LETTER OF
HON. ROBERT J. WALKER,
Rt 1 g mi g the Office of Governor of Kansas.
Washington Citt, Dec. 15, 1857.
Hon. I.r.w is CASH, Secretary of State :
Sir : I resign the office of Governor
of f lie Territory of Kansas.
I have been most reluctantly forced to
this conclusion, after anxious and careful
consideration of my duty to the i;ountry,
to the people of Kansas, to the President
of the United States, aud to myself.
The grounds assumed by the President
in his late message to Congress, aad in re
cent instructions in connection with the
gvpnti dow transpiring here and in Kansas,
admonish me, that, as Governor of that Ter
ritory, it will no longer be in my power to
preserve the peace or promote the public
welfare.
At the earnest solicitation of the Presi
dent, after repeated refusals, the last being
in writing, I finally accepted this office,
upoB his letter showing the dangers aud dif
ficulties of the Kansas question, and the
necessity of my undertaking the task of
adjustment. Under these circumstances,
notwithstanding the great sacrifices to me,
personal, political aud pecuniary, I felt that
I could no more refuse such a call from my
country, through her Chief Magistrate,
than the soldier in battle who is ordered to
command a forlorn hope.
I accepted, however, on the express con
dition that I should advocate the submission
of the Constitution to the vote of the people
for ratification or rejection.
These views were clearly understood by
the President and all his Cabinet. They
were distinctly set forth in my letter of ac- 1
ceptauce of this office of the "Gth of March
last, and reiterated in my Inaugural ad
dress of the ','7th of May last, as follows :
Indeed I cannot doubt that the Conven
tion after having framed a State Constitu
tion, will submit it for ratification nr rejec
tion by a majority of the then actual bona
tide resident settlers of Kansas.
"With the sa views well known to the
President and Cabinet, a:id approved by
them, I accepted the appointment of Gov
ernor of Kansas. My instructions from
ths President, through the Secretary of
State, under date of the 30th of March last,
sustain 'tike regular Legislature of the Ter
ri'.orif in 'assemblitt a Convention to form a
Constitution.' und they express the opinion
of the President, that 'when suclt a Consti
tution shall be submitted to the people of the
Territory, they must be protected in the exer
cise of their RKZHT of voting CO It or AGAINST
that instrument ; am the fair expression rf
the popular will must not be interrupted by
f 'ruuil or violence.'
"I repeat, then, as my clear conviction,
that unless the Convention submit the Con
stitution to the vote of ull the actual resi
dent settlers of Kansas, and the election be
fairly and justly conducted, the Constitu
tion will be, and ought to be, rejected by
Congress."
This Inaugural most distinctly asserted
that it was not the question of slavery mere
ly, (which I believed to be of little practi
cal importance then in its application to
Kansas.) but the entire Constitution which
should be sub misted to the people for ratifi- j
cation or rejection. These were my words .
on that subject in my Inaugural : "It is not j
merely, shall slavery exist in or disappear
from Kansas, but shall the great principles
of self government and State sovereignty '
be maintained or subverted ?" In that In- :
aogural I proceeded further to say, that
th" people "may, by a subsequent vote, de- ;
feat the ratification of the Constitution." i
I designate this as a "great constitutional
right,' and add "that the Convention is the
servaut aud not the master of the people."
In my official dispatch to you of 2d June
la?t. a copy of that Inaugural Address was
transmitted to you for tho further infonna- '
tion of the President and his Cabinet. No j
exception was ever taken to any portion of
that addees ; on the contrary, it is dis
tinctly admitted by tho President in his
message, with commeadable frankness, that
my instructions in favor of the submission
of the Constitution to the vote of the people j
were "general and unqualified." By that
Inaugural aud subsequent addresses, I was
pledged to the people of Kansas to oppose
by all "lawful means" the adoption of any
Constitution which was not fairly and ful
ly submitted to their vote for ratification or
rejection. These pledges I cannot recall
or violate without personal dishonor and the
abandonment of fundamental principles,
and therefore it is impossible for me to sup
port what is called the Lecompton Consti
tution, because it is not submitted to a vote
of the people for ratification or rejection.
I have ever uniformly maintained the
principle, that sovereignty is vested exclu
sively in the people of each State, and that
it performs its first and highest function in
forming a State government and State Con
stitution. This highest act of sovereignty,
in my judgment, can only be performed by
the people themselves, and cannot be dele
gated to conventions or other intermediate
bodies.
Indeed the wholo doctrine of the sover
eignty of Conventions, as distinct from that
of the people of conventional or delegated
sovereignty, as contradistinguished from
State or popular sovereignty, has ever been
discarded by me, and was never heard of to
u-.y knowledge, during the great canvass of
1S50. ludeed this is the great principle of
State rights and State sovereignty main
tained in the Virginia aud Kentucky reso
lutions of 17i)8-'y, sustained by the people
in the great political revolution of 180"),
and embraced in that amendment to the
Federal Constitution adopted under the
auspices of Mr Jefferson, declaring that
"the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively or to the people."
