The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-11-10
IAorD's Essex cousrr, (yirginia,l

j
fine resolutions adopted by democratic meeting in Rock
iham ON the 10th October, with request that would
nnd to them. The sujectmattcr OF these resolutions
40 fully covered by my letter OF the 10th OF this month
N the Hon Shelton h. Lelke, which not published
II the time OF your meeting that any other
, mart X perhaps unnecessary. But, as there seems
10 be difference Of opinion between MS with regard to
YOUR fifth resolution, further explanation may be proper
understand your resolutions agree in the princi
ne that the people OF Kansas alone have the right to
ioun their State institutions according to their own
neasre provided they be republican In their character
extend, too, the limitation upon the power Of Con
oess In regard to the rejection of State applying for
mision even further than you do, for maintain that
upon this it raise question IN regard to the con-
,ion should be republican in its character the peo
Ole of the state acting through their convention nave
made and adopted il la the manner provided by These
thsr authorized representatives. But from your hith
resolution dissent entirely That the people oi huhsas
have the same rights with the people OF any other state
in this Union with regard to the formation OF Their ole
constitution we must all admit that they can delegate
10 convention called for this purpose the same powers
which may be delegated 10y the people OF any other STATE
also clear; that they might limit the power conhded
in such convention by allowing them only to form u
constitution to submitted to the people afterwards for
tihction rejection, that they might elect con-
yention with general authority the subject can
hardly bc denied 1t is for the people of the Territory,
about to become alSate to say in which OF these ways
they will constitute their convention. Such understand
t, be the intent and purpor Of your third resolution IN
which, with that understanding, cordially concur ii,
arises us to what they intended by elecng convention
with general powers, and without any limitation imposed
BY theinselrest
The practice of the States and the reason Of the
both prove that it Is to be treated general delegation
Of their sovereignty, under which the convention may
submit the constitution not for popular vote, &C
cong to its views OF propriety II the people OF
Kansas acting inchoatc State imposed no linta-
ton the trust IL Is not for any third party outside the
Territory to undertake to alix it, If they can IN one
,se they might in ALL and Congress- II seems to me,
might exercise the very power which you SO properly
deny to it in your fourth resolution AS has been well
said by distinguished statesman Of Pennsylvania,
either this convention Is clothed with sovereign power,
OF it is nuty ii it he legitimate convention, it is
the people who speak through it, and it is for them to
say what action Is TO be final in regard to the constu-
ton which forms TO say otherwise in my opinion is
To limit tho power of the people of Kansas, whose plenay
jurisdiction this subject all admit. But this
fifth resolution does not stop with requiring the appet
ton Of Kansas for admission MS State to DO rejected,
because the convention did not submit the constitution
or ratification by the people 1t goes much further, and
claims for Congress the power of prescribing who are to
exercise the right Of suffrage, when the people pass upon
the question OF raying their own State constitution
Here il is in otio,fa rerbis.
'.Rcsacod That Kansas, in forming her constitution
ought to submit the same to the bona de inhabitants, there
Of for adoption rejection and the failure to do is in
violation OF the spirit and letter Of the act creating her
territorial government, and ought to be returned, by
Congress- to the residents Of Kansas, for endorsement
Congress thus undertakes to say not only that the con-
IT, then the convention OF Kansas should submit its
utution 10 popular vote, but establish qualification
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 is perhaps,
the regulation of the right of suffrage and the power
this subject must be exclusive wherever it resides II
Congress possesses it, then the people of the inchoate
State cannot have and If the people of the State
cannot say who are to pass upon its own constitution,
then its equality with the other States is dsparaged and
DESTROYED But this is not all If its right to equal pow
and privileges with the other States be denied and if
Congress regulate the highest of its political rights
mean that Of suffrage what is to prevent it from regu
ang all the other political rights and relations Of its
people slavery included If Congress may exercise this
right sovereignty over people, in the very act of form
mg its State constitution what is to be the limit to its
power! When we have admitted 70 much, by what ar
gnents far constitutional power is concerned can
We resist an attempt to reimpose the Missouri restriction
those Territories IA restriction which, il must be
remembered goes much further than the Wilmot provi
for the latter applies only to the people in territorial
condition, whilst the other is extended over them when
they are acting the people Of the State. And what
sort Of suffrage is Congress here required to prescribe for
the good people Of Kansas II is to be returned ITO the
residents OF Kansas for endorsement Who are the
residents Of Kansas May not aliens, Indians, and
negroes be included in that denomination How. too,
can this resolution be consistent with the third which
preceded IN the series II Congress may prescribe the
night OF suffrage for people acting in their highest ca
ton and say who shall pass upon it. how eve rccog
Mise the right OF the people Of Territory in forming
constitution for admission into the Union to establish
such local policy to them may right and prop
err Surely, do not confound the power of Congress
prescribe the right Of suffrage for people acting in
fotd capacity with the power Of Congress to prescribe
that right for those who acting the people of
state in the formation Of "a constitution.
Congress make the organic act ior the people of
Territory, but it has such power in regard to the pco-
pie Of new inchoate State. 1t may prescribe the
publications of the electors Of the territorial legislature
which calls the convention TO form State constitution
but when that convention Is assembled having been le
ay elected and constituted it must be treated either as
The representation Of the sovereignty of the people so far
the formation and adoption of constitution Is con-
erne unless the people themselves have prescribed
Otherwise in the act creating IT, or 1t must be treated as
nulbty. We must take the horn or the other of
'hs dilemma as II seems to me-
II may be said that such conclusions intended
nose which have drawn from the fifth resolution.
have no idea that there was any such design but In my
opinion these differences TO he drawn from it, not only
ary, but necessarily That ii the opinion of your
meeting that the people of Kansas ought themselves to
TO the things recommended IN that resolution do not
doubt but there Is wide difference between what the
people Of State new old should do and what Con-
ges can constran them TO do. The people Of Virginia
doubtless ought to do many things which Congress can
not oce them TO do But II the fifth resolution had
en confined to recommendation to Congress to reject
Tie application of the State of admission the ground
mat the convention had not submitted the constitution
M ratification to the people the matter would not have
Oen much helped for, after ALL the two resolutions
would have been nearly identical In principle.
suppose that the people OF Kansas had elected con-
hon with the authority expressly delegated TO them TO
fm and adopt constitution suppose further, that