Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-07-24
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
FRIDAY ,InRN,N..==---== ==--===-----
-.. " NNi"H. JULY ~ lss3
WHO SHALL DECIDE UPON TuEC0ISrI
TUITION OE l., ,,v.,n,,
BY RITCnIE & n,,IS.v.Sn nSI,vI,,,~

( niDA1 MORNING, JULY 81 ~.
WHO SHALL DECIDE UPON TuE10IS,
TUITION OF KANSAS!'
The article in "7He South y u,a.r ,,,o .,,.
furnishes al apt illustration of the coptrnd;corv ~,
''o1s 10 "'oh The opposition is driven in ;ts and.
Vors 10 in"'niain the last resort of An ur,e,sh,o
non. Ignoring the fact that the Kspsas.N.I,.s., :,
''' was 'n'ehaeu 10 e'nbody principle of popul
anu constitutional righ that as sucb II w,s aa.,o,
leu ny southern men, and on thin ground c,,nr.n
ed Inc support OF the Northern Dsmocrscv az,
'''"'" n'" presents The measure in the Light of
mere agreenentmads between conflicting interests
''cn an assumption implies too grave a char
asalhst the loyalty and fair dealing of the sou,bs
Democracy TO psss unno,iced, or without renr.be
sion.
lhe Democratic Of the South have mads an esr,s
appear 10 thelr brethren Of the North they have a
Jured them by all the ties and "reminiscences Of In,
enduring communion in political sentiment n sso;
'ne es'a'.''nlhent OF general principle to secu
P"''''pa'1oh IN The benefits Of common territor
| ine Democrats of the North have answered the a,
pea ey successful maintenance of the princpls an
uPhed It IN spe Of the iercest fupatica nroscrn,o,
10 Inc ~hoie 6ruRt OF which they, alone, ware al,
ee'ed In the face Of these facts, il il TO be
'nat southern Democrats will submit to the eader.bi
VI ne '>0"ih, and admit the presumption. tbs
"h'ie STRIVING to effect mere compromise of erne
u'ehcy They were alluring The concurrence of part,
zahs at the North, hy show of mock enthusiasm ro
'he conservation Of princpel
Nor does this abnecation of pripciuls at NIL ono
'eeu IN 'e Object which it is intended TO illustrate
VIZ; 10 demonstrate the bad faith involved in ,b,
SUBMISSION of the Constitution of Kansas to popula
'a''hcafon. See how the argument proceeds:
Next TO the nonntervenlion of the Federal Gov
erh'neht IN framing the organic law OF o new State
''"'' 'tSM 81 ne scoph ot tAr t.risory 10 A,eyain
S"'" or" 'nstH"'t0%, ana 20 the equal right Of nd
mission Of saye States with tree States, stands III
agrOertelt that tic q'eslo";oj sa,e instinf.on, shat
0e Srbmtrd 10 rIa.s ot cotrrs defined by the Kan
sas act"
Inc tweny.third section Of the Kansas n ,,braska a
ae' Is Then quoted to show hat Congress pres
'ne quaiiicaons OF voters n the 4rS, eItsiscn, EN-.
powered Inc territorial Legislature to prescribe such
qaaHhca!'cns Ill subsequent elections, aud confined
the right OF suffrage ITO citzens of the United
'heir intention to becoas aucb and shall have taken
al oath to sappoSt tie Constitution of The United
States" And il Is further adiucod, ihat the sans
&C! limits :he legislative power Of the territory to
all rlghlful "subscia OF legislation consistent with
the ConAiu,ion oI the United States and the proyi
'ions OF this 1.-THE Kansas act"
And further:
a hoa tol .:.
ana place Tor tho Constitutional Convention 70 as.
'emo'e' has prescribed the qualifications of those
~ho eha vote for delegates. Ii has ..xed-us il nav
20 under tho Kansas act--tho period Il residence
*l'h'n The territory whia sA Le necessary to quail
~ VOTERS u ha5 pursued the section of the Kansas
aci, w;lch We have quoted, strictly. |; has not re-.
lulred that the Convention shall report Con
or ratification or rejection by tho people OF Kansas
Perhaps it may do 30 hereafter"
Such is the entire amount of faols adduced to
'roVe 10, o;y that in the absence Of any action by
he Legislature on the subject, the Convention cannot
gfifully submit Constitution for ratification or re-
ection by The people Of Kansas; but that in any case
lsither The Convention nor the legislature may right
ully extend The right Of suffrage beyond the mi,
dcpted for the election of delegates to tho Consi,u
ionnl Convention.
