New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-05-27

CENT.
|. Our esteemed cotemporary Of the Houma Ceres
copies in full our remarks upon an extract from the
New York Times, wherein It was stated that the
English Compromise Conference bill did actually,
although not in form precisely, submit the Constitu
ton Of Kansas to vote Of the people OF that Terri
tory for approval rejection, which tsntamonnt
to an absolute rejection Of the original application,
aud comments thereupon in this wise
The Crescent then admits that the Lecompton Con
stitution Is thus virtually submitted to the popular
vote that squster sovereignty is practically tri-
umphant and that Douglas has won the victory.
Now how Is i that the Crescent, which, II our
DRY serves Us light, was short time ago and while
the struggle was still pending in Congress- violent
in its denunciatons of Ctfenden, Marshall aud other
South Americans who went with Douglas, why
does not the Crescent reiteFate the same severe
anmadversions upon those who voted for what is
termed the English Compromised It is true our
esteemed cotempory deprecates the course Of those
who voted for the " Conference Bill which confess
eddy consecrates the principle commended for by Doug
las and Crttenden bat II strikes us as being rather in
the tone OF melancholy disappointment, than with
those fierce accents which thrilled through its edito-
rial thunder when it stigmatised ia common with the
large majority Of the Southern press those
ants as they were termed, who opposed Lecompton.
Does the fact OF the final bill having received the
support Of majority of Southern members make il
any less obnoxiouss No man OF sense can deny that
the Lecompton Constitution to the people
Q; Kansas and IL the principle Of popular submission
Is shroudsd in circumbendibas Of bribery the aisy
Of the principle is only made revolving by its assoc
ton with political cowsrdce and corruption. II had
been far, better for the South TO have boldly and
frankly acknowledged her defeat question which
should never hare been raised than 20 owe the seem
ing shoc of victory to miserable arti1oe. So Gen.
Quitman understood the question, and he has again
proved himself an honest man.
We think we can satisfy our worthy contemporary
that there has been inconsistency in course,
not even the shadow Of it, and at the same time
make some corrections of errors into which he has
no doubt inadvertently fallen. And to do this we
viii proceed straight to the point the nature of
the circumstances admit. In the first place, however,
the Ceres is mistaken in its intimaon that the Ores
cent was ever violent in its denunciatons OF Crit
tenden, Marshall, ETC. We are never !" violent ? in
our editorial course towards anybody. We do not
consider violence Of language becoming the editorial
profession On the contrary we think such practices
alone calculated to lower the dignity Of the calling
and to impair the influence of the press, without
being productive Of an iota Of good. We can speak
plain enough when case presents itself requiring
the employment Of unmstalable words, but we fiat
ter ourselves that degenerate into unbecom
ing and uncaledfor violence of expression And, in
regard to Messrs. Crittenden and Marshall, all we
have to say that they have, from the beginning up
TO the present moment warred against the honor and
interests and constitutional rights Of the South SO
far they involved in the Kansas controversy
in our deliberate belief But we have INDUCED in no
violent denunciations Of them and never expect to.
OF course, we frankly admit that the South is de-
eated on the Lecompton ISSUE and that Douglas and
company have /" won the victory There can be no
question Of the fact for the first application having
been made dependent upon the acceptance or rejec-
ton Of the land grant of the English BILL it
sary follows that the present Congress has rejected
the Constitution of Kansas There is no practical
escape from this conclusion. Dodging will not an
swer. If the voters Of Kansas refuse the land, the
Lecompton Constitution ceases to have any vitality,
and with it dies the only great principle for which
the South has been struggling from the start The
English bill puts the principle at stake n as ridicu
lous position as would be the assumption that the
safety of the mightiest steam frigate of war that
floats could be made dependent upon the impregna-
biity OF the smallest boat attached to it. The unim
portant Is made to gulph down the important without
straining OF inching. This may suit other persons
but cannot subscribe to the doctrines but assal
no mans independence or integrity, while we main
tain our own.
The reason why we have not attacked the South
ern delegation for voting for the English bill ought
to be plain and selFesident it seems to us. We be-
eve them to have been actuated by good and honest
motives. although we regard their action as faught
with fearful sacrifice of principle solely calculated
to do harm, and alone likely to bring disasters upon
the South. We doubt not it will be the harbnger of
fresh and aggravated insults and sggressious on the
part of the Abotionists. Having gained almost all