The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-10-24
THE ENGLISH BILL In SOUTH CAROLINA.
OPINIONS OF A FIRE EATER
MR. kElTT In A SWAMP,
ke., &s., sc.

Extracts from a speech OF the Hon. Il. M.
Keitt. Deiivsred as WhiPpy swamp, South
FEIIow- CnzKss-I accepted with peculiar read ness
your invitation to address you as It enables me to
make an exposition Of my political without the
imputaon Of selfish motives. The relations between q
representative Congress and his constituents
rous delicate and important The best Representative
oftentmes requires much OF charity and forbearance
These have uniformly received from my constituents,
and make to you and to the rest Of them my warm &C
knowledments
My course upon the Conference bin intend to-day to
defend Justify supported it, and shall not shrink
from its defence affirm and shall maintainfrst, that
the Iecompon constitution not submitted by 1t 10 tho
people of Kansas for ratification rejection second
that is in strict conformity TO State rights aud has the
sanction OF precedents and third that the South lost no
thing in its passage.
people You must remember that Kansas applied for ad
mission upon two conditions rst the reception of her
nance. The issues between the two parties were made
upon the Iecompton constitution The republicans con-
tended that the first Territorial Legislature Kansas had
been elected by inruding bands of illegal voters from
Missouri and tina, therefore Illegal all of its
Illegal all Of subsequent Territorial Legislatures e
gall and consequently that the Convention which framed
the Iecompton constitution being in regular sequence
from the first Territorial Legislature itself illegal in
origin, authority and acts. They further contended
that prosayery constitution not republican, and
that constitution derived its binding efficacy from its
ratification by popular vote. These were the issues
made and these the issues which and covered
both by the Senate bill and the Conference bill Now,
the Lecompon constitution submitted to the people Of
through the OF the conference DIP This
be determined by the words of the BILL and il doubts
the meaning Of those words, they must be
planned by the contemporaneous Interpretation given by
the authors Of the bill Let what the words OF
the bill. They as follows
Whereas the people Of the Territory Of Kansas did by
a convention of delegates assembled Iecompon on the
7h day of November 1857 Tor that purpose form for
themselves constitution and State government, which
constitution Is republican, and whereas at the same time
aud place, SAID Convention did adopt ordinance, which
sad ordinance asserts tha Kansas, when admitted as
State will have an undoubted right to tax the lands within
her limits belonging the United States and proposes
renqush said asserted right certain conditions set forth
in sad ordinance be accepted and agreed to by the United
States ana whereas the sad constitution and ordinance
have been presented to Congress by order OF said Conven
ton admission Of said Territory into the Union there
State requested and whereas said ordinance IL
moi acceptable to Congress and is desirable ascertain
said ordinance hereinafter stated and desire admission
into the Union as State as herein proposed" &c.
Now what do these words meani Do they import
disagreement the Iccompon constitutional DO they
affirm that is republican, And Is not all the rouer of
Congress the inspection Of State constitution exhaust
ed in declaring il republican, Do they not in fact affirm
plainly aud directly that the Iecomp,on constitution is
ceptablc to Congress and accepted by hY-or they de-
clare that s.said ecompon) constitution and ordinance
havebeen presented Congress by order of said Conyen
ton admission OF said Territory into the Union there
State requested and ,chereas said ordinance not
acceptable Congress, &c. Can any sequence Of words
plainly ad distinctly accept the Iecompton const
tuition than those have quotedS
What then was submitted Simply the Land ordinance
But have been told nothing said OF the Land ordi
is not true. 1t was specifically rejected by the Senate
bill In the very beginning the friends of the Lecompton
constitution struck at the Land ordinance repudated and
rejected made exorbitant aud unustlablc demands
AMI not friend Of Kansas in Congress ever uttered
word in support OF IT, was not one OF the matters put
in issue for the Senate bill itself distinctly and cmphati
cally rejected it, II claimed for Kansas than twenty
three millions of Of the public lands while four
millions the quantity granted to other States upon
their admission II this exorbant demand accedeJ
why might not other States in preparing for ad
mission usurp conscae 10 their all the lands
A.. IF..ttxA .l
all the States now in the Union demand all tho public
lands within their limits. and what justice would there
be in refusing their demands The simple truth Is, that
Kansas applied admission with her Land ordinance as
a and its demands exorbitant Congress
changed H. terms, and submitted the changes TO the peo
pie OF Kansas for adoption rejection. THIS the
matter notwithstanding more and nothing less. What
other disposition could have been made OF the
None other except either concedng the extraordinary aud
exorbant demands contained IN the Land ordinance
peremptorily refusing admission TO Kansas There
no, single supporter the Land ordinance IN Congress
and did those who camor against the Conference
bill wish Of the South peremptorily to refuse admission
TO Kansas II they did not then the principle contained
in the Conference bill cannot be fairly excepted 70 by
them.