Before going into general cousie ;a::on of the
ues!ions involved, let us glance c. come of the ad
Missions quoted above. "Iho right Of the people Of
os ,hewr;ter of the article under consideration, re-
ognzs as the op's OF the Territory. 10 whom alone
he,onrs by fiual act to determine its organic III
titutons! Undcr any strictly Democratic acc-pth
ion of the :orm, the admission Just cited necessarily
mples RATIFICATION of the organic law ny popular
uCyrsss. Or does "1Hr Soaih" adost the doctrine
s,sly announced by Mr.. keitt OF South Carolina
ha, in any sense atsibutins sovereisnsy Pc"e does
,ot megp people, after all; it means C0"reHf'"" or
,,si,l.lurp: something superior to ihe people,
,yen though accidentally created by the people;
md that any direo. sttribution Of sovereignty
a ,onular surare, is vasary which fnds its sImlli'
uds nowhere but in the sentiments Gf French ked
1t may be remarked, IN passing
s, Mr. K.itts reference to French politics ls some.
what unfortunate, since his own exposition "l 'he pe
nocratc principle is identical with that Of sae auhe'
rents Of the Imperial dynasty who are accustomed 10
describe the present political sy'em OF France a. ine
ey,Lodimenl al <guJ.i =ed Democracy" Is such the
,oc,rine which "INc SontA" intends TO prolnulgate
Is this the issue upon which the opposition proposes
70 f.ht the Administration? But "1he So"'h' is
precluded, in this instance, even from the poor prV''
osof retreatng behind such doctrine, by lis own
admission that the agreement contained III inc
ebraska Act, contemplates "that the FueS'
,;on of State institutions shall be submitted to class
of rot'rs," &c.
A for another point, upon which "2hc South" so
,renuously inGata viz: "That the Legislature can
not extend the right of suffrage one hairs breadth
bs, ond the limits assigned it by the Kansas act
il seems here to cast disngeIGous lmputation.
The only restriction impoGed Oh Suffrage generally by
the ansas act, ia tho exclusion OF aliens who have
not taken tie nitiatory steps required by law to be-
coms citizens of the United States. No fair inter
orststion Of Governor Walkers avooacy in favor OF
Lo,o 6s residents can attribute to him the folly oi
asserting the right Of either Legislature or Coh'eh-
ton to disregard this restriction.
No mere description will suffice to render accurate
lv that part of the article under consideration when
rsfsrs TO the mode of ratification adopted in the case
or b. Constitution of Virginia 1t must be cited at
length. After quoting the acts of the Legislature
of Virginia providing for the ratification OF the Con
stitution, and prescribing the regulation OF sutirage
,c;d.n. thereto, "7He Scysth" continues
~ But This IeSbldtoH eSpi CSs'J
,bs nowsr OF the Legislature to define the rule o
ratification, aad euacts the law OF suffrage TO b.
fixed by the Convention. ~,
Whether the Legislature of Virginia possesse'
the power to enact an organic law in advance al IN
neonl., who could alone determine lts VALIDITY,
poibiup TO the question now before the country lha
was question between the people of Virginia , an d,
their Legislature. Though in our opinion Illegal ye
II oavs exercise 10 the wishes 0f large majority
,bs eitizsns Of virgnis-oltseIves amongst them
and any defect Of sSganic authority was .. cured b
ratification Of me Constitution. of which the ruie
sniFracs enacted by the Legislature was one "i t
farms, and thus there was never any formal retnor
strance against it. w.,
Rut in that case it not asserted that the Coz
veutiou had any right to submit the question to 10
people, or 10 define ths rights OF those "ho shou'
vote upon its ranaca'ion."
VIVA, does all this mean Does it mesn that tn
so;.la,ure had no rgh,ful power to submit the Coz
.ti,uon framed by thsCunvsntion, TO ratification
rs;ectiop by the people l-that such is the action
tho ,srislaturs, now complained OF as Illegal" an
,ba, in the absence of any act by the Legislature tt
X Al 4 Il