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

provement, and Bges VIII ha'e ,'o"'p'L -, 81
5arkneas of bsrbsrism gives place to the light OF
civilization, if indeed auoh an ausplcoua day shunla
ever dawn upon their condition.. My opinion H. thal
domestic slavery" forms the best government LOT
them az it secures for them the greatest amour. u,
good and throws around them that protection nhu
affords that comfort and happiness which no other
form of government could. In fine. IL is the only
form of government that ia adapted to their genius
Hopnr that SONS feasible plan may be devised and
approved, subscribe myfei,
Yours, truly, ELaoRlSo'
For The Enquirer.
CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF "A REVIEW or
GOV. wIsE's TAMMANY LETTER, BY AN EMINENT
VIRGINIA STATESMAN"
To Charles W. Russell, ESQ., Of Wheeling, p'rg'"'d'
SIR: In my frat letter, undertook to show
4th. That Governor Wise's denunciaon OF the an
ii republican method by which it has been attempted
to fost upon the people of Kansas Constitutioh
adopted neither by vote Of the Convention, nor oy
vote of the people, is entirely consistent with the
whole tenor Of his letter of November last:
The position assumed in the letter OF November
was: ist That, as a question between the Conven
ton and the people, the Convention was not author.
zed TO proclaim Constitution unssnctioned by popu
lar ratification because such authority had been
delegated by the people, End. Yet ifupon precedent
the Convention of Kansas should adopt hrpno..eaH
form of State Government, and should report II 10
Congress, trit0ut submitting TO ne people, doVer
nor Wise agreed in the policy Of accepting II and vo
ting 10 receive Kansas a State-slsVe or free-into
the Union.
Congress has not been called to decide upon the
right or the e1pedenoy Of enquirng into the extent
of authorization extended to this people by the Con
vention. The Convention itself has decided that the
Constitution must be referred to all the white male
inhabitants of the Territory twenty.ons years
of age, for their ratification or rejection And the
Convention which did not presume to adopt the Con-
stituton by it's own immediate act has resorted to
means of submission contradcting its own language
by which the color OF popular adoption, and
al the same time TO defeat the possibility of popular
ratification or rejection. The people have been told
in breath that they all free to vote Tor the rd
tfcation rejection of the pholc Constitutions and
in the next breath they told that they may vote
TO rstify, but shall vote reject one part OF the
Constitution, and, that concerns the other part OF
the Constitution, cZ sn shall vote either to ratifyo or
reject the same except he shall fret vote TO raty the
first part and to support the whole
with or without amendment, under the penalties OF
perjury. Thus the Constitution has not been adopted
by The immediate act Of the Conventions; 1t has not
been adopted by the popular voice. 1t has not even
been submitted 10 the people IN any manner al GIL re-
concilable with precedent with republican princi-
ple .,,.,
Thus, Governor Wisss letter of December 3Oth,
referred to q state Of things entirely different from
that supposed in his letter Of November 10th. Nor
could hs in any manner have foreseen, at The date Of
his frat letter, the position of affairs which only
revealed to him more than week afterwards through
the public press.
am aware cir, that you have not made any e1-
prees charge of inconsistency between the positions
assumed 10 ihs two letters referred 10. But such 8
charge has been openly made by certain organs Of
nmical faction, and your letter seems to give credit
to the charge, by the following assertion: because
the Lecompton Convention did not wholly conform
their action to your theory, you lGovernor Wise,l
have denounced their method OF submitting the
slavery clause TO popular vote as unveiled tricksry
and shameless fraud BY an examination Of this
whole matter you will BIZ sasfed that Governor
Wise's denunciaon was applied, not to mere disre
gard OF the theory of popular sovereignty, but to
the fraudulent mode OF pretended submission, which
arranged to prevent fair expression Of the
peoples WILL either on the slavery clause, or on any
other clause of the Constitution.
In view ofths state OF things, Gov Wise has taken
position which may be stated at large as follows: ls
That the Convention was q legitimate Convention,
aud fully authorized to frame constitution and pro-
pUse The same for popular ratification or rejection 3D.