D. The South lost practical advantage the passage
Of the Conference BILL The constitution was nominay
proslavery, but there few slaves the Ter rtory
Tie free state population was largely IN the majority, aud
the Leg ature had been 10 the free socr. Two
abnltnnist would have been elected To the Senate
the Lecompton constitution would have been changed in
months. True, with these results had nothing
do but we sacrificed no principle, then the south lost
practical advantage.
But i i said that the great fact stands in our path that
Kansas Is not admitted. The fact l. true but WHY Be
she refused acccp, the MODIFICATION Of land
ordinance she presented 10 Congress surrounded with
the sancto Of authority aud aested by the
fornatics her constitution aud upon rs one condi
and her constitution the other. she applied for al
ordinance modified, and the Modification sent
back for her acceptance rejection. II has been
rejected, and the constitution falls, IL fall does
through vote upon but because the people Of Kan
reject the modified Land ordinance, and refuse he
admitted And had they not right 10 eject 10
Congress would not acccp, their Land either ia
the Senate bill or any other bill nobody proposed To
cept IL: and having changed the terus had they not
right tn refuse them and to stay outy That anti slavery
fanaticism lies behind this result make doubt That
II should of rapidly fastening conflict make
doubt. But that Il chargeabe 10 the provisions II
the Conference bill do distinctly deny n the disturb
ing and dividing element Of slavery hal been withdrawn
II partisan sectional question whatever had been M
issue, the course pursued 10 the Conference bill wond
have been pursued Kansas would have been negotiated
with, and the modification Of her ordinance submitted 70
The result II il true would have been da rent for she
would have accepted the notification. hut her right 20
reject would have been the Fanacism defeated
the change Congress proposed but the motives o the
tiers could not touch. We sacrificed principle aud
could not guard against the Illicit operations OF anti slave
ry hate.
But would Kansas have been in the Union II the senate
bill bad passcdf No more than under the Conference bill
III tho senate bill the Land ordinance changed and
the assent Of Kansas 20 the change required With
that she not In the Union But u has been
said her LEGISLATURE organized and elected United
Senator's her acqucscence would be implied and her nd.
mission would be perfect. Granted. but suppose her
legislature refused organize and elect Senator's what
them She would be just where she II The ifgsa
turc free soil. an would 4 have organized nj
into the Unions Is AZ all probable that would have
acted Inherently from the people, No; the result
would have been attained under the senate bill that has
been reached under the Conference bill and this for the
obvious that both bills rejected the Land orii
aud required the assent Of kansa 10 the changes
made ia by Congress Eanaticism could have defeated
sdmissi on under the bill easily under the
other Thus far the two bills substantially agree They
differ in two points, aud IN two material points
only. The Iccompt0n constitution prohibited any
change IN itself before the year 1884 The senate
bill declared this prohibition TO DC In effect null and
void. In this respect interviewed "a The affairs Of Kan
sas and dictated feature NJ Der constitution. II
still further II degraded constitution and dragged
gan law down 20 the level Of changcabe statutes II
euihroned The numerical majority aud trampcd into the
dust all the guarantees Of constitutional protection II
outraged conservatism and adtndgcd omnipoience 10
"brute numbers Upon this tremendous assumption