Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1858-06-30

the constitution upon both the slavery clause
and the question of submission, and should,
therefore, have insisted upon the adoption Of the
Senate bill. They would ultimately have sue
ceeded. But if they had failed, then, on the
defeated Senate bill, they would have gone to
the country with better issue than on the vic
torious conference bill.
But, sir, the Senate bill was defeated, and a
conference committee, at the request of the
Senate, was appointed. After>many meetings
and much disagreement, they reported the bill,
the merits Of which now propose to consider.
The first objection to the bill is, that it sub
mits the whole Lecompton constitution back to
the people of Kansas for adoption or rejection,
in spite of the declaration of the people in con-
vention assembled, that they desired admission,
at once under that constitution. The first sec
ton Of the bill provides that the admission Of
Kansas shall be dependent on "the fundamental
conditionRrecedent," that the people of Kansas
shall accept specific proposition contained in
six clauses of the bill respecting lands, taxes,
&c. The bill provides further, that on major
ity voting proposition accepted" at an election
to be held, aThe President Of the United States
shall announce the same by proclamation; and
thereafter, and without any further proceedings
on the part of Congress, the admission Of hie
Stale of Kanses into the Union, upon an equal
footing with the original States, in all respects
whatever, shall be complete and absolute"
Whilst, on the other hand, if ga majority of
the votes cast be for proposition rejected, it
shall be deemed and held, that the people Of
Kansas do not desire admission into the Union
sruh said constitution, under the conditions set
forth in said proposition" And then, regarding
the adoption by Kansas Of this last alternative
as a rejection of the constitution, the bill goes
OH to authorize the people to form new con-
stitution. Does this statement alone not make
it palpable to the plainest understanding that,
though not in so many words, this is virtually a
submission of the constitution? 1t does not
matter whether the voting be on the land grant,
the taxing power &C., or on some totally indif-
ferent question; still, if the result be that Kan
sas, with tue Lecsmpton constitution, would, on
the one hand, be admitted, and on the other
rejected, by reason Of that role, unquestionably
the constitution is virtually submitted back to
the people for ratification or rejection.
Besides, il it were intended to submit the
propositions growing out of the ordinance alone,
why introduce into the bill the words "admis-
sion of the State of Kansas into the Union,"
&C., at all?
Again, the Douglas Democrats, as before
stated, based their opposition to the Senate bill
mainly upon the ground Of the non-submission
of the whole constitution to the people. What
other feature, then, ask, is it in the conference
bill that commended that bill, rather than the
Senate bill, to the support of the English branch
of the Douglas Democracy? Surely not that
feature which proposes to admit Kansas under
the Lecompton constituliontnpon the people. .Tat
the approaching August election, giving major
ity for proposition accepted;" )" but if, on the
contrary, they should give majority for "pro-
position rejected" proposes to keep them out
indefinitely 3?
But, sir, as to the construction which the
English branch Of the Douglas Democracy
place on this bill, we are not left to inference
alone. "The naked and unqualified admission
of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution" !"
said Mr.. English, in presenting the Conference
report to the House, "he could not vote for;
that @bcfore Kansas is admitted her people
ought to ratify, or at least, have fair opportu-
nity to vote upon the constitution under which
it is proposed to admit'her;" that I" he would
make reasonable concessions provided the sub
stance be secured; which is the making of the
constitution, at an early day, conform to the pub
lie will or, at least, that the privilege and oppor-
tupity of so making it, be secured to the people
beyond all question" 1t would puzzle human
ingenuity to discover any other meaning in these
words than that Mr.. English considered the
Conference bill as in effect submitting thewhole
constitution to the people for acceptance or re-
lection. Would Mr.. English, or any other ad-
vocate of the bill, have voted for an amend
ment declaring it was not submission? l ap-
prehend not Mr.. Groesbeck and Mr.. Cox, of
the same wing Of the Douglas party, and Mr..
Gilmer of the southern Americans, said they
regarded it in effect a submission. All the op-
position say, that it is virtual submission.
Other distinguished members of the committee,
it is true, say there is no submission of the con-
stituton to vote Of the people. The members
of the committee disagree. We are, therefore,
free to place our own construction upon the bill.
To nv mind, it is virtual submission Of the
constitution back to the people for acceptance
or rejection, which view, think, I have shown
10 be correct.
The most plausible argument in favor of the
Conference bi which have heard or seen, is,
that if Kansas, by rejecting the proposition in
the conference bill, should be kept out of the
Union; still, if she had been unwilling to ac.
cept our proposition, in the Senate bill, she
would, in that event, also have been out of the
Union; and that we could not compel her to
come in. That is true. But, it was admitted
on this side of the House-denied by no Demo.
crat so far as my knowledge or information goes
that Kansas would have assented to our prop
osition contained in the Senate bill. 1t was
reasonable-the same that was made to Mime
sota-and Kansas could ask no more. Her
proposition was unreasonable, and such as no
State ever laid claim to before. 1t was never
questioned that, on the passage of the Senate
bill, the Legislature Of Kansas would be con-
vened; that her Senators would be elected and
that they and the member elect, would, as soon
thereafter as practicable, take their seats. Now,
the instant that these delegates should have
taken their seats, Kansas would, submit, with
confidence in the view, have been in the Union
with the Lecompton onstitution-there would
have been an acceptance of our proposition, and
an unconditional assent to the terms of the Sen.
ate bill, by such sending of delegates waiver
to all intents and purposes, of all right to tax
the public lands; and an abandonment Of any
claim to land itself beyond the four millions OF
acres. No one, up to the failure of the Senate
bill, saw any difficulty as to the ordinance, which
was in fact no part of the constitution; and
there WAS no reason to suppose there could be
any; for Kansas had herself proposed to come
in with the Lecompton constitution, and would
have been in, and been received by Congress as
member of the Cenfederacy, by the act Of
sending her Senators and member here to take
their seats and need never again land probably
would not) have alluded to her ordinance. No
vote by her people, in such case, would have been
necessary to admission. Or, she might, if she
had preferred so to do, through her State legis
lature, have assembled O convention, and through