The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1858-06-05

- nyposITI0S TO The REPORf or THE COSFEk-
EScE COMMITTEE.
n,f,,rAf in tie Z. s Senate, AprI %, 1853.
n, DoUGLAs-Mr. President, / have
.,-efulIy examined the bin reported by
IKE Committee of Conference as a substi-
,rts for the House amendment to the
Ssnate bill for the admission of Kansas,
lin an anxious desire to find in it such
rroyisions as would enable me to give it
my support. I had hoped that after the
di:agreement of the two Houses upon this
orestion, some plan, some form of bill,
couId have been agreed upon which would
bumonise and quiet the country, and
re-unite those who agree in principle and
in political action on this great question,
50 as to take it out of Congress. I am
not able, in the bill which is now under
consideration, to find that the principle for
which have contended is fairly carried
out. The position, and the sole position
On which l have stood in this whole con-
troTersy, has been that the people of Kan
sas and of each other Territory, in forming
a constitution for admission into the
Union as a State, should be left perfectly
free to form and mould their domestic
Institutions and organic act in their own
wsy, without coercion on the one side, or
sny improper or undue influence on the
other
The question now arises, is there such
submission of the Leeompton constitu-
ton as brings it fairly within that princi
ple? In terms, the constitution is not
submitted to all but yet we are told that
it amounts to submission, because there
is land grant attached to it, and they are
permitted to vote for the land grant, or
against the land grant; and, if they accept
the land grant, then they are required to
take the constitution with it and, if they
reject the land grant, it shall be held and
deemed decision against coming into
the Union under the Lecompton eonstitu-
ton. Hence it has been argued in one
portion of the Union, that this is submiss-
ion, and in another portion, that it is not.
We are to be told that submission is pop
ular sovereignty in one section, and sub
mission in another section is not popular
sovereignty.
Sir, had hoped that when we came
finally to adjust this question, we should
have been able to employ language so
clear, so unequivocal, that there would
have been no room for doubt as to what
was meant, and what the line of policy
was in the future. Are these people left
free to take or reject the Lecompton con-
stitution? :? If they accept the land grant,
they are compelled to take it. Ifthey reject
the land grant, they are out of the Union.
Sir, have no special objection to the
land graft as it is. I think it is fair
one, and if they had put the further ad-
dition, that if they refused to come in
under the Lecompton constitution with
the land grant, they might proceed to
form a new constitution, and that they
should then have the same amount of
lands, there would have been no bounty
held out for coming in under the Lecomp-
ton constitution; but when the law gives
them the six million of acres in the event
they take this constitution, and does not
indicate what they are to have in the
event they reject it, and wait until they
can form another, / submit the question
whether there is not an inducement, a
bounty held out to influence these people
to vote for the Leeompton constitution ?
It may be said that when they attain
the ninety-three thousand population, or il
they wait until after 1860, if they acquired
the population required by the then ratio
which may be one hundred and ten thou
sand-and form constitution under it,
we shall give them the same amount of
land that is now given by this grant. That
may be so, and may not be so. believe
twill be so; and yet in the House bill,
Tor which this is substitute, the provi-
sion was that they should have this same
amount of land, whether they came in
under the Lecompton constitution, ol
whether they formed new constitution
There was no doubt, no uncertainty LEFT
IN regard to what were to be their right:
under the land grant, whether they took
the one constitution or the other. Hence
that proposition was fair submission
without any penalties on the one side ol
any bounty or special favor or privilege
on the other, to influence their action. In
this view of the case, am not able to
arrive at the conclusion that this is fail
submission, either of the question of the
constitution itself, or of admission into the
Union under the constitution, and the pro-
position submitted by this bill.
Again, sir, there is a further contin.
gency. In the event that they reject thi:
constitution, they are to stay out of the
omon until they shall attain the requisite
population for member of Congress
according to the then ratio of representa-.
uon IN the other House. / have no OBJ
lection to making it a general rule thai
territories shall be kept out until they
nave the requisite population / have
proposed it over and over again. an
wiling to agree to it and make it appli
caoie to Kansas if you will make it {
general rule.
but, sir, it is one thing to adopt tha
rule as general rule and adhere to it il
all cases, and it is very different and {
very distinct thing to provide that if they
wiz take this constitution, which the peo
PIE nave shown that they abhor, they may
&c come In with forty thousand people, bu
II !. they do not, they shall stay out unit
auey get ninety thousand, thus discrimi
naIins between the different character o
hsatuhons that may be formed. I sub
1'l the question whether it is not Con
stesslonai Intervention when you provid
mat q Territory may come in with on
ANY a.Ia OF constitution with forty Thousand
aHa with different kind of constitution
oe until she gets ninety thousand, or on
saoafed and twenty thousand ? 1t
lIsefSentlon - with inducements to contro
nc result. It is intervention with
agoanty on the one side and a penalty o.
sas olner. | ask, ara we prepared to con
sue the great principle of popular sove
.s ssn!y In such amanner as viii recogniz
sas night of Congress to intervene an,
l OI.rol the decision that the people ma
aAs On this question?
.n Inc great principle for which we hay
a. - SOn,ended, in the language of the Kan
,as-N eofaska act is to leave " the peopl
5oi 5Itiy free to form and regulate thei
gnestlc institutions in their own way
Te. Tae. only to the constitution of t6
-