The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-06
THE KANSAS CONFERENCE BILL.
REMARKS OF HON. w. w. BoYcE,
or SOUTH CAROLINA,


flsf af Aara or SCUM CAROLINA,
In ais House Of Representatives Monday, May 5, 1868
Mr.. BoYCE Mr. Chairman, sought the floor some
days s.se possible after the gentleman nom
Miss sippi Mr QrrAAS had stated bis objections to the
bill then before the House. reported from the cQmmittee
OF conference in relation to the admission Of Kansas
The high regard have for that gentleman induces me TO
treat his dissent upon this occasion from the almost
unanimous action OF the southern delegations In both
houses with great respect. The genteInans oojec-
tons 70 the proposed bill were two-old FIRST, that u
letting down the part Of the South from tho posi-
ton had heretofore held upon this suDJect second
that tho reference OF the land grant proposition 70 vote
Of tho people Of Kansas Infringement OF state
rights Even to grant the truth Of the nnt 3D.
lection might not be conclusive because the ques
ton would still be- the present proposition wisel
that queson be answered in the Affirmative as think
must necessarily be- should we be estopped from taking
because we had previously taken indefensble poson
think not Ii our past position unwsely taken.
instead of clinging to error, should mako haste
to put ourselves the imprsgnabe ground OF common
and truth But do not admit hat We have changed
our ground What had we been contending for 7 That
should not. b. rejected because she had slave
constitution and that Congress should not intervene and
prescribe how that constitution should be framed by the
people Of kansas The bill from the committee comedies
both of these positons claimed by The bill, con-
cedng both these propositions only requires the assent OF
the people Of Kansas what is confessedy reasonable
proposition In reereucs TO the public domain we have
never contended that Kansas should 10 admitted with her
unjust ordinance operative in regard to the public lands
All of action upon this subject has been In rcpudl
ton of that ordinance We say to the people as ex
actly hat hare ad AL the time repudiae that or
nance agree what II customary and right in regard to
the public land and you are in the Union under tho Le
compton constitution only vary the mode of obtain
ing that result The first objection Of the gentleman
from mississippi Is, submit unfounded
proceed now to the second objection This requires
more extended consideration and involves wide range
of augmentation constitutional law, which will fur
nish, think, satisfactory answer TO the objection
The territorial legislature Of Kansas called conven
ton to frame s.ste constitution. This convention
framed what known the Ieoompton constitution and
applied for admission Whatever vitality this constu-
ton has derived primarily from the territorial legis
laturo consider that the territorial Legislature had no
power to originate authoritative State organisation
Certain provisions in the Kansas Nebraska bill have been
supposed to confer this power Tho words of the said
bearing this point follows. Tho territorial
legislature shall have power call rghtfu subjects
of legislation consistent with tho constitution and said
act and the people left perfectly freq to form and reg
uatc their domestic institutions in their way subject
however to the constitution of the United States These
provisions do not in my opinion operate enabling
act and do not therefore, authorize the people of Kan
set up State In subvers0n of the ter
rtorial government, These provisions are to be con-
srued In subornaon to the scope and purpose of the
Kansas and Nebraska bill That bill was bill for ter
rtorial government and all the powers conferred by
it are conferred subject to this idca-tha is to say
the Kansas and Nebrnska bill confeY certain pow
ers Of sclfgovenment, but they are all to be taken
and with that view No power il conferred under that
TO splacc the territorial government and set upa
government Further if the territorial authorities
Of Kansas could substitute State government what
the necessity of the enabling act which recommended
by President Pierce in 1885, and reported from the Com
mttee Territories to the Senate and why the ena
bling act known the Toombs bill, which passed the
Senate sustained in the House by the democratic
partyg It would SEEM from these fcs that the Exec,l-
tive the Senate and nearly nchalf of the House of
Representatives considered enabling act necessary
in other words that the territorial Legislature did not
have power TO set up State government absolutely
the Kansas Nebraska bill s enabling act it is very
evident the territorial legislature could not ppria
rigore conclusivcly In the matter The correct
doctrine upon this point announced by Mr. Butler,
Attorney General OF the United States in the Arkansas
case, when the territorial Legislature originated pro-
ceedngs for State organization the inhabitants
of Territory had right to do any act designed
calculated to subvert supersee the existing territorial
government without the previous consent Of Congress,
though they might peaceably assemble and sign petit
ton, and accompany It with written constitution
part of their petition for authority to form State gov
ernment provided such measures In subordinaton
to the territorial government and in entire suscrvency
to the power of Congress to adopt disregard their APP
plication According to these principles then the pro-
ceedings which have taken place In Kansas in reference
to State organization have not and cannot of themselves
constitute Kansas perfect State She is now only
State potential not State imperative, State that
may be, not State that must be- What Kansas
has done amounts to nothing more in effect than pc
usoii III "uiisoon ~ Is truc CVtSicsS cuh waive %
jections to the reguarity of the proceedings and
sent to the admission Of Kansas The proceedings may
be sufficiently binding upon the people of Kansas, but
they not of complete validity unless assentcd to by
Kansas is not therefore, State outside Of the
Union She is only Territory asking admission under
proceedings for State organization binding upon her. but
not upon M
1t may be said that the people of Territory have .
right to admission State into the Union. I admit
this to be true to certain extent but it is right which
cannot be urged to the injury of the existing States In
the Of Kansas it has been thought the claim for adj
mission strengthened by the provisions of the treaty
acquiring Louisiana, as follows AgtS
territory be Incorporated 10
Union Of the United States possible
cordng to the principles OF the federal constitution to the enjoyment
OF all the rights advantages and mmuni Of citizens d the United
States" aas essHN sstsM $50
But do not consider the claim of the people of Kansas
Territory to admission in any degree strengthened by this
treaty any than such claim stIeng thencd by
the ordinance of 1887 in reference TO the Territories
formed north Of the Ohio river because the claim Of the
people Of Territory to admission resulting independent
situtions is strong it he not to be imperative
but subordinate to the being of the existing States
according to the Judgment of Congress justly exercised
Or, to vary tho form OF stating this proposition,
treaty ordinance compel Congress to admit a
State which II considers ought be admitted but
Congress could rghtfully refuse to admit State
to whose admission there Just exception.
For example, Congress could rightfully. object
to tho admission Of slave State simply as such
ritory has right to admission but this right cannot
arise, supposing the is uncxceptionabs upon all
other grounds, until the Territory has population equal
to- the ratio Of representation that il to say ninety
three thousand lour-and-twenty The constitution of
the United States authorizes Congress to determine the