Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-02-12

il Il ,sae!inasd by nrsasdsn. and by prlaa.ple na'
thera IT, ni: the othsf hand principle aha ao
oeGent which would authoriss the mlneoa.e s.oep'
sncs by Congress, of the Lecompton CONSTITUTION
The convention OF Kansas has not pretended 10 enact
iha Constitution. 1t has professedly suoihlllea 'ne
Constitution for popular enactment, ana Inc pcss'oh
ty Of popular enactment has been defeated by the
very method of submission.
The Constitution has been sanc'onea only oy III
anti Republican submission Of part OF the nstru,
ment for ratification only, and not Tor tne ooce VI
ratification or r.jecliOn-and the equaiiy anu I'VE
publican submission Of another part for ratihca,ion
or rejection by minority Of the legal VOTERS Con
gress has no constitutional authority to sancuon an
anti Republican mode Of so called election ana Pc
ta4lo to subject the people Of Kansas 10 IN anu he
publican form of government. And the doctrine ID
long since exploded, that Congress can dictae Con
sttuton to be adopted by territory about 10 De
admitted as State. All these considerations una
vodsbly substsntiate my propositions: ,
9Th. That an immediate acceptance oy Conerets VI
the Lscompon Constitution, would nvoiVe tne gross
eat act of congressional Intervention IN me domestic
affairs of Kansas; that it would impose upon ansai
an anti Republican form of government by the mere
force of an unconstitutional exercise OF arbitrary
power.
But your apology touches lightly the ground Of prn
ciple and constitutional authority You wouid Jusy inc
action of the Convention and urge its speedy endorse
ment by Congress- because of a supposed exPediency
You argue thar the Topeka strong enough aho
obstinate enough to have voted down the CONSTRUCTOR II
Of intrinsic demert In the Constitution itseH ou
by of supposed want Of authority in the ConVen
ton Your argument might have more force were II mol
evident that the Topeka men were not the only cas u
tranchsed by the Lecompton schedule that instrument
dsanchsed all persons who might desire to eect the
Constitution; for any motive whatever But, apart ron
this would ask by what right the Convention
to decide who good, and who were bad citizens
By what right could the Convention presume 10 decide
class 10 Of who had sv
enactment-woud, II permitted 70 reject the Cohsttu
ton, exercise the right for an insufficient mouve
By what right did the Convention thus attempt 70
go behind the motives of legal voters, and to weigh
the efficiency insuficency Of such motives
And If the Convention by nquis,oris right was thu. en-
titled to play father conessor to the secret motives oil Vo
and thereby In It's penetative wisdom discovered
that It unsafe 10 submit the Constitution 10 full Tree
fair popular vote why not 1.-THE nstrument withheld
altogether from the posl Why did the Convention re-
the farce of pretending to submit the Constitution
for ratification rejectionl Why was the Constitution
submitted be voted or and permitted to vote
against III And II the slavery clause ought to have been
submitted separately alone, why wa. not thus fairly
submitted Why were legal voters who desired to vote
for against the slavery clause driven from the polls BY
OATH merely because they might not choose TO vote
for an instrument which they permitted 10
ject7 Why the question Of slavery no slave
ry left fair decision unembarrased by test oath
by any coupling With the residue OF the Constitution
There is but possible The Convention intend
ed perpetrate fraud shameless fraud and unveiled trick
under the ragged guse pretended popular election
But, in any event. how you contend that alter the
Convention has agreed 70 submit the Constitution for ra.
LITIGATION or rejection thus determining that the Constu
ton shall be the and deed of the people themselves
enacted by full popular vote, and afterwards adopting
mode of submission which necessarily defeats the prnc
pie itself-absoutely preventing the Of the
Constitution the and deed Of the popular voce-un
der these crcumsances how you contend that Con
gress may ghtuly interposs under the plea of exped
cncy to thrust upon the people OF Kansas Constitution
which they have never ratified and which the Conven
ton has decided shall only take effect and be in force
from and after It's ratification by the people 5cc
ton l7th of the scheduM)
Expedeucyl Can any real expediency arise from Con
gressonsl usurpaton? Must be taught, this day
that It L. competent for Congress disregard the Con
stitutona limitation Of it, powers in the pursuit Of eIpe
diencyi Or there be expediency attendant the
sanction of fraud perpetrated on the freedom Of
election7 Is 1t expedient for Congress to proclaim
the falsnhood, that the Lecompton Constitution is
the and deed Of the people of Kansas, when
the schedule before them denies such possibility
But you say that the people of Kansas desire peace Let
them have peace, then, by all means The of the
Federal Executive strong enough preserve peace In
Kansas Do the Topeka push rebellion to violent
outraged Then let military force be employed to sup
press hem and let tho civil power do what h should have
done long ago Let the ringlesders OF rebellion be law
fully tried condemned and punished. This will certainly
10 admit Kansas State, suddenly withdraw the
strun of Federal CONTROL at the same time TO insult the
people by arbitrarily hrusng Constitution upon them
ncenslng rebellion and offering rebels preiext for
rghtfu nsurrecion and swelling the ranks Of insurrec
zion with iair minded who have sympathy either
with Topeka rebellion Lecompton fraud. The "peace
plea 10 against you, sir. You try another.
PROPOSE In subsequent communication, to trace the
history Of the present ISSUE and consider its probable
effect hr Interests Of tho South the Democratic party
and the present Administration.
VIRGINIA DEMOCRAT.