Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1858-03-24
Ga- We find in the Washing gton Union an

EN We mud IN the W ashIngton Cntoh an
able communication above the signature of
Union" in which the writer, one of the
most profound thinkers of the age, exposes
the sophistry indulged in by Judge DOUGLAS
in most convincing and mastery manner.
The writer says:
Permit me, through the columns of your
paper, to present short review of one or two
points in the speech delivered in the United
States Senate by Judge Douglas. on the 9th
! of December last.
! The sum and substance of his argument,
and the great point made by him, may he
stated in short thus
! That the Kansas-Nebraska act guaranteed to
the people Of Kansas the ri ght 10 regulate their
! domestic affairs in their own way and, there
! fore, the convention of deieSa ates elected by
the people Of Kansas having failed to sub
NIT the constitution made by them to Il vote
Of the people Of the Territory had acted in
contravenlIon of this provision, aud thus de-
MED to the people right guaranteed to them
by the act,
This is his premise and this his conclusion;
! or, rather, be aims to make the President by
. q false construction aud coloring OF his iu
structons to Gov. " aiGer, and of his mes
sage, assume both his premise and conclu-
sion and upon this he Duilds MS whole ar
sgument, alleging that both are granted, and
lis reasoning therefore conclusive.
It can make no difference 20 the ressoner
whence or from what source Mr.. Douglas
springs his argument, he alone is responsible
for its Logical tail ness ard integrity.
He assumes, therefore, that the Kansas
Nebraska act gave to the people of Kansas
the right TO regulate their domestic affairs In
their own way, aud affrms that the refusal OF
the Convention to submit the Constitution TO
q vote Of the people, is denial OF the lights
guaranteed to them by this clause OF the act.
las . logical proposition his premise is true
because it IS the simple language Of the act
itself; but, unfortunately for his conclusion,
it is not 4 sequence from his premise. lie
affrms nothing in his premise III regard K
the Convention nor the submission Of The
Constitution to popular vote, and yet frop
his conclusion, enc would suppose he had at
; firmed both In other words, his conclusion
is broader than his premise, or rather ha
. nothing 10 do with it, anu is what logIclan
would term non Scqulter
1 Had he assumed as his premise that tn
bill by its provisions required tho Convention
: to submit the Constitution to popular vote
/ then his conclusion would have been legitl
mate and proper, because legitimate sc
: ouepce from his premise. But had he mad
= such affirmation the facts of the bill woul
: have stared him iu the face to contradict hl
- assumption The KanSas- NeJrasite act con
tuinS no such Proristcn,
7 To expose the fallacy of this mode Of rea
CT soning let me submit one or two proposition
d in every way parallel to the one taken froI
the substance of Mr.. Douglas speech,
The constitution Of my State secures to N
> personal liberty and the exclusive right {
e personal property therefore, he who lmprl
at ous me by legal process for crime, or thl
in takes my property, dspriYes ne OF those COZ
g stitutional rights.
Again: The conatitution Of every Sta
, guarantees to the citizen the right of sel
he government; therefore. that State tegisl
en- ture which fails or refuses to submit Its e.
TO actments to vote Of the people denies the
. the right OF this constitutional provision !
!: The fallacy of such reasoning, its absu
a ~ sophstry, is too apparent too need any fu
ther clucidation aud yet, out of just su
It augmentation Judge Douglas has coustru
"a ted his whole speech; and some men ev
- seem to be snlitteu by his logic
Perfectly free to regulate their domes
Ia affairs in their own way" Might not the Pc
ple CT Kansas, under this provision Of t
at, lave elected their delegates to form
- Constitution, and Instructed them not to su
er- nit the Constitution to popular VOTE A
sts had they pursued such course, could \
Douglas charge that in such refusal the Cc
vention had violated this or any other prov
ion of the act? Surely not
If this be granted, here is an exception,
The people could absolve their delegates fr
this duty, and the exception but proves
absurdity of his position, and the iallacy
his argument; Tor if the act required
submission to DE made the people themsel
could rot a5solve the delegates from the
legations enjoined upon them.