The reservation to "the States" is as
separate States, in exercising the powers
granted by their State Constitutions, and
the reservation to "the people" is to the
heveral States admitted or inchoate, in ex
rajxiiig their sovereign right of framing or
amending their State Constitution.
Thi- view was set forth in my printed ad-
dress delivered at atouez, "
January, 18"JJ, against nullification, which
speech rec-ived the complimentary sanc
tion of the great and good Madison, the
principal founder of our Ceastitution, as j
shown by the letter of Hon. Charles J. j
Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, as published in j
the Globe, at Washington, in 1816. What
adds much to the force of his opinion is the j
statemeut then made by Mr Madison that
these were also the views of Mr Jefferson, j
Hy this clause ef the federal Constitution
the sovereignty of the people of each State
is clearly reserved, and especially their
own exclusive sovereign right to form in all
its entirety their own State Constitution. I
I shall not enter fully into the argu- j
meut of this question at this period, but
will merely state that this is the position I
have ever occupied, and my reasons for en
tertaining this opinion are clearly and dis
tinctly set forth in a printed pamphlet pub
lished over my signature, on the 13th June,
185, and then extensively circulated, from
which I quote as follows :
"Under our confederate system, sover
eignty is that highest political power which,
at its pleasure, creates governments and
delegates authority to them. Sovereignty
grants powers, but not sovereign powers,
otherwise it might extinguish itself by mak
ing the creature of its will the equal or su
perior of its creator. Sovereignty makes
Constitutions, and through them establishes
governments. It delegates certain powers
to these governments, distributing the exer
cise of the granted power among the legis
lative, executive, aud judicial departments.
The Constitution is not sovereign, because
it is created by sovereignty. The govern
ment is not sovereign, for the same reason,
much less any department vf that govern
ment. Having defined sovereignty, we
must not confound the power with its source
or exerchw that is, sovereignty is one
thing ; where it resides or how to be exer
cisi d is another. Under the system of
European despotisms, sovereignty was
claimed to reside in kings and emperors,
under the sacreligious idea of the 'divino
right of kings;' and the blasphemous doc
trine was, that sovereigns in legitimate
succession, although stained with crimes
and blackened with infamy, were clothed
by Deity with absolute power to rule their
subjects, who held nothing but privileges
granted by the crown. Such were the ab
surd und impious dogmas to which the peo
ple of Europe, with few exceptions, have
been compelled to submit by the bayonet,
sustained by the more potent authority of
ignorance and superstition. Under this
theory, the people were mere ciphers, and
crowned head subdities the sole represen
tatives on earth of the governing power of
the Almighty." "Our doctrine is just the
reverse, making the people the only source
of sovereign power. Put what people ?
With us, sovereignty rests exclusively with
the people of each State. By the Revolu
tion, each colony, acting for itself alone,
separated from Great Britain, and sanc
tioned the Declaration of IndenenoVnre."
"Each colony having thus become a State,
and each adopting for itself its separate
State government, acted for itself alone un
der the old Continental Congress. Each
State acted for itself alone in acceding to
the Articles of Confederation in 1778 ; and
each State acted for itself alone in framing
and ratifying, each for itself, the Constitu
tion of tho United States. Sovereignty,
then, with us, rests exclusively with the
people of each State. The Constitution of
the United States is not sovereign, for it
was created by States, each exercising for
itself that highest political power called sov
ereignty. For the same reason the govern
ment of the U. S. is not sovereign, nor
does it exercise any sovereign powers. It
exercises only "delegated power," as de
clared by theConstitution, and those powers
only which are granted by that instrument.
Delegated powers aro not sovereign powers,
but are powers granted by sovereignty. j
Sovereignty, being this highest political
power, cannot be delegated it is indivisible
it is a unit, incapable of partition. Hence
the great error of supposing that sovereign
ty is divided between the States aud the U.
States.
"The Constitution of the United State is
tho 'supreme law,' and obligatory as such;
but a law is not SOVPreifiitv. but nn n.ct if !
0---j, - - -
sovereignty. All laws imply law-makers ;
and in this case, those who framed and rati
fied this 'supreme law' were those sover
eignties called the States, each acting ex
clusively for itself, uncontrolled by any sis
ter State, except by the moral force of its
influence and example. The government
of the United States possessing, as we have
shown, no sovereignty, but only delegated
powers, to them alone it must look for the
exercise of all constitutional authority, in
Territories as well as in States, for there is
not a single power granted by theConstitu
tion to this government in a Territory which
is not granted in a State, except the power
to admit new States into the Union, which,
as shown by the Madison Papers, the fiam
ers of the Constitution (as first demonstrated
in my Texas letter) refused to limit to our
then existing Territories. In the Territo
ries, then, as well as the States, Cougress
possesses no sovereignty, and can exercise
only the powers delegated by the Constitu
tion, and all the powers not thus granted are
dormant or reserved powers, belonging, in
common territory, to all the States, as co
equal joiut tenants there of that highest po
litical power called sovereignty."
It will be perceived that this doctrine,
that "sovereignty make Constitutions," that
"sovereignty rests exclusively with the
people of each State," that "sovereignty
cannot be delegated," that "it is inalienable,
indivisible," "a unit incapable of partition,"
are doctrines ever regarded by me as funda
mental principles of public liberty, and of
the federal Constitution. It will be seen
that these views, which I hare ever enter
tained, were not framed to suit any emer
gency in Kansas, but were my life-long
principles, and were published and promul
gated by me, in an elaborate argument over
my own signature, twelve mouths before
my departure to that Territory, and when
I never thought of going to Kansas. These pledge to submit the Constitution itself to a
rights I hare ever regarded as fully secured j vote of the people, where the delegates who
to the people of "all the Territories," in ; signed the Constitution represented scarce
adopting their State Constitution, by the , ly one-tenth of the people, and where near
Kansas and Nebraska bill. Such is the : ly one-half the counties of the Territory
construction given to that act by Congress 1 were disfranchised, and, (by no fault of
in passing the Minnesota bill, so justly ap- i theirs,) diJ not aud could not give a single
plaudd by the President. Such is the i vote at the election for delegates to the con
con tvuetion of this Kansas act by its dis- vention ?
tinguished author, not only in his late most j I have heretofore discussed this subject
able argument, but in addresses made and mainly on the question that the Conventions
published by hiin long antecedent to that , are not sovereign, and cannot rightfully
date, showing that this sovereign power of i make a State Constitution without submis
the people, in acting upon a State Consti- j aion to the vote of the people for ratificn
tution, is not confined to tho question of tiau or rejection ; yet surely even those who
slavery, but includes all other subjects em- ; differ with me on this point must concede,
braced in such an instrument. Indeed I ' especially under the Kansas Nebraska bill,
believe the Kansas and Nebraska bill would it is only such Conventions can be called
have violated the rights of sovereignty re- j sovereign as have been truly elected by the
served to the people of each State by the , people and represent their will. On refer
Federal Constitution, if it had deprived j euce, however, to my address of the lGth
them, or Congress should now deprive them, j September last, on the tax qualification
of the right of voting for or against their J question a copy of which was immediate
State Constitution. The President, in his j ly transmitted to you for the information of
message, thinks that the rights secured by j the President and Cabinet it is evident
this bill to the people, in acting upon their that the Lecompton Convention was not
State Constitution, are confined to the j such a body. That Convention had vital,
slavery question, but I think, as shown in j not technical, defects in the very substance
my address before quoted, that "sovereign- of its organization under the Territorial law,
ty is the power that makes Constitutions j which could only be cured, in my judg
and Governments," and that not only the ment, as set forth in my Inaugural and oth
slavery clause in a State Constitution, but j er addresses, by the submission of the Consti
all others must bo submitted. The Presi- J tution for ratification or rejection by the
dent thinks that sovereignty can be dele- people. On reference to the Territorial
gated at least in part. I think sovereignty law under which the Convention was assem
cannot be delegated at all. The President : bled, thirty-four reguh rly organized coun
believes that sovereignty is divisible be- ties were named as election districts for
tween conventions and the people, to be ex
ercised by the former on all subjects but
slavery, and by the latter only on that
question. Whereas, I think that sover
eignty is "inalienable," "indivisible," a
"unit incapable of partition," and "that it
cannot be delegated," in whole or in part.
It will not be denied that sovereignty is
the only power that can make a State Con
stitution, and that it rests exclusively with
the people, and if it is inalienable, and can
not be delegated, as I have shown, then it
can only be exercised by the people them
selves. Under our government, we know
no sovereigns but the people. Conventions
are composed of "delegates.' They are
mere agents or trustees, exercising not a
sovereign but a delegated power, und the
people are the principals. The power dele
gated to such Conventions can properly
only extend to the framing of the Constitu
tion, but its ratification or rejection can
only be performed by the power where sov
ereignty alone rests, namely, tho people
themselves. We must not confound sover
(ign with delegated powers. The provi
sional authority of a Convention to frame a
Constitution and submit it to the people, is
a delegated power; but sovereignty alone,
which rests exclusively with ' he people, can
ratify aud put in force that Constitution.
And this is the true doctrine of popular
sovereignty, and I know of no such thing,
nor does tho Federal Constitution recog
nize it, as delegated or conventional sover
eignty. The President, in a very lucid
pasago of Lit able message, gives unan
swerable reasons why the people, and not
conventions, should decide the question of
slavery in framing a State Constitution.
He says very truly, that from the necessary
division of the inchoate State into districts,
a majority of tho delegates may think one
way, and the people another, and that the
delegates (as was the case in Kansas) may
violate their pledges or fail to execute the
will of the people. And why does not this
reasoning apply with equal force to all other
great questions embodied in a State Con
stitution ; and why should the question of
slavery alone override and extinguish the
doctrine of popular sovereignty and tho
right of self-government 1 Most fortunate -ly
this is no sectional question, for it be
longs alike to the States admitted or in
choate, of the South as of the North. It is
not a question of slavery, but of State rights
and of State and popular sovereignty, and
my objections to the Lecompton Constitu
tion arc equally strong, whether Kansas un
der its provisions should be made a free
or slave State. My objections are based
upon a violation tf the right of self-government
and of State and popular sovereignty,
aud of forcing any Constitution upon the
people against their will, whether it recog
nized freedom or slavery. Indeed the first
question which the people ought to decide,
in forming a government for an inchoate
State, is, whether they will change or not
from a Territorial to a State government.
Now as no one who, with me, denies Feder
al or Territorial sovereignty, will contend
that a Territorial legislature is sovereign,
or represents sovereignty, or that such leg
islature (a mere creation of Congress) can
transfer sovereignty which it does not pos
sess, to a Territorial convention, this change
from a Territorial to a State government
can only be made by the power where a sov
ereignty rests namely, the people. Yet
a State government is forced upon the peo
ple of Kansas by the Lecompton Constitu
tion, whether thej- will it or not, for they
can only vote for the Constitution, and not
against it. But besides the change from a
Territorial to a State government, which
the people alone have a right to make, in
framinga State Constitution, there are many
other momentous questions included in
that instrument. It involves all the powers
of State government. There is the Bill of
C7 -
Bights, the magna chnrta of the liberties
of a free people; the legislative, executive
aud judicial functions ; the taxing power; , tion or 1('Jecti-J" by their vote, and that if
the executive franchise ; the great question , tns was not done, I would unite with them,
of education ; the sacred relations of bus- j t,ie PeoPle- as I now do, in " lawful opposi
baud aud wife, parent and child, guardian tion" to sucli a procedure,
and ward ; and all the rights affecting life, j The power and responsibility being de
liberty and property. There is also the : volved exclusively upon me by the Presi
question of State debts, of banks and paper dent, of using the federal army in Kansas
money, and whether they shall be permitted j to snrpress insurection, the alternative was
or prohibited. As all free government, as ' distinctly presented to me by the questions
stated by Mr Jefferson in the Declaration of propounded at Topeka, of arresting revolu
Independence, depends upon "the consent tion by the slaughter of the people, or of
ef the governed," how can it be known preventing it, together with that civil war
whether the people would assent to the which must have extended throughout the
Constitution unless it is submitted to their Union, by the solemn assurance then given,
vote for ratification or rejection ? But if that the right of the people to frame their
acquiesceuce can be presumed in any case, j own government, so far as my power exten
surely it cannot be in that of Kansas, where ded, should be maintained. But for this
so many of the delegates violated their I assurance, it is a conceded fact, that the
delegates to the Convention. In each and
all of these counties, it was required by law
that a census should be taken and the vo
ters registered; and when this was comple
ted, the delegates to the Convention should
be apportioned accordingly. In nineteen of
these oounties there was no census, and
therefore there could be no such apportion
ment there of delegates based upon such
census. And in fifteen of these counties
there was no registry of voters. These fif
teen counties, including many of the oldest
organized counties of the Territory, were
entirely disfranchised, and (by no fault of
their own,) could not give a solitary vote
for delegates to tho convention. This re
sult was superinduced by the fact, that
the Territorial Legislature appointed all the
sheriffs and probate judges in all these coun
ties to whom was assigned the duty by
law of making this census and registry.
These officers were political partisans, dis
senting from the views and opinions of the
people of those counties, as proved by the
election in October last. These officers
from want of funds, as they allege, neglect
ed or refused to take any census or make
any register in these counties, and there
fore they were entirely disfranchised, and
could not and did not give a single vote at
the election for delegates to the Constitu
tional Convention. And hero I wish to call
attention to the distinction, which will ap
pear in my Inaugural address, in reference
to those counties where those voters were
fairly registered and did not vote. In such
counts,.. Um .. fcU - - J 4'. ij.portuiiity
was given to register and vote, and they
did not choose to exercise that privilege,
the question is very different from those
counties where there was no census or reg
istry, and no vote was given or could be
given, however anxious the people might
be to participate in tho election of delegates
to the convention. Nor could it be said
these counties acquiesced, for wherever
they endeavored by a subsequent census or
registry of their own to supply this defect
occasioned by the previous neglect of the
Territorial officers, the delegates thus cho
sen were rejected by the Convention. I re
peat, that in nineteen counties ont of thirty-four,
there was no census. In fifteen
counties out of thirty-four there was no
registry, and not a solitary vote was given,
or could be given for delegates to the Con
vention in any one of these counties. Sure
ly, then, it cannot be said that such a
Convention, chosen by scarcely more than
one-tenth of the present voters of Kansas,
represented the people of that Territory,
and could rightfully impose a Constitution
upon them without their consent. These
nineteen counties in which there was no
census, constituted a majority of the coun
ties of the Territory, and these fifteen coun
ties in which there was no registry gave a
much larger vote at the October election,
even with the six months qualification, than
tho whole vote given to the delgates who
signed the Lecompton Constitution on the
7th November last. If, then, sovereignty
can be delegated, and Conventions, as such,
are sovereign, which I deny, surely it must
be only suck cases as when such Conven
tions are chosen by the people, which we
have seen was not the case as regards the
late Lecompton Convention. It was for
this, among other reasons, that in my In
augural and other addresses I insisted that
the Constitution should be submitted to the
people by the Convention, as the only
means of curing this vital defect in its or
ganization, It was, therefore, among other
reasons, when, as you know, the organiza
tion of the so-called Topeka State Govern
ment, and as a consequence an inevitable
civil war and conflict with the troops must
have ensued, these results were prevented
by my assuring, not the abolitionists, as
has been erroneously statedfor my address
was not to them, but the people of Kansas'
that in my judgment the Constitution would
e submitted fairly and freely for ratifica-
Topeka State government then assembled
in legislative session would have been put
into immediate actual operation, and that a
sanguinary collision with the federal army
and civil war must have ensued, extending,
it is feared throughout the Union.
Indeed the whole idea of an Inaugural
address originated in the alarming intelli
gence which had reached Washington city
of the perilous and incipient rebellion in
Kansas. This insurrection was rendered
still more formidable on my reaching the
Territory by the near approach of the as
sembling of the revolutionary State legisla
ture, and the very numerous mass conven
tions by which it was sustained. In truth
I had to choose between arresting that insur
rection, at whatever cost of American blood
by the federal army, or to prevent the ter
rible catastrophe, as I did, by my pledges
to the people of the exertion of all my pow
er to obtain a fair election, and the submis
sion of the constitution to the vote of the
people for ratification or rejection:
My Inaugural and other addresses were,
therefore, really in the nature of proclama
tions, (so often issued by Presidents and
Governors,) with a view to prevent, as they
did in this case, civil war and insurrec
tion. Now, by my oath of office, I was sworn
to support the Constitution of the United
States, which 1 have shown, in my judg
ment, required the submission of the Con
stitution to the vote of the people. I was
sworn also to "take care" that the Kansas
and Nebraska bill "should be faithfully
executed, which bill, in my judgment, as
heretofore stated, required that the Con
stitution should be submitted to the vote
of the people, and I was therefore only per
forming a solemn duty, when, as Governor
of the Territory, to whose people my first
obligations were due, I endeavored to secure
to them these results. The idea enter
tained by some, that I should see the fed
eral Constitution and the Kansas-Nebraska
bill overthrown and discharged, and
that, playing the part of a mute in a panto
mime of ruin, I should acquiesce by my si
lence in such a result, especially where
such acquiescence involved, as an immedi
ate consequence, a disastrous and sanguin
ary civil war, seems to me most preposterous,
Not a drop of blood has been shed by the
federal troops in Kansas during my admin
istration. But insurrection and civil war
extending, I fear, throughout the country,
were alone prevented by the course pursued
by me on those occassions, and the whole
people, abandoning revolutionary violence,
were induced by me to go, for the first time,
into a general peaceful election.
These important results constitute a suf
ficient consolation for ull the unjust assaults
made upon me on this subject. I do not
understand that these assaults have ever re
ceived the slightest countenance from the
President ; on the contrary, his message
clearly indicates an approval of my course
up to the present most unfortunate differ
ence about the so-called Lecompton Con
stitution. Inasmuch, however, as this dif
terenee is upon u vital question, involving
practical results and new instructions, it is
certainly much moro respectful to the
President on my part to resign the office
of Governor, and give him an opportunity
of filling it, as is his right under the Con
stitution, with one who concurs with him
in his present opinions, rather than go
to Kansas, aad force him to remove me by
disobedience to his instructions. This
latter course, in my judgment, would be
incompatible with proper respect for the
Chief Magistrate of the Union, inconsis
tent with the rules of moral rectitude or
propriety, and could be adopted with no
other view than to force the President to
remove me from office. Such a course, it
is alledged, would present me to the public
as a political martyr in the defence of the
great principal of self-government ; but to
go to Kansas with any such purpose, or
with a certain knowledge that such a result
must follow, . would be alike unjust and
improper. My only alteruative, then, is
that of a respectful resignation, in the hope
that Kansas and our beloved country may
be shielded from that civil war with which
I fear both are threatened, by any attempt
to force the so-called Lecompton Constitu
tion upon the people of Kansas.
I state it as a fact, based on a long and
intimate association with the people of
Kansas, that an overwhelming majority of
that people are opposed to that instrument,
and my letters state that but one out of 20
of the press of Kansas sustains it. Some
oppose it becauso so many counties were
disfranchised and unrepresented in the
convention. Some who are opposed to
paper money, because it authorizes a Bank
of enormous capital for Kansas, nearly un
limited in its issues and iu the denomina
tion of its notes, from one dollar up and
down. Some because of what they consi
der a know-nothing clause, by requiring
that the Governor shall have been twenty
years a citizen of the United States. Some
because the elective franchise is not free,
as they cannot vote against the Constitu
tion, but only on the single issue, whether
any more slaves may be imported, and then
only upon that issue by voting for the Con
stitution to which they are opposed. They
regard this as but a mockery of the elec
tive franchise, and a perious sporting with
the sacred rights of the people. Some op
pose it because the convention distinctly
recognises and adopts the Oxford frauds in
apportioning legislative members for John
son county, upon the fraudulent and ficti
tious so-called returns from that precinct,
which recognition of that fraud in the Con
stitution is abhorrent to the moral sense of
the people. Others oppose because, altho'
in other cases the Presidents of Conven
tions have been authorized to issue writs of
election to the regular Territorial or State
officers with the usual judges, with the
established precincts and adjudication of
returus, in this case unprecedented and
vice regal powers are given to the Presi
dent of the Convention to make the pre
cincts, the judges, and to decide finally
upon the returus. From the grant of these
unusual and enormous powers, and from
other reasons connected with the fraudu
lent returns from Oxford and McGee, an
overwhelming majority of the people of
Kansas have no faith in the validity of
these returns, and therefore will not vote.
Indeed, disguise it as we may to ourselvea,
under the influence of the present excite
ment, the facts will demonstrate that any
attempt by Congress to force this Constitu
tion upon the people of Kansas, will be an
effort to substitue the will of a small mi
nority for that of an overwhelming majori
ty; that it will not settle the Kansas ques
tion or localize the issue; that it will, I fear,
be attended by civil war, extending, per
haps, throughout the Union; thus bringing
this question back again upon Congress
and before the people in its most danger
ous end alarming aspect.
The President takes a different view of
the subject in his message; and, from the
events occurring in Kansas as well as here,
it is evident that the question is passing
from theories into practice; and that, as
Governor of Kansas, I should be compel
led to carry out new instructions, differing..
on a vital question, from those received at
the date of my appointment. Such in
structions I could not execute, consistently
with my views of the Federal Constitution,
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, or with my
pledges to the people of Kansas. Under
these circumstances, no alternative is left
me but to resign the office ef Governor of
tho Territory of Kansas.
No one can more deeply regret than my
self this necessity; but it arises from no
change of opinion on my part. On the
contrary I should most cheerfully have re
turned to Kansas to carry out my original
instructions, and thus preserve the peace
of the Territory, and finally settle the Kan
sas question by redeeming my pledges to
the people. It is not my intention to dis
cuss, at this time, the peculiar circum
stances and unexpected events which have
modified the opinions of the President upon
a point so vital as the submission of the
Constitution for ratification or rejection by
a vote of the people muoh less do I desire
any controversy with the President on this
subject; yet, however widely my views may
differ from those entertained by him on this
question views which I have held all my
life, and which, as involving fundamental
principles of public liberty and of the Con
stitution, are unchangeable yet, as re
gards all those great democratic measures
which, I trust, will constitute the policy of
his administration in other respects, it will
give me pleasure, as a piivato citizen, to
yield my cordial support.
I have said that the slavery question as
a practical issue hud disappeared from
Kansas long before my arrival there, and
the question of self government had been
substituted in its place. On some future
occasion I shall dissipate the delusion
which has prevailed on this subject, and
show that after three years' experiment,
when I arrived in Kansas there were less
than three hundred slaves there, and the
number constantly diminishing ; that, as
proved by the official records of Congress,
published and authenticated by those dis
tinguished Southern statesmen, John C.
Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, the winter
climate, even of Eastern Kansas, is colder
than that of New England, and that the
pro slavery Territorial Convention of Kan
sas, consolidated with the pro-slavery Tor
ritorial Legislature, on the 4th of January.
