Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-01-19
E,,, mo Euy,,,r,..

ths proPrlety ol referring The rh1c Constitution o
Kansas 10 the people, upon point all are agreed
vis that the question of slavery should be submitted
| for their approval or rejection Now, giving up Nil
the other points, let us dspsssiona!ely consider whe
| ther this ms been done. The question put tu tbe
people should be, will YOU have Kansas STARE State
nr n tree State ! is II done by requiring them To
adopt Constitution which legaizes ne rgkt Of pro-
| perty IN ne s!npss nor Msre ] venture 0 affirm
that it is mt. lay down the proposition and would
be glad 10 have reiuted il il be by fair argu
ment, that the Lecompt0n Convention had no more
power TO egsze the slaves now there than they had
to authOrlzs the introduction of more Ii provided
in the schedule, that il the Constitution .'without
slavery" is adopted, "hen the article providing for
slavery shall be slavery shall no longer
exist in the State OF kanas ercep that the right OF
property In slaves in this Territory shall in no
manner be interfered with"
Now, in the first place. it will hardly be denied that
this exception int means anything. to deny
to the people the right 10 alter abolish this feature
II il does not mean this, what IL il worth The first
section ofthe article slavery basss this feature
the right of property, and declare, that to be be-
fore and higher than any constitutional sanction"
Of couree then il have been designed to nji the
sovereign power Of The people 70 this extent. Had
| the Convention h- ri Zht 70 do This 2
This provj-inr mr''t be one OF two things: either
mere declaration Of what ia right resting upon
other aufhority or, positive enactment by virtue of
power vested in the Convention. If the former what
| is the authority from which this law emanates pro.
tecfing the right OF these slave owners, against the
power OF The majority Is it the general right of
property guaranteed by the Federal Constitution If
30, ss this is said to be- right before and above all
constitutional sanction il must be higher than the
ganc law of the sovereign State aud therefore
the right to bring in more slaves: nay would it not
allow the citizens OF State now prohibiting slavery
to introduce theml The fret section OF ariice on
slavery declares that the right of property before
aud higher than any constitutional sanction" 1t
must then be higher than the Kansas Nebraska bill,
aud that is considered now a little higher than the
highest law ever dreamed Of!
Now, suppose large majority OF bona hde resl
dents OF kannas, utterly opposed TO negro slavery
in the exercise of the fright to regulate their domss
tic institutions in their own way :; right secured
to them by that highest of all higher laws. the Kan
sas. Nebraska bill; deem il sdvsAble to abolish the
'natitution of slavery from the State: can they do
it they doing it, by such provisions "a this Kan
das Constitution contains upon the subject! ln spite
of the exercise Of their sovereign rights to the very
fullest extent, as defined by the LecOmpton Conven-
tion what is the actual atste of thngs' Five hun
dred slaves I've will supposed still there -recognz.
cd by law such-a right 'n no manner to be inter
fered withtheir owners protected IN their right OF
property in them and of course involving the neces-
atty Of the usual police and municipal regul ations for
surh constitutions :" Nay, the halt has not
| been told This same section /, article !, de.
clsres that the fright OF the owner to such
slave and ITS ISCREAsE, is the ssrne,' &c.-
Now, ask, in all honesty, is not this
most serious exception to the right of the people to
regulate, &c.l Does II not, 10 all intents and pur.
pores, shoud the principle be carried out) rlvet and
perpetuate slavery in Knnsasl IT, excepting this
right of property in the slaves now there, and IN their
increase means anything, "a said before, what else
can it mean but to limit ths power ot the people over
the subject It really seems To me that the Conven.
tion in attempting to engrslt suoh feature upon the
organic law, and declaring it ont OF reach OF the peo
pIes power-not satisfied ith cutting down "popu.
lar sovereignty" to the sing gle subject OF slavery
have theoretically and practically, ss far as they CALL
svaporated their rights upon MAt subject also 10 a
mere shadow.
