Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-05-06
To the Editors Of the Enquirer:

WAsuISGroS, May 4th, 1859.
Gentlemen II venture to request the privi
lege of reply to the following paragraph from
an editorial in your paper of Yesterday:
THAT Mr.. Roger A. Pryor, u former editor OF the
Enquirer employed some years ago, the following
language :"
1--WE cannot conceive how any doubt can arise, a. to thu
.full, perfect, unlimited and sovereign power OF the Fedora
'Goyrrnnient over the Territories OF Kansas, as agent OIL
trustee OF the existing States
(which language Mr. Bolts, not illogica!!y, inter
pres into Il complete ac2nic.ecnce with his o"n view
rs TO the Congressional abolition Of slavery. Indeed
crther unanswcrublc here, were it not that the Inn
guavc attributed 10 Mr.. Pryor is palpably selt-contra'
lic,orv, since under our principles o! Democratic Ne
prblicanisin, il is impossible for n governmental
agent or trustee to possess ANY ''o'ereiIh power
whatever. .
tho iusdvcrtcncv of editorial lnhte. And that NJ
never did coincide with Mr.. Bolts erroneous, dogma
of absolute power in Congress, - moreover cv'dcn'
from the fact that Mr. Pryor, at this time, is contend
ing for the very opposite and scarcely less dangerous
error which denies even the right and duty o! Lon
crcss TO protect slavery II the territories
In respect of which I have to remark:
|. | never maintained the proposition impu'
ted 10 me by Mr.. Bolts. If | employed the
language %purporting to be taken from the
Enquirer" (of which | have no recollection
its sense was restricted by the condition, that
the power Of Congress over the territories be-
ing limited by the principles of the Constitu,
ton, cannot be cxertcd in disparagenent Of the
rights Of the South. | have invariably denied
both the legality and the equity of the Wilmot
Proyiso-as every paper for which have writ,
ten, bears abundant and emphatic testimony.
| Not even the " inadvcrtcncy Of editorial haste,
which YOU are pleased to suggest in explana'
ton of an obvious absurdity, could have pre-.
cipitatcd me into the heresy Of Wilmot provi
sion.
repeat: if the words attributed to me by
Mr.. Bolts are really from my pen-which dc
not bclievc-thcy were employed in this connec'
ton to rcpel the inference that Congress ha:
power to prohibit or to impair slayc'propcFty
in the territories.
At the same time | owcit to Mr.. Bolts to de.
| clare that | do not suspect him Of intentional
misrepresentation.
.. Neither do | maintain "the opposite and
! scarcely less dangerous doctrine" that it is not
1.-The right and duty Of Congress to protect
slavery in the Territories"
On the contrary, | affirm 1t to be primarily
both the right and duty Of Congress to pro.
tect slavery in the Territories. only contend
that for reasons Of policy the Democracy oil
the South have agreed to remove the slavery
issue from the Federal Legislature, and TO im.
pose on the local governments the right and
the duty to protect property in the Territories.
l hold, in the words OF the Cincinnati plat
form, that "thc American Democracy recognise
and adopt the principles contained in the or.
ganic laws establishing the Territories Of Kan:
sas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound
and safe solution Of the slavery question upon
which the great national idea Of the people Of
this whole country can rcpose in its determined
conservatism Of the Union-SoS INTERFERENCE
By CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY ~ STATE ASp TER
KIroRY OK IN TIE DISTRICT or CoLraRiA.'
Respectfully,
ROGER 4. PRYOR.