1857, nearly five months before my arrival
there, did distinctly abandon the slavery
issue, because, as set forth by one of their
number, "the pro-slavery party was in a
small and admitted minority," and the co
operation of the free-State Democrats was
invited, as the only hope of success, not to
make Kansas a slave State, which was con
ceded to be impossible, but to make it a
conservative democratic free State." Even
as late as the 3d of July, 1657, when the
Democratic Territorial Convention assem
bled at Lecompton, in consequence of the
laws of climate and the well known will of
the people, none contended that slavery
could be established there. Nor was it
until my southern opponents interferred iu
the affairs of Kansas, and by denunciation,
menace and otherwise, aided at a critical
period, by several federal office holders of
Kansas, including the surveyor general,
(the President of tho Convention,) with
his immense patronage, embracing many
hundred employees, intervened, and, as I
believe, without the knowledge or appro
bation of the President of the United
States, produced the extraordinary paper
called the Lecompton Constitution. Yet
this act of intervention by federal officers
to defeat the will of the people seems to be
sustained by my opponents; whilst my in
tervention, as it is called, in obedience to
my duty and oath of office to support the
federal Constitution, and to take care that
our organic law should be fairly executed,
by endeavoring to secure to the people ol
Kansas their rights under that act, is de
nounced and calumniated. It is still more
extraordinary, that the hypothetical re
marks made by me as regards climate in
connection with its influence upon the ques
tion of slavery in Kansas, after that issue
had been abandoned there, which views
were consolidating the union between con
servative Free State, and pro-slavery Dem
ocrats, so as to prevent the confiscation of
the small number of slaves then held in
Kansas, have been denounced by many
distinguished Southern Senators, who, when
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending in
Congress, aud when such remarks from
them, if ever, might affect southern emigra
tion, were then loudest in proclaiming that,
because of its climate, Kansas could never
become a slave State. Indeed, it seems
that all persons in and out of Kansas,
whether in public or in private life, may
publ ish what opinions they please as re
gards these questions, except the Governor
of that Territory, who has so little power
and no patronage.
And now be pleased to express to the
President my deep regret as regards our
unfortunate difference of opinion in rela
tion to the Lecompton Constitution, and to
say to him, that as infalibility does not be
long to man, however exalted in intellect,
purity of intention, or position, yet if he
has committed any errors iu this respect,
may they be overruled by a superintending
Providence, for the perpetuation of our
Union, and the advancement of the honor
and interest of our beloved country.
In now dissolving my official connection
with your department, I beg leave to tender
to you my thanks for your constant courte
sy and kindness.
Most respectfully, your obd't serv't.
B. J. WALKER.
ET-Advices from Florida state that there
have been more battles with the Indians.
Captain Parkhill has been killed aud sev
eral soldiers wounded.
An Indian Policy. The President
message presents a measure of internal p0j
cj in regard to the Indians which ought to
receive the prompt attention of Congress
The adoption of this measure will be the
most economical as well as the most Ch l
tian and efficacious mode of disposing ofour
restless and troublesome tribes, and eston
ping Indian aggressions on our frontier set
tlements. Our whole past history sustaint
the wisdom ofMr. Buchanan's proposed
policy" tRIMadiansJkuitaLle
localities, where iily'Tan reeeivfie rud.
ments ofeducation, anT gradually induced
to adopMbits of industry." These locations
will bePtered along the lines of military
poets and white settlements, in such a man
ner as to keep them under the supervision
of the supreme law, but not interfere with
each other. The mojrey now wasted in rum
and useless presentswill build them quae,
ters and fence in corn-fields, which will un
der the directing care of their agents, give
them bread, and win them by degrees to
value and cultivate their property. This
plan of colonizing the Indiaus is the last
and only hope of the race, and we trust it
will receive the thoughtful consideration of
the press and people of the United States.
.
Still Another Arctic Expeditow.
Doctor liayes, the surgeon of Kane expedi
tion, has published in the New York Trib
une his plan for another attempt to ru,i
the North Pole. He adopts the geogninhi.
cal ideas of his lamented commander i4S ;i
basis of operations, proposes to follow the
cast line of the continent, instead of that of
Greenland, in a journey to the North. He
thinks that a vessel of only a hundred tons
with fourteen men, equipped according to
his ideas of what is necessary to Health,
curity, and rapid exploration, will M)ft-.
cient to accomplish purposes of the lii'liest
interest to science, lie ataerta that it it
possible to greatly diminish the dangers of
the journey by the proper equipment of aa
expedition. Scurvy is the most terrible ene
my to be feared, and the Doctor thinks that
the methods of preserving meats and reset.
ables iu all their lirst freshness, which have
recently been discovered, have furnished a
preventative for the dreaded disease. The
extreme cold, he further contends, can be
withstood with attention to clothing, fuel
food, snow-houses, and vigorous exercise.
