The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-10-09

the complete sovereignty of the Satewith power
to frame such constitution il peases TO submit not
submit it for ratification If it pleases and TO decide too
ii pleases if it does submit it, TO whom il will submit
it. When that convention shall meet Gov. Walker will
have authority TO address IL and give il advice
than any other citizen of Kansas As its action will not
need his approval to render it valid neither his
threats disapprova render it void invalid Unlike
legislative act, the constitution when formed,
will be complete without his approval The suggestions
and threat of Gov. Walker, then derive dignity
support from any argument which be urged
in favor of the plan of submission. Upon that
the South takes issue with him. 1t is
tent to leave the decision Of that question TO the
only tribunal that can nghtfully decide ito the
Kansas State convention Neither can Gov. Walker be
supported by the idea that the constitution must be
framed by majority of the people of Kansas. He is
simply an executive, and not judge of the law of Kan
He is clothed with power to determine who
and who not the majority in Kansas If there is any
tribunal outside of Kansas which meet that question
is Congress alone when the State shall apply for
admission. 1t is clearly not the province of the governor
of the Territory. But what is meant by majorityf Do
those who defend Walkers numerical ma
jortyf Do they to transfer the doctrines of Dorr
ism to Kansas Or do they refer to legal constitution
al majority alone If the latter, then reply that the
governor of the Territory the governor of State
know recognise majority but the legal majority.
That majority he is bound to sustain necessary by the
sword In Kansas there ascertained legal major
ity ascertained by law and thousands stood out in
belon against that law and refused to be registered
der it, and thus voluntarily DISTINGUISHED themselves
what right had Gov Walker to decide that the registered
voters but minority of the people, and that the
majority would not be represented in the convention In
doing he violated the first principles of sound govern
ment and constituting himself judge in the premises,
he has prejudged the case
But it is said that the governor sustained by the
southern party in Kansas and then it is triumphanty
asked if the people in Kansas satisfied what right
has the South to complain p To this reply, that
there but tribunal in Kansas to which the South
has agreed to submit the decision of these
that is the convention elected to frame State constitu
ton That convention has not decided and until it does
is question in which the South part of the
territory has direct interest The proposition that,
because party congressional convention has sided with
Walker, the South must close its eyes to the governors
interference in aid of the views of that convention
monstrous and absurd it is mpudent and arrogant
1t is nothing less than the advocacy of squar
sovereignty! which Mr.. Buchanan, the National Demo-
cratic Convention and the Supreme Court have each and
all repudiated
To up the argument, then, Governor Walker is
part of the constitution making power in Kansas and
yet he has used his great influence arising from his off
cia position the executive of Territory, distracted
is that of Kansas and the representative of the Presi
dent to distract and to divide friends there and to
browbeat them into the adoption of policy well calcu
lated to defeat the hopes of the South 1t not the
true line of his duty to advise the convention
violation of his duty to threaten it, and insult to that
body. The convention itself was competent to form
and regulate the institutions of the State and it
the settled policy of the country to eschew all inter
venton with the decision of the convention and when
decided to admit Kansas into the Union without refer
to the question of ratification This settled policy
Gov. Walker has endeavored to thwart
The question arises, GAS Walker is the appointee
of the President and has acted in violation of the law he
was appointed to execute why not denounce the Pres
dent too 2? This that the President endorses
and defends Walker. For one, said Mr.. Yancey, /
not prepared to adopt that assumption 1t is true that
the President is responsible to certain degree for the acts
of his appontee and the power of removal is given to
him. in order that he may meet that responsibility But
there are other modes by which the President may
press his dsapprobaon of the course of his agent than
by removal If the President should be of the opinion
that Walker has acted coupty, wilfully violated the
Kansas act should then say that removal the sures
and best means of expressing his dsapproval. If, how
the President should be OF the opinion that Walkers
of Judgment and that he had acted in con-
junction with large body of respectable and true
of the lawandorder party in Kansas and ready to
correct his course, and to shape it in accordance
with correct view of his duties perhaps less mark
ed reproof might be sufficient. At all events, sat
ised that the President has not approved of the policy
developed by Gov Walker Gov. Walker instructions
contain no authority for his course They simply in this
particular provide for contingency of submission of
the constitution for ratification In no line of them
is there any instruction to him to urge such policy
any suggestion that it be submitted to all who may be
resident in Kansas at that time.
The country, however, holds Mr.. Buchanan respon-
sble for the policy of officer whom he keeps in power
and that responsibility must be met. 1t will not do to
require the President to speak out when every newspaper
gan is of sufficient dignity to meet such assailants But
when great States both owhch have given to him their
support, speak on question of momentous policy
through State conventionsexhbiting unusual unanim
y of opinion upon tit is due alike to those States and
to himself and to the party that elected him. that his
views should not be left in doubt For myself enter
tain doubt but that the President enterains correct
views of the of Walker and that he will yet speak
out in becoming him. When Congress assemblies
it will be expected that the President will clearly define his
position-and willing to wait till then. My own ind
vdual opinion is that the prompt removal of Walker is the
better course but shall be content with less his policy
is changed and dsapproved Of If however the Prcs-
dent shall endorse the policy and action of Gov Walker
of duty compels to say that shall readily
condemn him, as / have condemned Walker and be-
lieve that speak the sentiments Of candidate for
Congress when say that, in my opinion, he, too will
all proper occasions oppose such policy when comes
before him. If elected for his official action matter by
whom endorsed or recommended.
But another question here arises What shall be the
extent of such opposition If Mr. Buchanan does endorse
Walkers course? Shall split off from the democratic
party and aid the know-nothingsY That would be the
height of folly. There but two great controlling
powers in this government--the democracy and the
black republicans The power that controls the democ-
racy is pro-slaveryt is the South The South in the
Union must control the democracy the great shield
against abolition aggression Whenever shall abandon
that position, the controlling element Of the democra
cy it must abandon it for disunon Disunion submis-
sion will inevitably follow such movement For one
not prepared for such movementthe exigencies of
the hour do not demand IT, Whenever it is called for
shall be ready to advocate it, in 1880 Great
valuable principles have been endorsed by the democracy
lance in the future progress of country towards the
~ he ApttI