Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1858-01-16
Ernm lhn cincinrn,i Enanirsr.
From thc Cincinnati Enquirer.
The Difference Between the
President and Senator Doug

Iue DlIIeTenCo B6JW6Gu INC
President and Senator DOUG
las.
A respected Indiana correspondent asks
us to Estate the real difference between the
views of the President and Mr.. Douglas on
the Kansas question" We shall endeayor
to do so, as we understand it.
Mr. Douglas and those who act with
him hold, in the first place, that the Lc.
compton Convention was an irregular |
body, the Legislature authorizing it having
no power to call it; and that such an
assemblage can only bo called into legal !
existence by an enabling" act of Con.
gress,
The President and those who act with
him hold that tho Lecompton Convention
was a regularly and legally constituted
asscmblage, authorized by the Legislature
of the Territory, which had the power to
call it, and, and direct the people to vote
for delegates, and, as consequence,
that its acts must be taken and held to be
legal,
In our opinion, the historical prccedeuts
favor decidedly the views taken by the
President. Gov. Walker himself sustains
the President on that point, as he distinctly
recognized the Convention as legitimately
called and organized. The very idea of
popular sovereignty is against the position
taken by Senator Douglas. When the
people of a Territory are, by act of Con.
gress, formed into a political community,
they possess, according to the principle OF
the Kansas bill, the authority to govern
themselves IN hieiy o,en acay, subject only
to the Constitution Of the Uniled States;
} and in that authority is the power TO call
, Convention and form q Constitution for
a State, when their population is sufficient
to justify it; otherwise the government Of
} the Territory would not derive its just
powers from the consent OF the governed. .
, In the second place, Senator Douglas
holds that the refusal of the Lecompton
, Convention losubmit the entire Constitution
5 is violation of the principle of popular
, sovereignty, as enuncated by the Kansas
act
The President holds that popular SOW
, ereignty docs not require that every law
by which people are to be governed
, should, before it binds them, be submitted
to them for their approval and that the
: submission, by the Lecompton Convention,
of the slavery question, is substantial
, compliance with the require ments of the
Kansas act.
Senator Douglas thinks that what the
Convention has done should be treated as
a nullity, and new Convention authorized
by Congress, which Convention shall be
required to submit their work to the people
, for approval.
The President thinks that the shorter
and more practical mode of settling the
difficulty and affording the people Of
Kansas an opportunity of forming theil
= own institutions, in their own way, is tc
= 8 admit Kansas under the Lecompton Con
r stitution, after which the people, in tn,
e capacity Of citizens of the State can in tn,
i language of their Constitution, at an,
l. time alter, reform or abolish their Con
e 'e stitution in such manner as they may thnl
lie proper.
s. The difference between the President an
at Mr.. Douglas, it will be seen, is not one @
+, principle /; it ssimply difference of opinio
n as to the best mode of arriving at tn
ly same point, which is that of affording til
It people of Kansas an opportunity Of formin
a. their own institutions in their own way
y and at the same time relieving Congres
X and the country at large of the agitatio
er and excitement that has 50 far attende
KS the Kansas question. They both agree
40 40 this, that no people should have constit,
y. tion forced on them against their will
II, They both, as do all Democrats, beliey
IS, in popular sovereignty, or selfgoyernmen
Is, but as to the manner of reaching il c
~ ~ applying it in particular case, they disa
he gree.
H0 -~~1--
~ Railroad Completion.