Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1858-05-14

in his opposition to the Conference Kansas
bill, 1t hurts the feelings of that editor,
too, to hear that bill denounced as a fraud;
and he, enormously, infers that every one
who supported it, is denounced as a swind
ler. He should remember, however, that
fraud does not appear fraud to those
who are cheated by it, and that they only
can justly be denounced as political
swindlers who perpctrate the fraud
Honest men can be deceived into the sup
port Of dishonest measures but the habi-
tually dishonest support them, knowing
their character, and strive to justify them
selves by decciving the public with false
assumptions.
II proposition bearing two faces be
not swindle, what is it? And if de-
partue from an honest, manly, strait for
ward course be not dishonest, what is it ?
Now, what are the evidences of fraud in
this Kansas movement In the first place
the Kansas Nebraska bill broadly laid
down the doctrine of popular sovereignty
and locolocos shouted Justify over its pas
sage as a wonderful achievement The
FIRST attempt to reduce it to practice, was
made in Kansas, and under circumstances
poorly calculated to endear the doctrine to
honest men and Gov Walker denounces
the result as "the odous Lecompton Con-
otitution, born in fraud and baptized in
forgery and perjury" The authors of
this Infamous swindle, dared not submit it
squarely to popular vote, and the Adj
Ininistration--ignoring the doctrine Of
popular sovreignty-undertook to force
constitution, "born in fraud, and baptized
in forgery and perjury" upon people who
protested against it. That effort was de-
feated by the passage, through the lower
House, Of the Crittenden amendment
The result Of this defeat was the Con-
ference bill. Does it present two faces,
and establish its claim to be fraud p
Let US see.
During the discussion of the English
bill, Mr.. Stevens emphatically declared
that it did not submit the constitution to
the peoplc--if it did, he would oppose it.
Stevens was member of the Conference
Committee, and ought to know. When
English was asked, by Humphrey Marshall,
if his bill did or did not submit the con-
stitution to the people, why did he refuse
to answer? Because he was willing
party to the fraud, and dared not convict
himself and the Administration which
framed the bill. Gen. Quitman, a staunch
southern democrat, opposed the bill and
why? To use his own llnguage-"upon
the ground that it was a submission back
to the people of Kansas of the Lecompton
Constitution, in substance and reality -
Stevens supported it because it didn't, and
Quitman opposed it because it did and
English voted for it because he was afraid
TO say whether it did, or didn't
Without adducing the testimoney of
Walker, Cox, Lawrence and others, pro
and con, there is enough Of proof, in the
cases cited, to satisfy us that the English
bill is fraud-knowiugly and wilfully
devised by southern locofocos to cheat the
South that some aspirants to high places
may get the northern locofoco vote in
1850 The President said, in his Kansas
message, that the Constitution ought not
to be referred back to tho people, and
privately, added that he would "burst" if
Kansas were not admitted under the Le-
compton Constitution, He has signed the
English bill and has not "busted :" there
fore, the English bill does not refer the
constitution back Amid this whirlwind
of conflicting opinion, will the Union &
American tell us whether the constitution
i, or is not, submitted to the people of
Kansas If yea, does he denounce the
President and Stevens? If nay, does he
dcnounce Quitman and others who affirm
the contrary? Honor bright, Frank
Say The thanksgiving day, in Kansas,