all this is easy obvious, and concu-
sive The object in proposing the submission of
the constitution induce the Topeka portion of
the Territory to take their rightfn share in making
the constitution. They standing out in resist
ance Of the proposed convention simply because it
was called by the territorial legislature whose
thority they repudiated. They had every assurance
from the President, Governor Walker, Mr.. Stanton,
and the proslavery men, that If they would vote for
delegates they should not only be protected at the
ballot-box by sufficient military force, but that the
constitution made should then be submitted for pop
uar ratification. Notwithstanding all the assurances
given and the appeals made, they stubbornly and
factiously refused to go to the polls Judge
Douglas says they had right to stay away
certainly they had, but had they right to reject
all the offers made, stay away from the election,
threaten to prevent the peaceful action of the
vention, denounce and repudate it bogus assem-
bage, and, after all to complain that the promises
of submission made to them not kept? We
insist that in view of the facous refusal of the To-
peka to participate in the election of delegates,
the convention more liberal than they could
have been expected to be in submitting the only
question at Issue between them and the proslavery
men, Judge Douglas admits that the territorial act
calling the convention was fair--it is not denied
that the election for delegates fairly heldit is
conceded that the Topeka men had fair chance
to control the convention and make just such con-
stitution as they wanted yet when they factiously
refuse to exercise their right of selfgovernment in
making constitution, Judge Douglas thinks it was
an outrage on their right of sefgovernment not to-
let them in the facous spirit, defeat the will
of the legally organized convention. The Topeka
men wanted State government as was shown by
their Topeka movement in 1856. Here OPP
portunity to have one framed in their way. They
refused to make constitution, and resolved that
none should be made, and that none but their own
illegal and rebellious proceeding at Topeka should
be recognised. Yet Judge Douglas thinks the prin-
ciple of selfgovernment is outraged, although the
only real matter of controversy fairly referred
to a popular vote. We think that such a concession
to the Topeka is a concession to spirit of agi
taton and rebellion which the convention under
no obligation to make.
The only sensible object in submitting consttu-
ton is that the people may judge of its provisions
and decide on its merits Judge Douglas knows that
the Topeka men wanted no submission for any such
patriotic purpose. They had prejudged the consti
tuition before it was made and they wanted it sub
mited not to Judge of its merits but simply to vote
it down because they resolved to keep up the
sectional strife and to insist their illegal Topeka
organization. Judge Douglas thinks that even this
rebellious and factious spirit ought to have been
gratiRed. The President has taken, we think, a
wiser view of the subject in recognising the action
of the convention as the quickest and best mode Of
rebuking and terminating the spirit Of agitation and
rebellion in Kansas.
Judge Douglas denies that the question of slavery
is fairly submitted to the popular votenot that the