That the Convention did pretend to submit the con.
stitu,ion. 3rd That in the mode Of submssion un
precedented attempt was made 10 discriminate invdi
Ousy against slave property. 4b, That the whole
mode OF submission was unprecedented and ant-rs.
publican, because, under the preence of Difference to
the popular will, il was intended aud did prevail TO
prevent the possibility of fair popular eeoon-it
clearly appearing from the schedule ITSELF that voters
we're kept from the POLLS not because they toould not
cote, but because they could not rote-beoauss they
were not permitted TO vote either the slavery clause
the main body OF The constitution 9Th, That Con-
gress ought not absolutely to reject constitution
framed by Legitimate convention can Congress
by it's own authority impose upon the people Of
Kansas constitution which hss no sanction OF adop-
tiou either by the Conveuos by the people of the
Territory. But that the only means by which to as.
sert the Legitimacy of the convention aud at the
time avoid the fraud attempted by the Convention,
and to avoid any resort to Congressional Intervention
10 the domestic institutions OF Kansasis 10 adopt the
constuon, subject to far AND legal voe Of the pco.
pile Of Kansas-to be prescr,bed-not by Congress
NJ
under the Constitution whenever the Territory shall
proclaim it's approval aud adoption by the people,
"Ifthey adopt it, to admit her Into the Union ipso fac
and if they il, to leave the people OF Kan
sas in their own way to organize another Convention,
| and 30 submit another Constitution to Congress for
| approval"
The expedency Of this suggestion, / shall present.
ly make the subject of discussion. lts consistency
with the position assumed in the letter Of November,
s clearly apparent from the fact that both positions
| admit the legitimacy Of the Convention, and con-
cerns the rest, neither position at all conflicts with
the other since each is based upon different posi.
ton OF affairs-ths one upon a supposed state Of
things which has never occurred-the other upon the
actual Of different procedure adopted by the
/ Lecompton Convention.
As regards the constitutionality Of this proposed
| mode OF Congressional Difference TO territorial
thorty have already, in my first letter, called your
attention to the fact that precedent of our govern.
mental history at all tends TO make it imperative on
Congress TO accept Constitution Of territory sp.
| plying for admission into the UniOn 1t such Cons-
tuition be unsanconed by express popular authority.
The most that be- asserted for any precedent is,
that it vests discretionary power in Congress- to
accept the Constitution Immediately under the pre-
sumption Of popular sanction, to be inferred from the
legitimacy of the Convention. or to insist upon &C.
tual and express popular sanction. This view OF the
sets aside. OF course, the exploded notion that
Congress may dictate, on its own authority the form
| Of Constitution.
! And other precedents old and new, establish be-
| L. I'D
nit State Professionally, and to make popular sane
ton OF proposed manner Of admission the sine qua
non of admission itself.
BY act of Congress- of June 18th, 1886. the terri.
tory Of Michigan was admitted to the Union, upon
condition. that the boundary lines described in the
act, should receive the assent OF Convention
Of delegates elected By the people of the said Stale
FOR THE Sole PURPOSE or GIVING THE ASCENT
HEREIN REQUIRED"
On the 18th December, 1885, a Convention elected
by the people, for the purpose did give the required
assent. And on the Doth January, 1887, Michigan
was admitted to the Union. by act Of Congress.
Thus ii was made q condition of the admission
not only that Convention should assent to propo
siion made by Congress, but that such Contention
should be directly authorized by popular uote to
| gire the required assent.
The instance of the admission of Wisconsin is still
more pertinent to our inquiry. BY act Of Congress
of March 3rd, lS47, Wisconsin admitted to the
Union, under the following provision: THAT it is
made and declared to be fundamental condition Of
the admission Of the said State of Wisconsin into the
Union, that the Constitution adopted at Madison, on
the 10th day of December, 1886, shall be assented to
by the qualified electors in the manner and at the
times prescribed in the 9th section of the Goth article
| Of the said Constitution. And as soon such as
sent shall be given the President Of the United States
shall announce the by proclamation aud there.
from, and without further proceedings on the part Of
Congress, the admission of eaid State of Wisconsin
into the Union equal footing 10 all respects
whatever with the original States shall be considered
| as complete"
This Constitution was rejected by the people OF
under another Constitution by act Of Congress, Of
May 29th, lS4S.
And when the people Of California applied for ad
mission and presented Constitution ratified by po