The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-13

dsoonfinuoa with TIE oxcspSac0 On ueas ApscoazD
Dessns) all agencies throughout tho country, and
that with these two sxcspons, collections win be
oognised by this oOe by pesons claiming 70 70
the Union. Ap 25-n
THE SOUTHERN oUTcRY AGAINST "sUBMIs-
SION"
The word " submission is in i'll repute at tbs
South. 1t touches chronic silment of the southern
understanding. 1t excites morbid action in the
southern mind. Woe to the southern politician who
incurs the ugly name of submssionist Woe to the
public measure that is unlucky enough to be de-
proverb tells MS, 1t is better to hang dog at
than to give him bad name. Many blameless
man has been politically slaughtered at the South by
that executoner's axe of partisan epithets-' sub
missionist''
A contemporary in Alabama is very Robespiere,
Marat, Danton. in his of this terrible epithet
single head at time does not serve his wrathful
purpose. He erects guillotine he inserts this
dread blade Of epithet in it, and he ruthlessly
decapitstes every southern man who voted for the
conference act for the admission Of Kansas into the
Union. 6ubmssionists were they, and their claret-
blood is made to water the soil which they betrayed
Not mothers son Of them il spared-savs Davis,
Harris, and Ricaud of Maryland, Marshall, Under
wood, and Crittenden, Of Kentucky, on one side of
the House with Quitman and Bonham on the other.
We fear our contemporary has acted rashly in this
matter We cannot think that all the southern del
egates were submissionists, save those that have
been excepted from his fearful auto dste. We fear
that he has COMPOUNDED the name with the thing,
and that he has mot distinguished between the cpl
tibet and the crime. If this be so, what sad piece
Of work has he d0nef What host of Banquos has
he murdered, and what flock Of ghosts win haunt
his steps and his dreams all the remaining days Of
his life. Our contemporary is Of tender con-
science and Of nice repugnance to wrong doing,
as his righteous anger against the submssionsts'
proves what, then, must be his remorse for the
wholesale slaughter he has been doing, when he
shall discover the injustice of his conduct2 @
Our cotemporary's idea is, that the Conference
Act submits the Lecompton constitution to popular
vote in Kansas; and it is this charge that he
tries convcts, and guillotines almost the entire
southern delegation in Congress-, as submissionists
His morbid antpathy to s,tbmssson, to the word to
the idea, has made very Jefries of him in his trial
and execution of all these men.
Now, we venture mildly TO suggest to our cotem-
porary, and to all who are Of his way of thinking,
that his idea s wrong, and that there has been no
submission in the case either Of Lecompton, or by
the South. The Lecompton constitution is not SUBJ
mitted to popular vote in Kansas by the confer
ence act. That is our proposition, and the con-
verse of it is the proposition Of our southern
contemporaries who grumble and rebel at the act
The ISSUE therefore, is very simple one between us
Il tho Lccompton constitution is not submitted to
the popular vote in Kansas then there has been no
concession Of principle the part Of southern mem
bers, and they are not submissonists, as they are
denounced to be by their southern assaants.
We appeal to the record. We shall let the con-
ference act itself explain precisely what it does sub
init to the popular vote Of Kansas. 1t provides in
terms that the question of admission with the follow
ing proposition in lieu Of the land ordinance framed
at Lecompton be submitted to vote of the people Of
Kansas That is the very language Of the act The
"qaeson Of admission and the proposition in re-
gard to lands, are the things submitted to popular
vote, and nothing else.
The submission of these propositions was not
mere makeshift; but they were submitted from
the necessity of the case. No State formed out
of our public domain was ever admitted into the
Union without previous submission, by the federal
government to the State of some proposition in re-
gard to the public lands, as condition of adj
mission The right Of eminent domain belongs TO
the sovereignty Of State. In erecting Terri
tory into sovereign State, Congress necessarily
parts with it's right Of eminent domain in the pub
lie lands embraced within the State boundary
retaining only the fee simple. The right of eminent
domain carries the right Of taxation and of condemn
ing lands to the of the State Hence the necessity
resting upon Congress, in transferring the right Of
eminent domain, to make conditions in the nature of
contract with the State for the protection of its
fee-simple interests in the public lands bargain
between Congress- and State is necessa-
ry, in all cases, before Congress can safely admit
the State; and it takes two to mako bargain
Accordingly, the Lecompton convention, on behalf Of
the new State of Kansas made proposition Of this
sort to Congress in an ordinance accompanying it's
constitution This proposition altogether unusual
and unprecedented and Congress could not accept it,
Congress therefore rejected that proposition, and
made one on part to Kansas agreeing to admit her
into the Union in the contingency Of her accepting
the ordinance which it proposed
How this land proposition of ConorAs~ .hor,a