Daily national Democrat., 1858-12-29
| COMMUNICATED.
Inconsistencies of the President.


deemed impudent or presumptious if dare
comment upon or criticise few of the posi-
tions taken by the President in his last mes
sage, permit me, sir, in brief manner to
remark on few points in the message which,
after calm review, 1 honestly differ with
him upon, and some of which appear to me
to be inconsistent with themselves. First.
after reviewing the history of Kansas affairs,
he proceeds to say, chat the Convention pro
cecded to adopt Constitution providing for
the submission of the slavery question to a
vote of the People" (as he deemed that they
were in duty bound to do under the Kansas
Nebraska Act) lie further says that the
Lecompton Constitution was "unerceptionaI
in its general features" therefore fully COM
hitting himself to the support of that instru-
ment as constitution, endorsing it with all
its conceded enormities. In this it seems to
me he interprets the Kansas Nebraska Bill
to first place the power to adopt their funda
dental laws in the hands of the people, but
insists that they have the right to delegat te
that power away, which they did do (as he
says) by electing delegates to the convention
which framed that Constitution; yet by his
own construction, that convention still lacked
the complete power of a sovereignty, mas
much as it was necessary for them to submit
one clause (viz; the slavery question: to a
a vote of the people ere the same could be
considered to be their act. This certainly is
a strange amomoly-a very uncertain power
But let us follow him q little farther He
says: In the course of my long public life
l have never performed any official act which
in the retrospect afforded me more heartfelt
satisfaction" Than what? Why, his course
relative to Kansas. Is this SO? Immediate
ly following this assertion he says: Z" 1t is
true, that, as an individual, | had expressed
an opinion, both before and during the ses-
sion of the convention, In favor of submitting
the remaining clauses of the constitution. as
well as that concerning slavery, to the peo-
pie; but, acting in an official character,
neither myself nor any human authority had
the power to PREJUDICE the proceedings of the
convention and declare the constitution which
it had framed a nullity" This seems to me
to be ambiguous. 1t either means that, as
an official, he was compelled to do that which
his Judgment and his honest promptings of
heart rebclled against, or else it is shallow
evasion of facts; for, in what manner was
he compelled to PREJUDICE the acts of that
convention2 He did not recommend the ad
mission of Kansas under that constitution nm
til that instrument had been framed and las
he says) adopted. and sent on with its whole
Infamous history known not only to him but
to the whole world but, whilst it thus
leaves the reader in doubt, it establishes the
fact that James Buchanan, himself for some
reason, deemed 1t just, if not necessary, that
the whole constitution should be submitted
to the people, as claimed by Douglas and his
adherents, and certainly no supporter of his
would allow that he would favor indiuiduaI-
ty (as he says) a course which he deemed
either unnecessary or Illegal.
Again, he says: Practically considered,
the question is simply whether the people of
that Territory should first come into the I'm
ion and then change any provisions in their
constitution not agreeable TO themselves, or ac-
complish the very same object by remaining
out of the Union and forming another con
stitution in accordance oith their wiH." What
does this mean? Does it not mean that, by
some means, constitution may be framed
and adopted, and Territory received in un-
der the same that is not the act of the peo-
pie ? (for certainly no one would be insane
enough to say that people would enact a
law or adopt constitution gbich aoas not
agreeable to HemselgeS( He must mean to
be thus understood, for he further saws that.
after being received into the Union. then
must then form constitution II, accordance
'cith their aeiH, and this plan he deems the
best for several reasons, but fails other than
by inference to inform us with whom is vest
ed this power to thus adopt a constitution
that at least for time must govern an un-
willing people.
But again, he says: 1t is not probable,
in the present state of the case, that Third
constitution can be lamf'ully framed and pre-
sented to Congress by Kansas before its pop
ulation shall have reached the designated
number viz: 93,42O. Why not? Because
he says that it would be in violation of an
"Act of Congress-" viz: the English Bill
But, as farther reason. he says: During
the session of 1856, much of the time of Con
gress was occupied on the question of admit
ting Kansas under the Topeka Constitution
| Again, nearly the whole of the last session
was devoted to the question of admitting
Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution
Surely, it is not unreasonable to require the
people of Kansas to wait before making the
third attempt until the number of their in
habitants shall amount to 93,420" By this
it would seem that he advocated this course
toward Kansas as a species of punishment
for the past He then proceeds to recon-
mend Congress at an early day to pass an
act, which shall prevent the admission of
any Territory into the Union, as State, un.
til she shall have the number of inhabitants
of Congressional District, and applying
but says that this act should not be retros-
pective-it should not be brought to bear
upon "and exclude State which, acting
upon the past practice of the Government
has already formed its constitution. elected
its Legislature and other officers and is now