The Washington union., 1858-06-29
THE COALITION COPY EVEN The DLukDERs or
DEMOCRACY.

slavery question, which, while it imbodics a most
signal concession Of great principle long contend
ed for by the democratic party, yet involves con-
tradcton in terms which will have TO be reccnciled
before the policy proposed can be carried into cxe
cution.
The two great wings Of the coalition unite in de-
caring Rrst that the people Of the Territories shall
regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, aud
then i'll demanding that this shall be done in way
definitely prescribed from the outsidc-to wit, by
popular vote on their State constitutions.
We could not better illustrate the difficulties into
which this conflict of policy is to lead the oppos
tion than by referring to those which our own party
have encountered in regard to this very matter Our
Cincinnati platform cDjoined absolute nonintervcntion
in the affairs Of the Territories II, at the same time
maintained that the legally-cxprcssed decision OF
majority Of the people of the Territories on all ter
ritoral questions particularly that of slavery, should
DO final If this latter provision was intended to
commit tho party to tho declaration that consti-
tutions in the Territories should in all cases bc sub
nited to popular vote, it directly confiicted with
the preceding nonncrvcntion article OF the platform
which declared that the people Of the Territories
should be left free TO decide their affairs in their own
way Under this construction OF the latter article
Of the platform, the two declarations OF the party
amounted to this that the federal Congress, and tho
outside world in general, would not interfere in the
least particular to prevent the people in the Terrific
res from settling f6r own affairs in their own way;
but that they would tako the liberty Of commanding
the people of tho Territories to settle their affairs in
the way of a popular vote on thcir constitutions.
II this were tho true construction of tho latter
clause Of the Cincinnati platform, here the poll
oy of absolute nonintervcnton first laid down. and
thon tho policy Of arbitrary and absolute interven-
ton appended to it. Wo have no doubt that this
difficulty escaped the attention Of the trainers of the
was dismissed from consideration as unlikely or in
capable to produce any trouble or conflict in practice
The sequel has shown how vain was any such
surnisc; for the whole controversy which occurred
in the democratic party over the Lccompton con-
stution, arose from this very ambiguity of lam
guage in tho latter article of the Cincinnati plat
form that we have alluded to- Those who insisted
upon giving this article an Interpretation which
made it require tho authorities Of Kansas to submit
their constitution to popular vote, put two Ian
guages into the Cincinnati platform and the Difficult.
ty which arose, grow out of The fact Of one article
Of this platform declaring for absolute non-nerven
ton, whilc tho other declared for direct nteryen
ton.
This inconsistency in the democratic platform grew
out Of inadvcrtence, however, aud was not designed
to deceive the people Of the Union; for no such
controversy as that which arose in the sequel could
have been anticipated. But the adoption of this
ambiguity, secondhand by the opposition, after tho
clear demonstration they have had of tho diff
Guilty and trouble it may produce, cannot have
been by accident, inadvertence, or ignorance.
but must have been by design, and for tho
very purpose Of fraud. Their conduct in dropping
their opposition to these two excellent democratic
principles, flor excellent they each in itsef) is
complimentary. indeed, TO the democracy; and the
compliment is the more signa as it extends even to
our blunders and inadvertenoes; but we must pro-
test against tho copying Of what was an oversight
in our party for the purpose of employing il as
fraud.
While the democratic party did, under the ambigu-
ous construction of which the latter ofe two articles
we hayo mentioned was susceptible, involve itself
at Cincinnati in the inconsistency of declaring for
nonintcrvention, and III the Same breath Of inter
venns positively and directly to control terri
toral modes Of action in settling local institutions
yet nothing is false than the charge that thcy
violated their faith in respect to either Of these art
icles in applying them to the case Of Kansas.
Tho whole influence of the administration was
thrown last summer in favor Of submission of the
Kansas constitution to popular vote. The governor
Of the Territory (unjusi6ably it would seem, whom
we consider the spirit Of tho nonintcrventon policy
that had been formally declared by the party) made
an active campaign in Kansas in behalf of such
submission. 1t was known to ovcry man, woman,
aud child n Kansas that the President did desire tho
constitution about to be framed to DO submitted to
the popular vote and afterwards in his messages,
The President declared with emphasis and feeling his
disappointment at the non-submission. Nay, so do
cidedly, and as somo thought uniustifably, did the
President manfcst his dcsiro and use tho whole moral
influence of lis administration in behalf of the sub
mission that large aud powerful party in all tho
southern States, rose up iii remoDstrance against
him, and protested with tho bitterness Of de-
nuncistion against tho course he pursued ON this
question.
II tho decision Of this question Of submitting or
not submitting tho Lecompton conshtution had been
~ IN prca;dorf there IN c,,,