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


effort 70 make the submission Of the whole constitu-
not sustained by his argument and, as respect
fully submit, is inconsistent with the position and
principles of the democratic party, as understood
and expounded in all sections Of the Union,
throughout this long and bitter contest. 1t is
endangering the substance for the shadow, mas
much as the people of Kansas have the undoubted
right, soon the State is admitted to alter
correct any features in the constitution which may
prove to be Objectionable. BY admitting the State
we Immediately withdraw from black-repuboanism
its le-blood, and localize the question of slavery
within the limits of Kansas, where the people viii
have the unlimited right to exercise their will in re-
spect to all questions of State policy If the exer-
else of popular sovereignty is what they desire,
they will seek it under the panoply of State sover
eighty.
1t will be observed that the President supports
the action of the Kansas convention on two grounds
first, because the Kansas act does not require the
whole constitution to be submitted, and because the
submission of the slavery question is full and sub
stantia compliance with its requirements; and Sec
ond, because the convention which framed the con-
stiuton legally-organzed body, and its action
therefore legitimate. In pursuance of the principle
of the Kansas BILL his duty to acquiesce in its
tion followed a necessary consequence. We have
shown that he stands upon right and principle on
the first point, and we proceed to notice Judge
Douglass objection to the second point Judge
Douglas takes the ground that the Kansas Legislature
had no authority to pass act providing for the call
of convention to frame constitution and there
fore that the action of such convention is null and
void. He does not so the length of regarding the
convention as body of rebels like the Topeka
vention, but he denies that it legitimate body
and insists that validity and vitality could only be
given to it by act of Congress either authorizing
its organization or recognising its action. In this
position he not only takes issue with the President
but he repudiates the positions Of Governor Walker
who distinctly recognised the Kansas convention as
legitimately called and organized For the purpose
of settling this question: Judge Douglas falls back
on his report of the 18th of March, 1885, as contain
ing the true doctrine on the subject. He says that
in that report the committee to the conclusion
that whenever Congress had passed an enabling act
authorizing the people of Territory to form State
sessed all the authority which Congress had delega
ted to it but whenever Congress had failed refused 10
pass enabling act the proceeding irregular and
rod, unless ualty impaired to il by subsequent act
Of Congress adopting and confirming IT, He argues
that Congress at its late session had failed to pass
enabling act, it follows that the convention called
by the Kansas Legislature was irregular and void.
We confess our surprise at the construction which
Judge Douglas now places his report of the 18th
of March, 1856. The proposition before the Senate
was the admission of Kansas as State under the
Topeka constitution. The democrats with Judge
Douglas at their head resisted this application be-
cause the Topeka convention was not only an irreg-
uar, but Illegal body, assembled in open defiance
Of law, and with the avowed purpose of overthrow
ing the legalyconstituted authorities in Kansas. The
friends of the Topeka movement cited several cases
in which Congress had admitted new States in which
there was no enabling act, and claimed them as pre-
cedents Judge Douglas, as chairman Of the Com
mitee on Territories reviewed all these precedens
and showed that none of them were applicable be-
cause in no one of them was the proceeding which
originated the application Illegal and in defiance of
the territorial laws, was the to the Topeka
movement The general result of the review was
stated in these words:
Your committee not aware of any case i'm the
history of country which be fairly cited
example, much less justification, for these extraordi
nary proceedings Cases have occurred in which the in
habants Of particular Territories have been permitted to
form constitutions and take the intiatory steps for the
organization of State governments, preparatory to their
admission into the Union without obtaining the previous
assent of Congress,
WITH, AND BEEN CONDUCTED IN
TO, AUTHORITY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
STATES Michigan Arkansas, Florida and California are
sometimes cited cases in point -s.
This is Judge Douglass language-cAPIrM.s and all
He then proceeds to review the course of Michigan,
Arkansas, Florida California and Rhode Island, on
which the Topeka insurgents had relied, and
showed that in every the initiatory steps taken
were in subordination TO the local authorities, and
therefore, formed preeedens for the admission of
Kansas with the Topeka constitution; but noarhere is
il said or infimated that contention called and held
pursuance Of act Of territorial legislature iTeg
ar and rod unless previously sanctioned by enabling
at Of Congress. On the contrary, the point Of the
report was that all the cited like the present
case in Kansas either initiated by the regular
territorial legislatures subordinate to, and
not in defiance of, their authority.
But Judge Douglas says in his speech that his
committee recognised and adopted the principle