The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-12-13
WASHINGTON CITY.
SUNDAY MORNING, DEC. ~, 1857.

ton is now fully and authoritativey defined. We
had hoped TO the very moment when, in the intro
ductory portion Of his late speech, he remarked that
the President had fallen into fundamental error
in his construction of the Kansas Nebraska act that
Judge Douglas would not feel himself constrained
to take antagonistc position towards the admins
tration. When that emphatic announcement, how
ever was made, we ceased to have further hope.
The fact is now fixed that the issue which in
wolves the prompt admission of the Territory of Kan
sas a State and the consequent early settlement
of the slavery question subject for national dis
turbance, the administration is to have the deter
mined and active opposition of Judge Douglas. 1t
is needless to say that we regret the determination
to which his mind has arrived; regret it for va
rous reasons which will to every democrat
without any suggestion from us. In this issue we
think the administration holds the side of right and
principle, and in this conviction strengthened
rather than weakened by Judge Douglass elaborate
and able speech. With the same candor and direct
ness with which he has criticized and controverted
the arguments and conclusions of the message, we
propose to examine one or two of his positions.
Judge Douglas expresses his qualification that
message" the difference between himself and the
President is not great as he had supposed g on a
hasty reading and imperfect hearing of it in the first
instance" Upon this more careful and critical read
ing he is rejoced to find that the President has not
recommended that Congress should pass law to re-
ceive Kansas into the Union under the constitution
formed at Lecompton = and yet he admits that the
tone" of that document indicates that such law
would receive the executive approval. In this We
see no special cause for the joy manifested by Judge
Douglas 1t was not necessary, if indeed it would
have been proper, for the President to do more than
indicate distinctly his acqescence in the legality of
the action Of the convention There is little
for the qualification produced by the fact that the
President has not endorsed, )" assumed by Judge
Douglas the action of the convention. 1t would
have been difficult for the President to stronger
language of endorsement of the legality of the con-
venton and of its action than he has done. We are
fearful that Judge Douglass perusal of the message
has yet been less careful and critical than he sup
poses otherwise he could hardly have found in it
the expressions of regret and modification and dis
appointment that the constitution had not been sub
mitted to the people which he attributes to the
President. Our perusal of it has not enabled to
find these expressions. But these preliminary and
introductory remarks only important to be made
that none may be msled into the idea that the admin
israton is indifferent to the fate of in
regard TO which the President says that if this oppor
tunity of settling the question in Kansas should be
rejected ''she may be involved for years in domes-
tic dscord and possibly in civil war; before she can
al
and again reach the point she has already attained"
With such language this before him it is difficult
to understand how Judge Douglas assume that
the administration indifferent to the result
that the President had recommended no bill to be
passed. and that it is not to be regarded as an adj
ministration measure"
Judge Douglas states correctly that the President
construes the Kansas-Nebraska act to mean that 1.-The
slavery question only required to be referred to
the people and that the remainder of the constitr
tion was not thus required to be submitted" In this
construction of the act Judge Douglas thinks the
President has fallen into "a fundamental error
error which is graciously but gratuitously attributed
by him TO the fact that the President was absent
from the country during the discussions on the Kan
sas- Nebraska BILL On the other hand Judge Douglas
maintains that the true meaning the Kansas ebras
ka act is that the slavery question, like all other
questions should be submitted to the people to be
decided for themselves" Assuming it to be true
that by the true Interpretation of the Kansas law
any question whatever required to be submit
ted after the formation of constitution by legally
appointed convention, the issue between the Presi-
dent and Judge Douglas is whether the slavery ques
ton only or the whole constitution, is required to be
submitted II is proper for to remark that in the
Judgment of very many of his friends, the President
has conceded too much in agreeing that even the
single question of slavery is required by the Kansas
Nebraska act to be submitted after the formation Of
a constitution by legally convention. But
that is concession of which Judge Douglas cannot
complain, and on which he has based much of his
argument
In support of his position that the KansasNebras-
ka bill required that the whole constitution should
be submitted for popular ratification, Judge Douglas
appeals to the understanding of the authors and sup
porters of the bin when it brought forward and
asks, "Did we not come before the country and say
that we repealed the Missouri restriction for the pur-
pose of substituting and carrying out, as general
rule, the great principle Of sefgovernment which
left the people of each State and each Territory
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions