The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1858-06-02

ing on the constitution, and adopted it,
the act for admission would have received
my vote, without regard to whether it was
a slaveholdiug or non-slaveholding State.
Let us now examine briefly the provl
sions of the act as passed, and the ohjec-
tIons urged against it, -'7 essen 'a=-.rs
1t is charged, by the opponents of the
Democratic party, that this act is "bribe"
to the people of Kansas to adopt the
constitution, in the shape of land grants,
This law contains the same land grants
that were in the Senate bill and the Crit
tenden Montgomery amendment. There
fore, if it contains a bride, as some allege,
the same thing was embraced in both the
other propositions. But there vas no
brlbe III either. And why? Because Kan
sas will receive the same grants of Public
lands, no matter when, or under what con-
stituton, she may come into the Union;
and of this fact, her people are fully
aware, for these land grants arc made in
the case Of every new State; and, more
over, they are expressly guaranteed to
To assert iha: the people of Kansas
.Till adopt a constitution repugnant to the
Wishes Of so large a majority of them, as
it isclaimel, merely because it grants to
ihe Safe ,tomr. millions acres Of. land in
stead Of t,centyf four millions, as contain
Ell in the aorlihance accompanying the Le-
compton constitution, is to assert that
they are actuated more by desire to
nunicr than to secure Il constitution with
reference to the principles Involved. IT
this b. lie case, ii is q strong reason why
the people oF this great country should
not be ccmbroileu longer over matters which
I he citizens Of Kansas value so lightly.
This objection is made at the expense of
lhc virtue, intelligence, and patriotism CT
that peol'r. -'' t-.'" .H
You will, therefore, perceive that there
is no force whatever in this objection
that it is totally fallacious and erroneous.
h. Agaih, 1t is said that the Lecompton
constitution is not submitted to a vote Of
the. people. You will agree with me-for
it must be conceded that the mere form
of the ballot is nf no conseque nee. Tae
i'm bortant inqnity is, what is the effect OF
the vote? This act provides for two forms
Of Ballot, aud that in case one form pre-
walls, Kansas is, upon the proclamation of
the President, admitted; but if the other
form prevails, 'then it is deemed and held
THAT the people of Kansas do not desire
/ admission under said (Lecompton) con-
stitution," aud that instrument is without
fvaliditv-it is defeated Thus you will
Bpetrcaeiye that the people of Kansas have
/ it in their power IS fully and completely
! to vote for and against the Lecompton
fconstitution, as though the act had ex-
4 pressly provided that the ballots to be
! used at the, election, should contain the
words 80" the constitution" or "against
tie. constitution " On these points there
can be 70 doubt-none at ALL The Ian
guage Of the act itself clearly sustains
/ this construction Even the opponents
, of. The measure admit this; but they claim
that it is not "bo!d and manly submis-
sion..". This objection is purely ideal not
| real :. am no. particular as to names OF
! forms, SO that the substance is decided
which unquesticnabIy is the case. The
4 people, voting for or against the PROPOSE
i ton for admissions, will decide whether
they viii come into the Union as State
l with the. Lecomptonconstitution, or wheth
er they viii remain as Territory unit
they have the requisite population emitting
them to admission. '"n hTe r7" .sa-aeat
.sWhen we get the Substance. we should
not quarrel about the shadoa'c. - In the
lapgua &c of another, children only wouc
quarrel about the ,cordS or form. States
men shonld. look. to matter and substance
1t is sufficient for me to know that, under
the act in question, Kansas cannot be al
mitted asa State, with the Lccomptor
or-any other constitution, untess the peo-
pie sag so. By their rotes. And is this no,
sufficient to satisfy alp For what moro
have anti 7Lecompton Democrats been con.
tending?, True. it is the question Of the
admission of Kansas as a State Of the
Union that is, directly submitted to avote
of the people; but the decision a of thai
question necessarily carries with it a deci
siou upon the Lecompton constitution
4 vote Of the majority Of the people IN
favor Of tie proposition for admission, Is
a rirtual acceptance Of the Lecompt9n con
stltution; and q cote Of the majority Of ht
people against that proposition is a rirtua
rejection Of the Lecon,ptom constitution
This position I regard as conclusively
established, Hence the objection raised
to the form of submission is frivolous-it
has no weight or Importance.
Another objection urged is, that this
tact makes a discrimination. ag liust non
slaveholding States in providieg, That il
ease the people of Kansas vote down the
Lecompton constitution, she is not to be
admitted until the Territory contains pop
ulation enough to entitle her to one mem
ber of Congress, according to the ratio
of representation. That this Objection
should be made is quite natural; and
cannot now recollect any act done by the
Democratic party, where the question o
slavery was involved, which was not charg-
ed by the opposition as "pandering to the