II the power to do this thing is claimed as inhe.
rent in the Convention, incident TO the purpose for
which it was elected, why had they not the power TO
establish unqualified slavery at oncei and to author
ize the Introduction of mnrei Suppose A, slave
under this right, which is declared to be above
and before all constitutional sanction, and which,
therefore, cannot be taken from him, can you show
why B, who owns slaves in Missouri, cannot bring
them to Kansss1 am unable TO see how the Con
venton could exercise the power to make any such
distinction. Upon whatever ground you rest their
authority, it seems to me that the very same right
you give them to touch the subject at GH would jus.
tify them in assuming s entire controls and the very
rame principle which forbds their eDgrafflng slavery
"r t. StAte of K.--- L.,a~I .h4 noYar af the
people To alter or sbosh excludes them from even
legalizing il partially.
| grant. as every body knows, that this attempt TO
prr'act the of slav.s already there, pr8c-
cally of no value whatever-a mere 6rnta'a tu}msn.
II matters not what the Constitution. State or Fede.
ral may say that sacred right Of property above
MI Constitutional enactment; with majority OF
AbolIiOnsts to execute the laws and to enforce the
"hgher law" mans alave would he worth to him
about as much note on Il broken bank, or his
purse on highway beset with robbers. So that,
sven had they the right, what is the use OF going
through the farce of enactiug q provision, which
there i. no power earth to enforce for one, re-.
pud:ate the position taken by what il considered
high Democratic anthority-no othsr than the pre-
sent distinguished Speaker Of Congress. In speech
made by him, about twelve months since upon the
nf ha 6.'ply
State men of Kansas that ihe nominal admission oi
slavery would result in nothing for all they had TO do
was to refuse to pass any laws for its protection and
it would he practically abolished. 1t is beneath the
dignity of legislation 10 .npart declare rights which
1t is admitted cannot he protected.
In my Judgment, though Southerner, with all
my interests and synpathIes IN behalt OF slavery,
the owners OF slaves now in Kansas have no right,
moral or legal. to even ths mere passing shadow of
protection II they hare, they ought to claim much
higher guaranty of its enforcement, than ia held OUT
10 them. But, would ask did any citizen OF Kan
sas carry his slaves there with the expectation that
in the event Of its having majority Of anti slavery
inhabitants, and being admitted RI Tree State, ne
would be protected in the ownership oi these slaves
and their increased Or, even had we knOrn that
majority would have been willing to make such pro.
vision would any sane man have carried slave
there with the calculation that il would be worth the
paper it is written on to hint doubt It. do not
believe that any save-Owner went to Kansas with
any other calculation than to take HI, choacsS for
slave free State 80, II he loses them he has none
to blame but himself, or his evil genius.
might be asked, why This feature has mol, in
single instance, been objected to by the opponents OF
the Kansas Constitution | answer, because they
know we'll enough that it is dsad ord practically
killed by such sporismen re- MIR. Speaker Orr. and
not worth the ammunition! Why, then, do object
TO it Because pin my faith, and rest all my hopes
OF the rights of the South and the perpetul'y o the
Unon not upon the Nebraska bill, but upon the great
principle sanctioned by it, and therefore, enter my
protest, humble insignificant ~ it may be- against
even the appearance Of violation of that princpe.-
And wish could b.ll-vs that there was nothing
in this Lscomp,on proceeding worse than the appear
ance of it. can but think that that Convention was
little fudded either in s Gratns its conscience or
il would not have been guilty of the absurdity OF pro-
vidng for ths approval or DIS approval the "ratI'
fcation or REJECTION" of the Constitution and then
submitting it IL such mode IA to utterly exclude the
expression OF either d,sapprorai or rejection.
Passing events in Kansas daily confirm the propre,
ty of Senator Douglas position that the snres roaa
TO peace and quiet in Kansas. and the harmony OF
the Democratic party in Congress- il to reject thst