Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-11-10

How p N ~. HusrER:-The undersigned have
been appointed a committee, by a mseting OF the
Democratic citizens of Rockingham county, heio IL
ihia place on Monday last, to forward u you ne Ieeo
lutions adopted at said meeting, anu request Q TO
Spouse from you TO the same az your eafnes. eonre
nience. Enclosed YOU will find a copy OF the pro
csedincs of the meeting, embodying the resolutions,
and it will afford US pleasure to be the medium OF
making public your opinions IN reia'''n " 'ne quo'
lions involved. .a,;,
Yours, respectfully,
SAMUEL r. WALKER,l
JSo. H. WARTaANN. COMMITTEE.
NJ. II. HARRIS,
Z. A. STANDS,
LLoYD's, ESSEX Co. va.,}
October %, 1857.
Mr,sRs. SAMUEL I. WALKER, JOHN T. HARRIS,
JOHN r.. WARTMANN, M. IL. HARRIS, +. A.
STANDS. .;,,
ma the resolutions adopted by a Democratic meeting
in Rockingham, on the 18th October, with q request
that 7 would respopd to them. The subject matter
of these resolutions is 30 fully covered oy my ieusr
of the 10th of this month, TO the Hon. shelion f.
Leake, which was not published at the time OF your
meeting, that any other answer, on my part, is, per
hans. UNNECESSARY. But as there seems to be a dit
ference of opinion between us, with regard to your
fifth resolution, a farther explanation may De proper.
III I understand your resolutions, We agree IN tne
principle that the people of Kansas alone have the
right to form their State institutions according to
their own pleasure, provided they be Republican IN
character. extend, too, the Limitation upon
the power Of Congress-, in regard 10 the feJeouoh Oh
a State applying for admission, even fartner than you
do; for I maintain that upon this Issue It can raise no
question in regard to the Constitution, should 1t Dc
Republican in its character, if the people of the new
State, acting through their Convention, have
made and adopted il in the manner provided by
these, their authorised representatives. Bat from
your fifth resolution / dissent entirely. mat the
neonIe of Kansas have the same rights with
The peopls of any other State in this Union, with re.
TO the formation of their State Constitution, We
must all admit; that they can delegate 10 a CoHven'
called for this purpose, the same powers which
may be delegated by the people of any other State,
is also clear. That they might limit the power con.
in such u Convention by allowing them only to
form a Constitution to be submitted to the people at
for ratification or rejection, or that they
elect a Convention with a general authority
over the subject, can hardly be denied. 1t IL for the
people Of The Territory, about to become a state to
say in which of these ways they will constitute their
Convention. Such understand to be the intent and
purport of your third resolution, in which, with that
understanding, | cordially concur. If, then, the peo-
pie Of Kansas have these rights, the question arises
rs to what they intended by electing a Convention with
general powers, and without any limitation imposed
by themselves.
The practice of the States, and the reason Of the
case, both prove that it is to be treated as a general
of their sovereignty, under which the Con.
vention may submit the Constitution or not, for a
popular vote, according to its own views OF propriety.
IL the people of Kansas, acting as an inchoate State,
no limitation on the trust, it is not for any
third party, outside the Territory, to undertake to afix
it. II they can in one case, they might 10 all, and
"a il seems to me, might exercise the very
power which you 30 properly deny to it In your fourth
As has been we'll said, by a distinguished
of I Pennsylvania, Either this Convention
is clothed with sovereign power, or 1t is a guilty.
If il be a Legitimate Convention, it is the people who
speak through it; and it 10 for them to say what action
to be final in regard to the Constitution which It
To say otherwise, IN my opinion, 10 to limit
the power of the people of Kansas, whose plenary lu'
over this subject we all admit. But this
fifth resolution does not stop with requiring the applt
cation Of Kansas for admission as q State to be re-
i.cted, because the Convention did not submit the
Constitution for ratification by the people-it goes
much farther, and claims for Congress the power Of
prescribing who are to exercise the right OF suffrage,
when The people pass upon the question OF ratitying
their own State Constitution. Here it is 10 t0tidem
verbs:
"Resolved, That Kansas, in forming her Constitu.
