The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-12-20

the President
On the question Of accepting the constitution OF
Kansas, as presented BY it's own regular tribunals,
or rejecting it for another 70 be gotten up under out
side dctation and federal interfercnceon the ques
ton, in other words of non-ntervcntion interven-
ton as raised by the Nebraska Kansas act and as
decided in the contest of 1S56the President stands
TO all his solemn pledges, and Walker flies OF to the
antpodes.
Leaving the President in his impregnsble position
of nonintervention, where the letter of Governor
Walker leaves him unscathed, we cannot forbear to
examine some Of the doctrines and arguments Of the
letter
His views of popular sovereignty strike MS as re-
markable. He devotes large portion Of the letter
TO an exposition of them, and evidently cherishes
them with paterna fondpess. Nor is this portion OF
his letter mean piece of diaectics. But fine theo-
ries eloquently developed, poorly suit the rough
and-tumbe exigencies of the Kansas imbroglio They
would furnish beautiful chapter in the Utopia or
New Atlantis, but they as little adapted to the
case of Kansas as the constitution excogitated in
his study by Locke suited the homely require
ments Of the ncipient Carolinas.
Not only are his theories impracticable, but they
are impairment, so far he insists upon applying
them to Kansas against the will of her own authori
tative tribunals. The English philosopher was TN
ved to frame constitution for the infant Carolina
communities ; but we believe Governor Walkers
proffer of fine distractions to Kansas is wholly graf
uitous If he were citizen there, one of the people
his demand for the application of radical theories in
the formation of their government would be excu-
sable; but it strikes superativey farcical that
resident of Washington city should gravey urge
his differences with the President nice abstrac-
tons of government the reason for resignng the
governorshp of Territory in the affairs of which,
whether as nonresident federal official, he could
have no possible right Of interference And this is
the fundamental fallacy of his whole letter He for
gets the outside standpoint from which he writes.
If addressed by citizen of Kansas to felow-czens
there, its doctrines might be entitled to respect
but as the production of ingenious outside theo-
rist, thousand miles off, they would be treated as
Quixotic, if the wanton mischief they engender and
the morbid excitement they aggrayate, did not give
them sinister character. A mere outside theorist
might, indeed, promulge distractions with entire in
nocence but it is the partisan intermeddliDg Of Of
icers bound by duty and pledges to exemplary
non-interference that most stirs up bad blood and
kindles incendiary fires in the Territory
a The theories and arguments of his letter are not
only intrusive and impertinent in this respect; they
are intrinscally unsound. Those which he advances
on the subject Of popular sovereignty are in brief
as follows Sovereignty is exclusively with the
he 1o1a
reignty is the only power which can make consti-
tuition; and, therefore, every constitution, to be
valid must be accepted by the people at the polls"
We have not enough space to examine each of these
theories in detail but it seems to that their pro-
FOUNDER hampers himself with difficulties at every
step.
AS general proposition, no republican citizen
will deny his first onenamcly, that the people are
exclusively sovereign. But as practical question,
it is besct by thousand embarrassments As APP
piled to Kansas, inquiries at once arise" Who are
the people of Kansas '-'are there people of Kan
sas'"are they the residents of to-day, those Of
three six, or twelve months ago f"are citizens of
the old States only constituent people there, all
persons coming in from every part of the worldT IT,
sis the sovereignty Of the Territory in the inhab
tants OF is it in allegiance until the creation Of State
or is it in Congress2"i the sovereignty in the ma
jority Of Territory in the minority; and fin the
majority, is that ascertaincd by apellmell count
Of noses of all ages sexes, and conditions, or by
legay-prescribed modes of entertainment p" il |
the sovereignty of Territory perfect in the
first ive or ten, or hundred, thousand, ton
thousand or hundred thousand squattersf"-"is it
in the souatters of a district without metes and
bounds or within certain lines ?' if 80, who marks
out the lines, the sovereigns when assembled in
such density OF population and numbers as they
may think proper, or Congressw If Congress-, del
egated body may limit and define the theatre of the
august sovereignty Of pennedin squatters how does
that act tally with Governor Walkers 6ne-spun abb
stractions?
If the inhabitants of chaotic Territory sover-
eign, why Judge Douglass demand for ''ena-
bling act from Congress empowering them to form
constitution in the modes shall prescribe? The
positions of these two assailants of the Lecompton
constitution fatally clash just here; and leave
them to harmonic their respective theories between
themselves. Governor Walkers loading theory of
popular sovereignty not only clashes with his dstin
guished coadjutor, whom he highly extols, and
with the doctrines of the abotonists, whose power
full s'ad and comfort he enjoys in his present posi-