The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-12-03

question either rightly or satisfactorily"
Explicit and emphatic. Governor Walker
was sustained. The President openly commit
ted himself to the policy of submitting the Con-
stitution to the People. The Extremists of the
South complained of this, but the great body
of the Party in that section was gradually
brought to the same position. For months the
Richmond (Va.) Enquirer labored to show that
such policy was imposed by the principle of
the Kansas Nebraska Act, was required by the
fundamental doctrines of Democracy, was rec
ognied as the bond of union between Northern
and Southern Denccrats-was essential to the
existence of National Democracy-could not
be departed from by the South without bad faith
to its Northern alies-must be maintained, if
for no other reason, to insure safety to South
ern institutions, and defeat Black Republican
ism. October 9th, in long editorial, insist
ing that the Convention in Kansas ought to
submit the Constitution to the People, it argued
as follows
1t is useless to attempt to mislead the peo-
pie of Virginia on this point. They have been
too thoroughly taught in the school of self gov.
eminent. 1t would have been suicidal act
for any member of our Constitutional Conven-
ton of 1922, even to have proposed the
proclamation of our existing Constitution, scith-
out precious ratification 6ya cote Of the people
Such an act, on the part of member of that
Convention, would have secured his political
humiliation as efectually as if he had seriously
submitted resolution declaring the gentleman
who then held the gubernatorial chair, king
of Virginia by the grace of God, and by virtue
of the Constitution
"The Kansas-Nebraska act has placed the
people of a Territory applying for admission as
a State on the same footing, in this respect,
with the people of State. 1t was for a long
time considered by many, that the form and
substance of such Constitution was matter
for the revisal of Congress, apart from the un.
disputed duty of that body to reject Consti
tuition containing antirepublican provisions.
1t may be that the prevalence of this theory
is sufficient to account for the carelessness with
which Congress has repeatedly approved Terri
torial Constitutions, without a prior resort to
some sufficient means by which to determine
the wishes of the people, respectively, of the
Territories. However, Congress never did ven-
ture to dictate the form of Constitution. In
many instances it resorted to the insufficient
means of satisfying the wishes of the people by
accepting Constitution submitted by mere
handful of the people assembled in Convention.
In other instances, the work of Conventions,
irregularly and illegally assembled, was accept
ed and ratified by act of Congress. All of these
instances constitute abuses of power more or
less injurious to the people Of the Territories !;
and this view of the subject has been at last
adopted by Congress itself. The KansasNe-
braska act has finally declared that the General
Government is not authorized to interfere in
the formation of the Constitution of Territory
applying to become State. Suppose that the
Kansas N ebraska act had proceeded no further
than this, where then would the Constitution
making power be found? Congress had not
interposed to delegate the authority which it
denied Its own competency to exercise, either
to the Territorial Government, or to any other
municipal body. The right, then, to form a
Constitution for Territory, could exist nowhere
at all, or must remain with the people of the
Territory. As if to place this doctrine beyond
the possibility of doubt, the same act of Con-
gress provides, further, that the people of each
Territory shall be left perfectly free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way Yet, in the face of this enactment, Mr.
Hunter assumes the position that a Constitu-
tional Convention in Kansas may (even without
power to that effect, expressly delegated by vote
of the people) enact Constitution for the Terri
tory OF Kansas, with or without the ratification
of the people, as the Convention itself may de-
eide. Thus, the Senator makes the Conven.
ton supreme, depriving the people of the power
to form and regulate their domestic institu-
tons in their own way and placing those
institutions under the irresponsible control of
the Convention. Wehave no hesitation in saae
iaa that nasA.-a1 sasr-z'coJas1d act of ats lost
recommendation. That act contains three prom.
"a loc4 Al
promise, prohibiting Slavery north of $50 3OI.
the repeal of the Louisiana 'aw, which estab.
lished and protected Slavery south as well as
north OF the same parallel of latitude; and.
huaily, the assertion of the right of Popular
Sovereignty IN the Territories of the United
States. The necessity for the first of tbese has
been superseded by the decision in the bred
Scott case; the second was an unnecessary
invasion OF the interests of Southern slayahold.
ers, which destroys the practical effect of the
decision in the bred Scott case: the third ia
the only provision from which the country NAV
hope to reap solid advantage. If is to be
so tnterprn'ted as to deny, instead of offrmino.
popular right, under q forced construction of
sovereignty, securing the practical exercise of
sorereignty to an etectiUe Oligarchy, then the
h9nsds oct IS left deUOid Of single redeeming
feature.
The immediate and practical effect of such a
perverslon OF the law, especially at this moment.
would be intellectually disastrous to the South
mere ls but one inducement which can cause
the convention IN Kansas to withhold the Con.
sntutlon from popular ratification, and that is.
a fear Test the Constitution naay not be apDroyed
6y popular oote. Thus, such an omission
'0ou1d indicate nothing less than an intention
10 prest TIE Constitution-making poper from q
mG1oruy OF the people. And, scithom reserca
t,of, zoe boldly denounce any such ottempt as
illegal and anti-rep~6lican."
Why multiply words or quotations 4? The
position of the whole Party was distinctly
taken : tie Convention must submit the Cosasti.
ton to fair popular pote.
What has that Convention done Trampled
upon this demand. 1t has not only refused to
submit the Constitution to fair popular vote,
but takes measures to compel so far as it could,
vote In Its fsvor-an outrage unprecedented.
1t has not only disregarded the doctrine of Pop.
uiar Sovereignty, but CONTEMPORARY violated
It, 1t has go framed the question to be submitted
to the People, that they must either vote for the
Constitution, or not vote at all. Nor have they
any more liberty on the Slavery Question itself.
The Constitution will not allow them To vote
Tor or against Slavery, without at the same time
voting for the Constitution. No matter how
much the Pro Slavery or the Ant;-Slavery man
may dislike the Constitution, he must swallow
it all, or be Invested of the right to say whether
the new State shall be slaveholding or free.
Considering the pledges of Governor Walker
and the Administration, the declarations of the
Washington Union Richmond II