ton, ought to submit the same to the bona fde IN
thereof, for adoption or rejection, and the
feilurs TO do 80 is in violation of the spirit and letter
the act creating her Territorial Government, and
ought to be returned, by Congress, to the residents oil
Kansas, for endorsement
Congress thus ulQcTthkto u soy U Ouy thol II
Constitution shall be submitted for a further vote, but
to whom. II, then, the Convention Of Kansas should
it's Constitution to a popular vote, but estao'
lish a qualification for the right of suffrage different
from that which you say Congress must require, the
State must be rejected, and the Constitution, although
thus ratified, is to be returned to the residents OF
Kansas for endorsement
The most significant act Of sovereign power Ia, per.
haps, the regulation Of the right of suffrage. and the
power over this subject must be exclusive, wherever
it resides. If Congress possesses it, then the people
the inchoate State cannot have it, and If the peo'
pe of the new State cannot say who are to pass upon
its own Constitution. then its equality with the other
States ia disparaged and destroyed. But this is moi
all If it's right to equal powers aud privileges with
the other States be denied, and il Congress can regu
late the highest of it's political rights, mean that Of
suffrage, what is 10 prevent il from regulating all the
other political rights and relations OF ite people
slavery included 7 If Congress may exercise this
right Of sovereignty overa people, in the very act Of
its State Constitution, WHAT to he the limit
70 il. mower? When we have admitted 90 much. by
what arguments, go far as Constitutional power is con.
cerned, can we resist an attempt 10 re.impose the Mis-
souri restriction over those Territories A restrio
ton which. it must be remembered, goes much farther
than the Wilmot Prov;so; for the latter applies only
to The people in a Territorial condition, whilst the
other is extended over them when they are acting az
the people Of the State. And what sort of suffrage ID
Congress here required to prescribe for the good PEG
ole of Kansas II il to be returned ito the residents
Of Kansas for endorsement" Who are the tres
idents of Kansas 7" May not aliens, Indians and
negroes, be included in that denomination How
too, can this resolution be consistent with the third
which preceded it in the seriesf II Congress may
prescribe the right Of suffrage for a people acting II
their highest capacity of sovereignty, that of forming
a State Constitution, and eay who shall pass upon it
how can 1--WE recognize the right of the people of q
in forming a Constitution for admission into
the Union, to establish such local policy as to them may
seem right and proper7" Surely, We do not %confound
the power of Congress to prescribe the right of suf
frsgs for a people acting in q Territorial capacity
with the power of Congress TO prescribe that right fol
those who are acting as the people of a State. in The
formation Of q Constitution.
Congress can make the organic act for the people
of a I Territory, but II has no such power in regard &c
the people of q new or inchoate State. 1t may pre-
scribe The qualifications Of the electors Of the Terri
torial Legislature, which calls the Convention to form
a State Constitution; but when that Convention ID
assembled, having been legally elected and constitu'
ted, it must be treated either as the representation Of
the sovereignty of the people, go far as the formation
and adoption of a Constitution is concerned, unless
the people themselves have prescribed otherwise in
the act creating it, or II must be treated as a nullity.
We must take the one horn or the other Of this di.
as II seems to me.
II may be said that no such conclusions are intend.
ed as those which l have drawn from the fifth resolu.
tion. l have no idea that there was any such design,
hut in INV opinion these differences are TO be drawn
from it. not only fairly, but necessarily. That it was
the opinion OF your meeting that the people OF Kan
sas onpbt themselves to do the things recommended
in that resolution, l do not doubt; but there is a wide
difference between what the people of a State, new
or old, should do. and what Congress can c~onstrain
them to do. The people Of Virginia, doubtless,
ought to do many things which Congress cannot
force them 10 do. But even il the fifth resolution
had been confined to a recommendation TO Congress
to reject the application Of tbs State for admission on
the ground that the Convention had not submitted
the Constitution for ratification TO the people, the
matter would not have been much helped; for, after
all, the two resolutions would have been nearly iden.
ticsl in principle.
Suppose that the people Of Kansas had elected a
Convention with the authority expressly delegated to
them TO form and adopt a Constitutions; suppose, far.
ther, that Congress in The spirit Of these resolutions. had
rejected the application for admission, and sent back
the Constitution, because it had not been ratified by a
final vote ofthe people; might not the people Of Kansas
we'll say, you have rejected our Constitution because
it was not ratified. as you afi I'm. by the people, now,
IA Won claim 10 be the Judges in this matter, you must