Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1858-05-20

and cheerfully | shall rest upon it, satisfied
that | am right, and ] shall be sustained in
it by a patriotic constituency.
Sir, it were bootless to return to the Sen
ate bill, but, as l sm upon the floor, | will
recap;tulate in brief t:rms-for | do not
want to detain the house-the heads and
points uuon which nv W opinions have
turned thus far. and by which my course
has been guided. l heard the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Siephens) yesterday
PROFOUND the question to the gentleman
rom Maryland CHR. ravis) whether he be-
Iieved the Territorial Legislature, which
called the convention in Kansas, had the
power to call the convention! | do not
know what response was made, but | de-
sire to say to the gentleman from Georgia,
and to the country, that that very point is
the Ringing point upon which my convic-
tions on this matter turn. do not believe
that the Territorial Legislature possessed
the power to initiate a convention to such
a degree as to bind either Kansas or the
Congress of the United States. l believe
that when that convention was assembled,
and when it had drafted 4 constitution, the
want OF the pre-assent OF Congress pre-
vented the instrument from binding Con-
gress; and if it did not bind Congress. it
could not bind the people of Kansas. If
had time,I could demonstrate that PROPOSE
ton.
And, Sir, when the people of Kansas
sent up to us, through her delegate upon
this floor, who has a legal status here, by
the resolutions of her Legislature, which is
a legal body--through her vote on the 4th
of January, regular or irre~gular--through
The Territorial Governor, who was the
Fedora! appointee-and through the Terri
torial Secretary-through all these chan
nels, the clear, distinct declaration, "we
are not willing that this Constitution shall
be the fund amental, political law Of the
State;" believing as | did, and as | yet do,
that the Legislature which initiated il, had
no legal right TO do SO, that the President
who consented had no jurisdiction, and
the refore his consent yielded no additional
power, | felt myself bound to pause, and
listen to the voice of the people. Sir, no
specious soptistries could dissuade me, and
no casuistry betray me After all, it final
Iy comes to this, whether we are to obey
the dictum Of The Convention or the will of
the people. While ] had liberty to act,
while it was in my congressional function
to act, ! did not hesitate to take that posi-
ton which had a tendency to give the fair.
est chances to the people Of Kansas to make a
constitution to suit themselves, before estab-
lishing relations with them by Jaw, under
which relations | might be called upon
next week to compel them, by force CT arms
to obey that instrument as their Constitu-
ton.
But, sir, | will not dwell on the Senate
bill, or the amendment OF the House, but
shall c%onfne myself to this report. We
have had a conference; and | say that. in
my opinion, The conferees have submitted
the question so that the people of Kansas
may get hold of it, but can get hold OF it on
ly at the expense of stultifying themselves.
1t is accompanied with a disabling act,
wi.ic h, in my opinion, makes an invidious
distinction between the free and slave
States OF the county in regard 10 their in
situations, which will have a tendency to
wound the pride of the majority, and to es-
tab lish a rule of action that it is unsafe for
US t. purpose We, who belong to that
section of the country that is in a minority
of representation, ought 10 be wonderfully
careful thst, whenever we institute a rule
of action here, it shall be based upon i'm
mutable principles of justice and const.tu-
tional right.
Now, sir, without wishing to cetain the
House, | plant myself upon these PROPOSE
tions as indicating the reasons why | oppose
this bill. Let Us have another conference,
if you please. Strike off that disabling act
and leave the enabling act, and it will come
sufficiently close to TIE Crittenden-Mo nt-
gompry m e2dmeHt for me to vote for it,
because what | wanted at the commence
ment. and what | want at the close, is a
fair settlement of the Kansas question. do
not want, and never have wanted, to leave
the Kansas difficulty open. Had q majority
of the members of this House been of NY
Opinion at the start, | would have laid down
my opinion at the start, 1 would have laid
down the principle that no State should be
admitted into the Union without sufficient
population-upon a legal cenTus-for prom
er representation. l would nave settled that
point at the commencement, and | would
have guided myself by it in The case of
Kansas; but there is scarcely any one here
of my way of thinking. / would rather go
back TO that rule and now establish it, i'm
mutually, if il were possible, establish it as
the rule for the future, rather than any 9TH
er rule.
know | cannot find other advocates of
it; on the contrary, it is proposed to bring
in Kansas with a population of forty, fifty,
or sixty Thousand people, do not know
how many there are, but | do not think
there are over 40, 900; ] have never seen
any mode of calculation that would make
her population more than 4 1000. Some
gentleman said this morning that Gov.
Walker thinks she will have a population
of SO, 900 by the fall. | do not know what
his calculations are, or how fast immigra-
ton is going there. But, il she must be ad-
Wltltus Tue pidlu, idi, epu'tioio piopusltioH
of the Crittenden Montgomery smendment.
Gentlemen from this side of the House who
voted for that proposition, voted for it with
their eyes open. They voted for it not only
as an amendment, but they voted for it to
make it an act OF Congress. They did SO,
well understanding that it embraced the
principle that if it was the will of the peo-
pie of Kansas that she should be a slave
State. they conceded that she should be.