Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-10-27


ment he did more to discourage the introduction OF
slaves into Kansas, than any intervention the part
of Gov. Walker could possibly have effected. We
have not wished to arraign Mr.. Hunter for this vote.
We are still inclined to believe hatitw sn act more
OF omission, than Of commission, on his part. We
know that the Was hurried through, and that
many Southern men were committed to its support
through want only of mature consideration. But
though the Democracy of Virginia may be persuaded
TO forgive this vote, Mr.. Hunter ought 10 be advised
that they will never be persuaded to endorseit.
AS TO Governor Walkers conduct, We have to re-
peat our previously expressed views. Gov. Walkers
expression ofopinon to the unfavorabe adaptation
OF the territory to the introduction Of slavery may
have been impolitic. But the osensble motive which
induced it, the only motive which can in fairness
attribute TO him, was that of desire to suppress uu
lawful efforts on the part OF the antielsvery party
by persuading them of the uselessness of such efforts
Can Mr. Hunter deduce from his language or hi;
action any other fairly dedueed motive7 II so, the
Senator has failed to explain his discovery 10 the pub
lie. And yet, he implicitly asserts that the Governor
of Kansas did "attempt to influence the decision o
the people of that territory, upon this question Of
slavery" II Gov. Walkers expression of opinion
was not mere attempt to suppress unlawful action
but attempt to influence the decision of the people
then Gov. Walker committed gross improperly,
which the President has no: chosen to rebuke by de.
priving the subordinate Of his commission Such
being MIR. Hunters opinion, does he propose to hold
the President accountable for thus countenancing
Gov. Walkers conduct Or does the Senator con
pob fInis IN baman1
rejection of his nomination when his name shall be
presented to the Senate and yet too unimportant
render his retention in office matter OF complain
against the President Or does Mr.. Hunter propose
to sustain the course of the President by voting &c
ratify Gov. Walkers nomination! Which of the
three courses does the Senator propose TO adopt
We are forced also to differ from Mr.. Hunter in tn,
view, expressed by him, that if the Convention itsel
wac legally constituted and elected, the question o
submitting their work to the people for ratification
was one of which that body had jurisdiction alone.
The act which called the Conv ention into beng--th,
Kansas Nebraska act-does require final ratifca
ton by the people," 1t provides that the people
Kansas shall be left free to form their own Constitu
ton, when applying for admission as State. II
deed, Mr.. Hunters own language repeatedly admit
this: "aecordingy, a bill was passed upon the prin
cpe of noninterventon, in regard to slavery. go ia
as the General Government concerned, ant
which left that whole subject mithin the control Of N
people of those territories, when they should app
| for admission as States" Here we have the admis
sion that the very act which interviewed to repeal
law protecting slavery in Kansas, leaves the whol
subject within the control Of the people,, TO be exel
cised in the adoption of their Constitution. Again:-
"The sole hope for accomplishing so happy result
depended upon submitting this question Of SLAYER
10 the people of these territories. when they came
form their Constitutions as States.' "Wth the dec
SION Of the people themselves, go far the character
the new States was concerned, the Democratic part
of all sections declared they would be satisfied"
cannot be rightfully contended that the action of
Convention which refuses to submit its work I
popular ratification, is equivalent to "submHt,ne
the whole subject to the people," "to the people them
selres" Such refusal would remove the formatio
of their Constitution from the control of the pet
pe."
Such refusal would be in violation OF the Kanss:
Nebraska act. More than that, it would violate th
fundamental principle of Democratic Republcanisu
The Sovereignty Of the people. In Mr.. Hunters ow
language, to abandon the principle I" of the right
the people of each State to determine the chsracte
of their own domestic institutions without prejudic
| to their claim OF admission into the Union," "by
retrograde movement, would be an act of felo de
in the party, and not merely folly, but crime fc
| which posterity would never forgive" the Democrat
party. 1t idle to urge that this right has been dis
regarded in repeated instances We know that th
Constitutions Of Territories, applying for admissio
as States have been adopted without popular ratit
cation; and it is not difficult to point to instanc
in which such Constitution has been adopted, eve
without the Intervention Of illegally constituted TIE
ritoral Convention.
But no party will now attempt to maintain rt
spect for some Of these precedents, and others az
eIcussble on the ground OF popular acquiescenc'
In the latter instances they thus adopted will
out complaint from any portion Of the people imm'
diaely interested simply because there was no gree
dividing question to be adjusted.
No such precedent can be properly applied to tn
case now under consideration. The people of Kal
sas are divided on question of high Importance
They are unwilling to permit this question to 90 b
default. II was TO satisfy their urgent and rghtf
demand on this subject, that the Governor Of Kanss
gave the assurance which has been the source
such unwarranted complaint. Whether he sdopte
the most prudent or polite means by which to rel
der this assurance, We are not called upon to dete
mine. But that he violated no duty in attempting
| guard the right Of the people from the prosperity
possibility of an invasve encroachment on the pa
Of their delegates assembled in Convention, is po,
ton from which we cannot be driven. Moreover, v
repeat, that the circumstances OF the case may
such as imperatively TO demand that Congress cha
| reject Constitution which has not been adopted b
] popular ratification. Take the instance now in ham
We are informed by q Virginian who has cast his Il
| in Kansas, who has risked his all for the pr'
slavery cause there, and now playing promineI
part in the politics of the territory, that although ii
antisavery party have majority in the territory ri
the lump" the districts have been so divided as
give the pro.savery party q majority in the Legisl'
ture and in the Convention. Suppose that our info
mant is himself correctly informed-would Congress
with this state of facts placed before them, admit tn
territory as State, under Constitution which ha
not been submitted TO popular ratification Woul
not such act, on the part Of Congress, constitute
fraud on the people of Kansas
we CdllLUt uuucIctduu lluutci o o'o"o'
ignorance as to the Presidents opinion on this sui
ject. That opinion has been fully expressed in th
Silliman letter. And We are equally unable to uI
preciate the position assumed by the Senator as
the inpossbity of practical issue arising betwee
the President and those entertaining different opiI
ions on these questions. There are two posso
eventualties which might present practical is'ues-
The one is the ratification or rejection by the Senate
of Governor Walkers nomination. The other SUI
poses an attempt on the part of the Constitution
Convention of Kansas "to limit the power OF tn
people 10 form the State Constitution according
their own pleasure" by presenting to Congress
Constitution withheld from popular ratification
For all effectual purposes, then, except the EXPIRE
sion of some abstract views which we cannot al
prove, Mr.. Hunter still remains silent He e1press'
neither ennroysl nor disapprova of the views an