Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1857-11-17
we remain
IIUNTFR.s REpLY. y

Messfs, SAM'L. Z. WALKER. IoHS
HARRIS, JSo. III. WARraAES,t II. III.
HAhRIs, D. A; STANDS:
Gentlemeli: / have received your Lett
tor. elielesing me- the resolutions adopted
|byEa Democratic mcetingin Rockingham
on the 10Th October, withta request that
I wauld respond 70 thema The subject
matter ofthese resolutions Is 50 fullycoyt
cred by my lettar Of the 10Th ftlfis
month. ~ the Hon. S. II Leake, which
was mot published Al the time Of your
meeting. that any other answer, oil nj
part, is, perhaps. unnecessary. But Az
there seems to be difference Of opinion
between US with regard to tile 9Th reso4
tuition. q farther explanation may be pfops
|er.I III understand your resolution, W.
agree id tho principle that the people of
Kansas alone have Che right 70 form their
[StsteF institutions according TO their own
pleasure, provided they Be republican IN
their Character. extend, too the limit
alton upon the power Of Congress. III re-
gard 10 State applying 6r admission
even farther than you do, for maintain
that upon this issue It can raise noques,
ton in regard 70 the Constitution. sbedld
it Be republican in its character, II The
people of9the new Statss. acting through
their Contention, haze made and adopted
lie IN tie manner prescribed by these!
their authorized representatives. Bit
from your 9Th resolution Idissent emil
tirely. That the people Of Kansas have
The same rights with the people aof any
other STATE In this Union with regard o
the formation ST their State Institution,
We must all admit; that they can delegate
to Convention. called for this purpose.
tie same powers which may be delegated
by the people of any other State, is also
clear. That they might limit tho power
conferred on such 4 Convention by allow
ing them onlyto fern Constitution TO
be- submitted Is The people afterwards, fot
ratification DR. rejection. Tor that they
might elect Convention with general
authority over the subject, can hardly lle
denied. Il Is for the people of the terri
| tory, about to become i State, tosssy iii
which Of these ways they win constitute
the Convention. Such, understand ID
be the intent and purport Of Your third
resolution, ia which, with that UNDER
standing, / cordially concur. II; chen,
| the people of Kansas have theselrights.
| the question arises as to what they ihEE-
tended Iby electing Convention with
general powers and without any. limita-
ton imposed BY themselves. The prac-
/ ice ef The States and the reason ssf the
case, both prove that it Els treated as
a general delegation Of their sovereign
under which The Convention may submit
the. Constitution ornot, for popular vote,
according TO It's own views of proprietyT
EIf the people of Kansas, aching AS amin
Echoate, State imposed no limitation on
the trust, It is1 not for any third party,
outside the Territory. to undertake 70
afix it I: IL they can ii one case, they
might in.sh, and Congress, as it seems 70
lme, might exercise the very power which
Iyouaso pFoperly dem 70 il, IN y0nffnnrtE
resolution As has been well said BY d
distinguished statesman Of Pennsy lyania.
teither this Convention Is clothed with
EstYereign power. 81 ii is nuility.5 Ii ii
be- . legitimate Convention, il IS the peos
|pleIwho speak through il; and It's forthem
70 say what action is 70 be final in re-
gard to the Consultation which it forms.
To say otherwise, IN my opinion, il 10
limit tho power of the people Of Kansas,
whose plenaEy jurisdiction over this snb-
ject We all admit. Butthis fifth resolu-
ton doesEnot stop with requiring thsap-
plication OF Kansas for admission as 4
State to be rejected because the ConvenE
ton did mot submitthe Constitution for
fatiHeation by tie people, Il goes much
farther. md elaims for Congress the pow.
|er of prescribing who.ars to exercise the
rights Of suffras e u hen tie people pass
upon the question Of rsiifyBle tier own
y IN 4