Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-02-09

the enforcement of such obnoxious clauses and there
fore refuses to submit to the test oath to support the
Constitution under the penalties OF perjury. He s
challenged and not permitted to vote
nc" does not object either 10 the test OATH nor to
any part Of the Constitution; but is restrsined from
voting because he is unwilling 10 sanction an uno
walton by which mere Convention has undertaken
to discriminate lnvdiously against slave property.
sd" IS not deferred from voting by any of these
objections; but he says: "Neighbors, l have seen
enough to convircs me that this is not fair cleo
ton. Unnecessary obstacles are thrown in the wav
to keep men from the polls. You are all wantonly
prohibited from voting according to fhe dictates Of
your reason and conscience. will not participated in
an unfair election.
Thus four men are excluded from the polls, each
by an honest and reasonable objection. Has the Con
venton. has Congress the right to decide that anv
one of ihese is not a sufficient objecon2 Moreover
Is there any means ot determining whether four thou
sand or fourteen Thousand voters may NOT be kent
from the polls by the same Objection.7 Not oniy
every man who ls opposed TO the Constitution. bu,
many in favor of it, thus prohibited from voting
on the slavery clause: BY whom, then, was the
slavery clause aaoPtea, MOI by vote Of the Con.
to popular vote. Not by vote of the whole peo
pie. Not by the votes of such of the people as would
have voted on 1t, had they been permitted 10 cast un
conditional votes. But the question of "sayery or
no slavery h.'1 been decided by majority of the
votes of such persons only would agree 10 psrtici
pate in unfair election TO vote for the Copstitu
ton, and 10 submit to all odious testoath. 1t WAS
thus rendered morally impossible TO obtain for the
slavery clause either adoption REJECTION by ma.
jority of the legal voters OF Kansas The decision
referred to minority of citizens az necessarily
and az effectually as if the Convention had limited
tho right OF suffrage TO men over sixty years of age
As an honast man and Il Democratic Remit bcsn I
undertake to say that the method adopted by the La
compton Convention, OF deciding the question of
'slavery or no slavery" was as an,i.repubcan and
AZ dishonest, az If the members of the Convention
had agreed 10 decide the question by throw of dice
or deal Of cards.
Such is the necessary and unavoidable exposition
Of the Lecomption schedule, which il presented to
Congress together with the Lecompton Constitution.
Now, there are two questions 10 be answered arma.
lively, before Congress can rightfuy admit Kansas
into the Union under this proposed form of Constitu
tion.
let Is this paper the act and deed of the people Of
Kansas either by their own immediate act or by the
act of Convention legally authorized to enact the
same7
2nd Does this paper embody Republican form Of
Government
Let us consider these questions in the order presen
ted. There s no necessity for Congress to look for
ex,rinsic evidence The schedule ITSELF answers a,
follows: 1.-The Convention has refused to enact the
Constitution by its own vote. II has required thai
the Constitution shall be adopted or rejected by q
| fair, fall, free, popular vote"
THE Constitution has not yet been 30 adopted. One
1
encs Of ratification, by the enrolment of all votes
polled for ratification, and the refusal to permit any
vote be poled for rejection. Another part has been
submitted for ratification or rejection-not by ma
joriy of the legal voters of Kansas but by maor
| ty of restricted number Of voters
Can Congress, with this evidence before it, decide
that the Lecompton Constitution is either the imme
date act and deed of the people, their act and deed
| through ther authorized agent, the Convention o
Kansas Does not The schedule manifest the utter
| impossbility of either suppostionl
But, for the sake of continuing the investigation to
the utmost supposabe limit, let Us imagine that Con
gress could, by rule of construction hidden from
the uniniated, decide that this Constitution is the
act and deed Of the people of Kansas. What then
| Why the schedule under which they have enacted
their Constitution, embodies an antirepublcan mode
| of Constitutional adoption. The first and most n
portant item Of their proposed form of Government,
| the mode Of their enactment Of organic law, const
tutes wide departure from Republican liberty and
Republican order, worse than monarchy, oigarcby
or anarchy 1t lie mixture of fraud and chance un
precedented in the history of civilized Government
| trust, sir, that my suggestions on these points
will induce you, at least TO study for yourself the
intent and bearing of the Lecompton schedule. i
| 30, venture to predict that you will understand
somewhat better than your letter indicates, the posi-
] tion which Gov. Wise has assumed with regard to th
matter. and which propose TO make the subject o
| an additional communication.
| A VIRGINIA DEMOCRAT.