Daily national Democrat., 1858-08-22
TeohnIcaIitr LtnaIcY.

Technically Ltndiey.
Charles Lindley, Independent .Lecompton
candidate for District Judge, has issued an
d" Address to the voters of the Tenth Judi
cial District, in which he argues the Lecomp
ton side of the Kansas question exactly as
we would expect a mere technical lawyer to
do it. Mr. Lindley is great on techniealities,
but he never launches out into broad princi.
pies He argues this Lecompton question
Just as he did tie Constitutional Convention
question in this State. Our Constitution
had declared, in plain language, that, in or
der to call Convention for changing that
instrument, it must appear that majority
of all the votes cast at general election
are in favor of calling it. A proposition for
calling such n convention was submitted to
the people in 1857. A small minority voted
for it, but the great majority, reading the
plain language of the Constitution which
means that not to vote at all on the PROPOSE
ton is ,quivolent to voting against it, did
not vote on the question. After such gen
eral understanding all over the country,
that the proposition was lost, and after such
clear manifestation of the will of the peo
Pile against having convention, MIR. Lindley
had the hardihood to say that the majority
were bound by the act Of the minority, and
that Constitutional Convention ought to be
called, whether the people wanted it or not
While the question was before the Legisla-
ture of 1858, who were debating whether to
regard or disregard the will of the peo-
pie, Mr. Lindley was mainly instrumental in
getting up meeting of the Marysville Bar,
for the purpose of sending down to the Leg
islature an expression Of opinion from this
quarter. His style, of argument at the meet
ing was similar to that in his Address on Le-
comptonism, but the meeting overruled him,
and the expression was against his narrow
and contracted technical constructions. The
Legislature, as it proved were also against
the same style of reasoning, and concluded
to let the people have their own way. 1t is
highly proper that the same man, and the
same class of men, who were in favor of the
minority ruling in California should be in
favor of the minority ruling in Kansas.
Mr.. Lindley is actually so fond of techni
calities, that he would rather take for his
guidance the rush.light of a technicality, at
any time, than the sunlight of a great truth
When it is known to the whole nation that
the Lecompton Constitution was no act of the
people of Kansas, but that they protested
against it by a vote of ten thousand MAORI
ty, he turns from the broad blaze of this in
controvertible fact, and goes cropping around
with tallow candle, among the rubbish OF
old withered legal constructions, to see
whether the Lecompton Constitution could
not be made to appear all right technically
What kind Of craftsmanship is this Woulc
You try the rights and liberties of the Amer
can people by any such miserable standard
Ought it not to be sufficient, that the peopl,
HAVE SPOKEN, and signified unmistakably
their appreciation or disapprobation of what
is before them for their decision? Such i
our conception of the rights of the American
people, and such is the conception of tn,
great Douglas Democracy of the country
The whole world knows that the people o
Kansas refused to recognize the Lecomptor
Constitution and had nothing to do with get
ting it up, and that is sufficient for us They
have signided their will in this matter, too
IN their own 'Oay, and that is what the Kan.
sasN ebraska Bill said they should do II
the tribe of Lilliputian statesmen and tallow-
candle constructionists are not satisfied with
the manner in which it has been DONE we
suppose they will have to fret it out