Besides the scientific results to be obtained,
Dr. liayes says that it would be an act of
true humanity to rescue the one hiitulre.1
and fifty Esquimaux from their perilous life
at Smith's Sound, and bring them south
ward, to where existence is easier, and in.
tianity may spread its blessed intlueuco
among the benighted ones.
Prof. Charles De death's El er trie OiL
Take it to the cotiage of the lowly, and it
lieve the pains ol accident or disease take
it to the mansions of tbe rich to fcooth the
suffering that neither Station nor wealtl, ran
mitigate; take it everywhere through the
wide world, and say it my "Electric Oil" is
not on It benign mitsion, healing soo lung,
ami relieving, as h as been done since the day
the Good Samaritan anointed the weary pi I -grina.
The deaf shall hear, the trembling limb br strong,
And groans Ttgii'!li nu tlow into song.
This Oil rnty be rfli! ou for d afnefs, to
bi- had of t he agent h re, see advertisement
in another column. For sale at Pritcharrf't.
Dec. 8. 2m
PROVIDE JYCE ACADEMY
12 miles south of Charlotte.
The exercises of the 17ih Session of this School
vill commence (Divine Providence perMiing) ih
tirst Mim day in Ja: uaiy next.
Terms, per Session oj 21 wee,.:
Classics and Maibemat.es, 912 :Q
English (Grammar, (Jeogiaphy A History, 6 00
Smdents will be received at any time during iht
session, but no deduction will be made lor ion UBU)
alter entrance. E. V. K V V KENDAL.
December 15, 1857. 61.M
To Hire.
On the 1st of January next, at the public
square in Charlotte,
13 or 20 Negroes,
belonging to Mary A., minor le-ir of the Inn- Hew.
John Williamson. J. M. HUTCHISON,
Dec. 15, ld57. :tt Guardian.
Negro Hiring.
On Thursday the 31st ot Dee., 1 will hire out
at my residence, all the negroes belongiifi
the minor heirs of the iate Dr. J. M. Eiarri, fur
the term of twelve months.
J. M. STRONG, Guardian
Dec. 15, 1857. 87-:!t
VALUABLE PROPERTY for Sale.
MI will expose to public sale on Tues
day of next January Court at the Court
House in Charlotte, my House & Lot
situated on Try on street, opposite to ibc Pretbj'
tenia church and joining the lots of B M Jami
son and Robert Sterling, said lot being 38 M
front and running back :'!9 feet. On the lot is
a first rate Dwelling and Biota House and out
houses and a W ell of excellent water. PenwtM
wishing to buy such property would do well to
call and examine it.
Also, at the same time and place, I will offer
for sale, the PLANTATION loinieily owned by
(Japt Isaac Campbell, dee'd, Iving 5 miles east
of Charlotte on tbe l'otters and Lawjen' road,
joining the lands of Wilson Wallace, M P.
Johnston and others, containing JdfeH acres. On
the place is a good Dwelling and out-houses,
and some first rate meadow land.
This place will be sold Mibject to the Widow's
dower. Any of the above property will be sold
privately if desired, at any time between thif
and January Court. Persons desiring K pur
chase can see me in Charlotte.
BP Terms made known on day of sal"-
J. C. MOORE.
Dec. 15, 1857. 87-0t
Trustee's Sale.
By virtue of a Deed of Trust executed
by Win. C. Beaty, 1 will sell on Tne-dity,
the 2d day of February, 1858, at the resi
dence of tsaid Beuty, two miles touth f
Charlotte,
t77 Acres of Land, more or less;
2 head of horses, 1 mule, 4 cows, stock of
hogs and farming utensils ; household aud
kitchen furniture ; 1 road wagon and a
small wagon ; a quantity of wheat, corn,
fodder, hay, fee.
Terms made known on day of sale.
G. W. WILLIAMSON.
Dec. 15, 1857. 87 -7t Trustee.
Dr. J. WL HAPPOIiDX,
OF SALISBURY, N. C,
Offers his professional services in tbe different,
branches of his Profession, not only to tbe citi
zens of Salisbury and the contiguous country,
but would respectfully notify the citi iu m
Mecklenburg and Cabarrus counties, and more
especially those in whose families he bad practic
ed for nearly twentj- years, whilst a resident of
Mecklenburg county and the town of Charlotte,
and with many of them maintained for yesrs, the
endearing relation as family Physician, that bis
services can be as easily obtained (by the facili
ties of Railroad travel) now, and in many instan
ces more so than when he lived among them.
Applications made by mail, or at the "Veranda
House," Salisbury, N.C, will meet w ith prompt
attention.
Salisbury, N. C, Dec. 15, 1957. tf