The Washington union., 1858-02-14
NEssRs DOUGLAS AND WISE.

Whenever men intend to oppose their party upon
any question it is an easy matter to convince them
selves only that they are governed by patriotic
motives, but that their reasoning is unanswerable
Such, have no doubt, is the with both of the
distinguished individuals whose have
placed at the head of this article Their letters to
the late aboftve meeting in Philadelphia to embar
rass the administration abound in for their
present position, but contain, in Judgment, moth
ing like sufficient argument to justify them in oppo
sing Mr. Buchanan OF breaking loose from their party
association
We do not now intend to argue with either
Of them. They are both of age and have not
taken their position without mature deliberation.
But we are somewhat struck by the different excuses
each one gives for opposing the administration, Mr..
Wise says that if the Lecompton convention had
:" adopted a republican form of State government
and reported it to Congress, mthom submitting Il 10
the people, he was willing to accept IT, and receive
Kansas as State, slave Free into the Union" :"
But, as the convention proper only to submit the
question of slavery their whole work becomes
vitiated, and Congress- and Mr. Buchanan ought to
repudiate it-in other words, il the convention had
submitted nothing, Congress ought to have re-
ceived Kansas into the Union State; or if
the whole constitution had been submitted, and
the people had ratified it, she entitled TO admis
sion. But as the convention saw proper to submit
the only question that had disturbed the peace of the
country the whole matter is looked upon fraud,
and Mr. Buchanan's patriotic aud mpregnable posi-
ton as taken in his message, 10 ridicued and de-
nounced by those who have heretofore enjoyed the
confidence and received the honors of the democratic
party.
While, however Mr. Wise considers the pow
er of the convention omnipotent, in the one or
the other case-that is not TO submit any part,
or submit the whole--his coadjutor Mr.. Douglas,
conceives and declares, that the idea that the
Lecompton convention, clothed with no other au-
thority than that which it derived from the ter
ritorial legislature could ordan constitution and
put it in force without the consent of Congress,
and in defiance and subverson of tho authority of the
territorial legislature established by Congress- n too
preposterous to admit of argument Mr.. Wise
gives TO the Lecompton convention all power Mr.
Douglas says that the convention had no other au-
thority than to collect, ascertain and mbody' the
will of the people of the Territory upon the subject
of admission, and then send memorial to Congress,
which that body would be at liberty to accept re-
iect From this the inference is irresistible that,
while both of these gentlemen opposing Mr. Bu-
chanan, their reasons for doing are ''preposte
| rousr aud ridiculous in the eyes Of each other
1t may not be asking too much OF an hon
est people TO claim for the President much
sagacity and patriotism for the course he has
recommended, especially as he is sustained by
ninety nine -hnndredtfs of the political organiza
ton to which he belongs, as for Messrs. Douglas
and WISE who differ SO widely in their for a
| common opposition One word more. Mr. Wise
atuoes his mistakes acts to sustain his pol
ICY which, under any circumstances, is objection
able, but much more in attempting to convict his
| own political friends of impreprieiy. Mr.. w says
that he proposed in his Tammauy letter that Con
gress should decide the question of fact but
fer it back to the territorial legislature for submission,
under territorial law, TO the whole Of the legal
voters and asserts that this was done both in
the case Of Wisconsin and of Michigan under
involving the principle Of this Of reference
and submission In the of Michigan Congress
never referred the question of submission at all =
As to Wisconsin and Iowa, which last perhaps Gov
Wise meant instead Of Michigan, Congress never
| imposed upon either of those States a condition Of
| submission. The convention in each State required
it; and such was tho sanctity with which Congress
held the acts of such conventions, that it was re-
quired of these States that they should comply with
| the requirements Of their conventions before
| they could he admitted. This error we corrected
once before, will be found in our number dated
December lG, 1887.
admitting STATE, Large vol S. p
| 14t.