The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-11-05

! heretofore, 90 far as am informed. The Con
vention of Kansas, if legally constituted, has al
| the powers of any other Convention to form a
State Constitution; and if Congress can limit
this power in one respect, 1t may In ALL IL
Congress can reject a State Constitution tor
the manner in which the Convention has ex
ereised its undoobted powers, why not for the
manner also of that Constitution, even though
it may be republican in its form of Govern.
mentf Or if the Governor of Territory may
attempt to overawe Convention of its people
in the exercise of its powers in one respect,
why not in snotherf With regard to the alb.
stract propriety of the particular recommends
tons of Gov. Walker, . do not feel called upon
to speak. That is q matter for the decision OF
the Convention itself, with which ought not
to interfere. The abstract propriety of these
recommendations depends upon circumstances,
of which the people of Kansas, through their
Conventions, are the best judges. To them
leave it, as their own affair. As to which
course would conduce most to their peace and
fair settlement of the question, should re.
quire greater knowledge of the actual state
of affairs in that Territory, to enable me to
decide.
With these answers to your interrogatories,
L might here close this letter, except that in
fer you desire to know how far my opinion in
regard Governor Walkers conduct may affect
my course towards the Admin tration. What
are the precise views of the President upon
these questions l know not l await their
development in the regular course. But should
he differ with me upon these matters, do not
see how any practical issue can arise between
him and those of his friends who entertain
other opinions in regard to Governor Walkers
| course. l say, do not see how any practical
| issue could arise out of this matter between the
President and those who might differ with him
IN regard to these things, because do not be-
lieve, for moment IT, be would aid in an at
tempt to reject the 80, if Kansas should ap-
| ply for admission, merely because its Conven-
| ton did not choose to submit the Constitution
to the people for ratification. Upon such q
question as this, in regard to the right of Con-
gress to limit the power of people to form
their State Constitution according to their own
pleasure, provided it be republican in It's charac-
ter, should think there could be no division of
opinion amongst the members of the Demo.
cratic party, in any section of the Union. There
could not be, if they remain true to what I
understand TO be their profession of faith. To
establish the great principles of the equal
rights of the States to the enjoyment of the
Territories of the United States, which no act of
Federal legislation can constitutionally abridge
or destroy, or of the people of each State to
determine the character of their own domestic
institutions, without prejudice to their claim of
admission into the Union, the Democratic par
ty has submitted to losses and sacrifices which
could only have been justified by the success
full accomplishment Of great object. To OBJ
tain a common ground upon which all might
rally for the defence Of the Constitution and the
peace of the country against the enemies of
both, did constitute such an object.
And now that the position has,been conquer.
ed, after so arduous struggle, who supposes
that the Democratic party would volunteer a
retrograde movement, and renonnce the fruits
of hard-won victoryf To abandon either of
these positions now, by retrograde movement,
would be an act of feIo de Sc in the party; and
not merely folly, but a crime, for which pos
terity would never forgive it. For these reasons,
| do not believe that the Democratic party, or
the President whom il has chosen, will aid in
any attempt to restrict the power of the people
of Kansas, acting through their Convention, to
form Constitution according to their own
pleasure, both in manner and substance, pro-
vided it be republican in It's character.
Having now answered fully your interrogato-
ries, need proceed no further; but, as you
are kind enough to say that you questioned me
not because you doubted me yourself, but to
save me from misconstruction by others, feel
that l ought not to conclude without thanking
you for your generous motives. To those who
are disposed to misconstrue me, have only to
say, that if the past course of one who has
served the State in public capacity so long as
| have affords no sufficient guarantee as to his
futureIconduct it is idle to seek for further secu.
rty in professions of faith. My past course affords
the best evidence Of my principles of public &C.
ton, and these the tests by which, as an hon.
est man, ! am bound to Judge every Admins.
trstion. If, therefore, l should differ from an
Administration because it dissented from these
principles, l should be blamed, if bamable at
all, not for the act of differing with the Presi.
dent, but because of the false principles by
which am to Judge him; 80 that it is By these
that l am to be tried after all.
1t is true, that when new questions arise, one
may be fairly and properly questioned as to his
opinions. But what is there new here? The
principles of the Kansas-N Nebraska act, by which
| have been just testing Gov. Walkers conduct,
and the right of the people, acting through their
Convention, to form a Constitution of republi.
can character, according to their own pleasure,
without prejudice to their claim of admission
as State in the Union, have all been discussed
heretofore, by myself and others, far more fully
than would be consistent with the limits Of this
letter. Nor have l expressed any opinion here
IN regard to those questions to which have
not been committed long since. H,then, | re-
peat sentiments which have before declared,
you will excuse me, as do it in Difference to
your request.
Very respectfully and truly, yours,
R. M. I. HUNTER.
To the Hon, Shelton F. Leake.