The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-11-26
From the Richmond (Va) South
SENATOR HUNTERS POSITION IN THE KAN
SAs CONTROVERSY.

The opinions announced by Senator Hunter.
In his recent letters on the issues involved in
the Kansas controversy, are entertained by an
overwhelming majority of the Southern people.
His adversaries are well assured of this fact.
and, unwilling to hazard their own destruction
IN an attack upon an impregnable position.
they have recourse to the commonplace expe.
dents of discounted belligerent Thew en-.
deavor to cover their retreat in cloud of dust
and to divert attention from their object by fc
titious demonstrations.
But that Is not ALL They misrepresent the
views OF Senator Hunter, in the hope of gaining
an advantage by placing him in false position.
Now, we intend to expose this subterfuge. We
are resolved that the apo!ogists of Walkers
usurpations shall stand before the world in
their true character, and take the responsibility
of an avowal of their opinions.
But first let US put Mr.. Hunter right before
the people of Virginia. Is it true, as his op
ponents represent, that he resists submission
OF the Constitution of Kansas to popular vote
of the Territory? We have 10 means of ascer.
tanning his opinions which the public do not
equally possess, and we want none other. His
recent letters are sufficiently explicit in the
statement of his position. What is their testi
mony?
Senator Hunter avows his allegiance to the
N
other words, he declares himself champion of
the doctrines of State equality and non. inter
0ention. He maintains that Kansas is entitled
to the same independence in the organization
OF Its Government that has been guaranteed to
the other States of the Confederacy; and as a
maj Ority of them have been admitted into tbe
Union without the formality of popular vote
on their Constitution, he contends that Con-
gress cannot justly deny Kansas the same priyi
lege. He contends that the principle Of non
intervention, to which the Federal Government
Is committed, would be violated by an attempt
on the part of Congress to coerce the people of
Kansas into the adoption Of particular mode
in which to develop their institutions. He
maintains that the Convention, being fairly
chosen and duly accredited, represents the in
cipient sovereignty of the Territory, and that its
acts are valid and conclusive, without anv other
tormalty; that if this Convention, to whom the
citizens have intrusted the organization of q
State Government, decline to submit its work
to popular vote, Congress has no authority to
reject Its application for admission into the
Union; that if Congress were to reuulse Kan.
sas from the Union for this reason only. It
would destroy the equality of the States eStab
lish the principle Of Federal intervention, and
surrender every advantage gained for the South
by the repeal OF the Missouri restriction. Upon
Shese RrOunuo Senator hunter takes his stand
upon these grounds, and upon none other. does
he want the endorsement of the Democracy of
Virginia.
Every candid person will observe that Sepa-
tor Hunter neither expresses nor implies anv
opposition to popular vote on the Constitu.
ton of Kansas. Indeed, he carefully reserves
his opinion on this point, and for two good and
sufficient reasons first, because it is matter
exclusively within the power ard discretion of
the Convention and, secondly, because he
wants that fullness and accuracy ofinformation
in regard to the affairs of Kansas, which is 90,
sential to an intelligent Judgment on the sub.
ject. The Kansas Nebraska bill leaves Il IN
the people of the Territory to determine their
institutions; they have delegated the trust to q
Convention of Representatives, without condi.
ton or limitation and Senator Hunter claims
no authority to restrict the perfect freedom Of
their discretion, or to contest the VALIDITY of
their action. On the contrary, he is ready TO
acquiesce in their decision, even though it re.
suit in the adoption of an Anti-Slavery Consti.
tuition.
This, then, is Senator Hunters position: he
faithfully adheres to the letter and spirit of the
Kansas ebraske act, and resists any encroach.
ment on the independence of an inchoate State.
He opposes Federal Intervention, no matter
what the plausible disguise it may assume for
the moment, and asserts the largest liberty of
action for the people. Are these opinions OBJ.
noxious to the principles of Virginia Democra-
cy? We leave the issue with Democratic
Legislature.