The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1856-08-16
ADMISSION OF KANSAS.
SECOND SPEECH
no N. JACOB COLLAME r


- Sc00te, J0me -, 1919.
Mr. DOUGLASS. from the Committee on Terrific
rieS to whom WAS referred the House bill lNn ali
Tor the admission of Kan>a. into the Vn,on. r-p,rt
Ell II back with an amendment in the nature Of Il
,Io>t;'l'c. I" strike ont the e,cfirg clause and in
SER IN lieu thereof the biii passed bv the Scnate
the 81 july
Mr. DoUGI.As addressed the Senate ut some
length
ME. CoLLAMER.-Mr. President. I have
had occasion TO address the Senate On this
subject before, because | thought 1t was de
mandcd by the position in which the Senate
had placed me. They appointed ME mem
Der OF the Committee on Territories. and
when have differed in opinion from the ma
JorI'y OF the Committee. | have felt it 70 be
my duty to make that difference of opinion
known. thought this was a duty which
owed to the Senate, and have endcavor,,l
to state. as fairly and as distinctly as could
the grounds for the opinions which maintain
| understood, too. that it was tie universal
usage Of this body, after the chairman Of a
committee had spoken in support of the re-
port Of the committee. for those who present
ed the views Of the minority to SUSTAIN them
| have attempted heretofore TO perform this
duty. 1t tapprar> rha, it nov occurs to IN. a
gain. The chairman has made a report thi.
morning. in regard TO which differ from the
majority of the committee. lie has briefly
stated his views, an! suppose that duty re-
quires OF me to state to this lao lv The re .sons
which govern me in differing in opinion from
him and the committee on this subject In o.
brdienre to this duty. which understand IA
be devolvrd on ne by an appointment tha,
has been conferred on me- | shall proceed As
briefly as | may to state the grounds OF INV
objection to this proposition.
In the first place. beg leave to remark
that it is not true that, because a bill upon
its face is we'll enough. il ought therefore to
be sustained. Thi. bill ma. have upon il
face no serions objections, and yet. after all
there NAV hr no foundation for a mars vo-
ting for it. Every lawyer will understand
me when say tha: not every bill III chan, ery
nor every decara ton in a SUIT at law can
and ought 70 be sustained p-c aus- YOU can.
not drmur to it. 1t NAV te we'll enousI, on il,
face; you cannot dtmur to 1t. but th-rr is nc
reason for saving the suit should be sustained
That depends On the other proofs aud plead
in,s in the rase. The saune remark is irne of a
bill here. 1t NAV be- we'll enough On It's face
but. the state Ut the circumstances. the condi
tiUn OF things. NAV be such as 10 render Il ex
recding!y Inexpedicnt and improper. Tha
state OF circumstances must be brought for
ward in a suit At law. BY pleas setting then
up. and not bv demurrer. So In this ra>r
the IA Is whirhcxist should he presented
tn 1t We may see, upon a view OF the bill an
the facts. whether the bill ought to pass
must therefore pro rel in some measure Il
detail what The facts are. aud whv il is that
cannot sustain this measure. even thon.h or
IFS face it may rot apparently bs objectiona
ble
} do not mean TO consume nv time nv 60
ing over the previous history which has le,
TO the present state Of things 1t seems to me
very extraordinary that scntIcmen-as so,l,e
have done in this body-should call upon u,
70 present our plans and provisions for the
purpose of meeting and relieving the presen,
exigency of affairs. and at the same time .ay
tha. We must not present those which require
Won to 90 back and undo ANYTHING heretofore
done. Sir, know of no way in which di.
eases Of anv kind. moral. political or physical
ran ever be reached but bv i,quirn. in {
the cause of the difficulty; and the on', true
mode OF redress and correction must be tv re
moving the cause of difficulty. 1t will MOI
do to sav to us that We should give a system
to remove the difficulty, but must al the sam,
time take care not to touch the the cause,
that produced it, This 10 mr is exceedingly
inron>i>tcn', unreasonable and paradOxical
Now. sir. however far this bill NAV toe for
trying the experiment, as IT is called. wha,
experiment is it that it proposes totry? The
Senator from Illinois has just told US. l; i.
to carry out the experiment which was pro
posed in the adoption of the Kansas Nrbr,>
ka bill. The purpose. he saws, is to carr,
out that experiment fairly. That brin: III.
purpose of the bill. is 1t proper that gentle
men who were opposed to the project of tn,
Kansas Nebraska till originally should b,
called upon to aid in carving out that exprr
imcnt? Is it reasonable to ask it? We wer,
opposed to the experiment altogether W,
should not be expected to aid in carving on
an experiment against which We have all
long protested. Certainly, think it is un
reasonable to expect it. do not mean to T.,
understood AS intimatinc that we should b,
captious for the purpose of defeating it, =
Though NAV be opposed to a bill alto.rth
err. may be willing to perfect it, so that. if
IT must pass contrary to nv wishes, IT may b.
as little objectionable as possible. This is m,
rule OF ethics in legislation. If gentlemen
have better one. thev can adopt il for them
selves. It's not to te expected, however
that because amendments are made on ,b
motion Of those who are opposed to the c-ner
al purposes OF hill, they are therefore Il
vote for the bill.
Now, l wish TO state briefly what ware i,
my mind the great objections to this experi
ment ever having been begun, and then vii
state some reasons why think i, should no
now be attempted TO be perfected in thi
way. What was the experiment? II wa
that We should repeal the Missouri Cnmpro
mise, set aside all the assurances of quiet an,
rrpOse which We gave to the country in la
SO. and set aside the compromise OF 1920 -
aud, after that provision had been made or
the subject Of slavery for all the Territories
to throw it to the winds by declaring th.
whole proceeding to be varant.
What else did you do? Instead of having
the asifatins subject discussed and settled by
Congress by the nation-vou sad Won
would turn it over to the people who mi Phi
happen to 90 into this territory thereafter
for there we're none there when this act wa.
passed.
We objected to both the features ofthe ex
pertinent. We protested. from the begin
ming. that the compromises which had been
ma le, and the repose which hal been settled
$, ouId no; be destroyed. In the next place
We said that subject in which the whole
community was interested should not be turn
ed over to local Legislation and local action
in the Territory. II involved questions IN