The Cass County Republican. [volume] (Dowagiac, Mich.) 18??-1880, 1858-05-13

In Speech of Hon. VIM. A. Howard on th
ce English Compromise Bill, Delivere
IT. April 2Sth, 1858.
Ext ADMISSION OF KANSAS. iasrri
On The Speaker-The report of the cor
ference committee on the Senate bi
as No. Is, for the admission of the State O
he Kansas into the Union, was postpone,
er until one o'clock to-day. That tim
or has now arrived, and that question i
er now the business in order before th,
or House.
lst Mr.. HowARD-Mr. Speaker, I hay,
er no disposition to detain the House b,
od any extended remarks on this question
Sc at this time; and but for the fact thai
l was on the committee which reported
I'd this proposition, / would have preferred
{; to have been silent altogether. But
ct when the majority of the committee
adopt report, submitting substitute
le from which l withhold my assent. /
become for the time, the only represen.
IN tatlve of the position of the House as it
" was when the committee of conference
p was appointed; and for that reason.
1t sir, | will state as briefly as 1 can some
Is OF the reasons which induce me to
le withhold my assent from the report.
II A contest has arisen in this and in the
e other branch of Congress touching the
Lecompton constitution and the admis-
e sion of Kansas into the Union as a
q State under it. On the one hand it
Z, was contended that although submis-
g sion to the people was not always alb
S0lufQIU fhof IL L
= waived if there was no substantial dis
agreement or opposition, yet if the
(; people denied that the constitution was
!; their act and deed, or reflected their
Il will, the matter of submission involved
t all that was sacred in elfgovernment.
1t may be waived just as we sometimes
I pass bill in the House with a single
l vote. But if the instrument be chal-
lenged, then it is the consent of the
people that breathes, and that must
: breathe the first principle of life into it.
1t was contended that this Lecomp-
ton constitution was not the act of the
people of Kansas, and therefore that
their consent must be obtained to give
|! it life. On the other side, it was con-
;enueu W WIdt'sftett5ss.2-rnat e force and consist
ency, at least, on the part of the nrs.,q..
who urged it, that the Kansas Nebraska pc
lct was an enabling act, and that in be
act the Lecompton constitution was tn
under it; that the proceed en-
ngs of the convention were legal, reg OF
liar, binding and conclusive; that the
people of Kansas were estopped from be
lenying it; and that Congress had no let
power to intervene. l do not say that pa
hey all took that ground; that the to
Kansas Nebraska act was an enabling sti
lct; but they all insisted that it was WI
egal, binding, and conclusive, and that of
here was no power to intervene. 90
Now, sir, in my Judgment, the COM lei
nittee instead of meeting this issue w
airly. and graphing with it like men, sa
We have neither the position of the one tic
,r the other maintained, nor does this tic
substitute rise to the dignity of COM un
promise. / do not say that I would tn
assent to compromise where such it.
questions were involved, but say that
fit is to be taken as a compromise, ask or
or the privilege for myself at least, of M
fairly upon it as compromise. th
# we are to compromise, then we an
should come forward and say that we re
will yield so much, and you shall yield au
10 much, and we will stand or fall upon ge
t as compromise. But this does no M
such thing. 1t is not compromise, WI
)ut species of dodge. Instead of ba
with the issue presented, the tit
some way or other, got up ma
| sort of tow-boat by which this Lee an
compton craft is to be brought into ad
port or else stranded. If the position us
If the South were right, then we could sa
10 nothing by which it could be be
a tr1
1t may be said that the Lecompton ac
Constitution is not submitted to the G.,
people; that the principles contended by
or by the extreme meu of the South are so
that the question submitted til
S the land ordinance, and not the con- IN
'titution. Very well. Suppose that ci:
We concede it; but if the people vote W
lown that ordinance, then, by the sh
.erms of the conference proposition, co
Lecompton is dead. If it be dead, who sa
killed it? If the proceedings of that dc
were legal, if they were OF
binding and conclusive upon the people, as
md they were estopped from denying 1
t, and if Congress have no power to ev
interfere, how and of what process er
will Lecompton be dead, if this ordi- pr
nance be voted down? And yet it sa
proves upon it's face that that will be bu
is effect. 1t reminds me of the fellow lal
hat went to pray pardon of his sover-
eign. He prostrated himself before his as
majesty, and asked pardon for having ad
Knocked off the hat of a fellow subject. pc
The pardon was readily granted. He co
hen informed his majesty that the fell tn
ow's head was in his hat, and that that tel
vas knocked off too. Now, gentlemen, tie
you decline to submit the Lecompton
but you do submit the DE
ordinance, and if the ordinance be m;
7oted down, the head of Lecompton is tir
lnocked off, and who did it? Will it ad
amount to substantial yielding of the as
principle, as contended for or not? If or
he ordinance be adopted, the South tn
night waive all further discussion of as
he principles; but if it be voted down, is
md Lecompton be thereby lost, then tn
What follows? Why, it simply follows IA,
hat we have done by indirection what til
t was alleged we had no power to do, er
'ither directly or indirectly, or the peo- th
)le themselves. an