Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1858-05-15
DAILY APPEAL.
saTgapAY MoRNIEe. :.-MAY Is, 81:
KANSAS CONFERENCE BILL.
REMARKS OF HON. W. ". B0YcE,
IN THE HOUSE or REEREsESTATIvEs MONDAY,

was letting down on the part OF the Sout
ron the position we had heretofore held upo
this subject. Second, that the reference Of "a
land grant proposition 10 a vote Of the people q
Kansas was an infringement of State rigai'
Even II / were 10 grant the truth Of the frs
objection, Il might no: be conclusive becaus
The question would still be, was The presen
proposition wise; If that question be snswsre
in the Affirmative, as / think it must necesss
rily be, should We be estopped from taking
because we had previously taken an indefensi
bic position I thint not. lf our past posi-
tion was unwissly taken, Instead Ct rlinging Z
error, we should make haste TO put ourselve
on the impregnable ground OF common sens
Z and truth. But / do not admit that We hav
changed our ground. What bad We been con
tending for2 That Kansas shOUld not be re
jeeted because she had a slave constitution, al,
1 that Congress should not intervene and pre-
( scribe bow that constitution should be frame,
I By the people Of Kansas. Tbe bill from thl
/ COMMITTEES comedies both of these positions Al
1 claimed by rs. Tie bill, coneediHg both thes'
/ propositions, only requires the assent Of IA,
Z people Of Kansas TO What is confessedi} rea-
sona0le proposition in reference 70 the public
domain. We have never contended that Kan
sas should be admitted with her unjust ordi
nance Operative in regard to the pubic lands
All OF our action upon this subject has been iI
repudiation Of that ordinance. We now say q
the people as exactly what We have said all the
rlme-repudiate that ordinance. agree 10 what
10 customary and right in regard to the public
land, and you are in the Union under the L.
compton Constitution; we only vary the mode
Of obtaining that TesElt. The first objection OF
the gsntlemsa from Mississippi, is, submit On
founded.
1 proceed nov TO the second objection. This
requires a more extended consideration, and ins
wolves wide range Of augmentation on col
stitutional law, which will furnish, think, a
satisfactory answer to the objection.
The Territorial legislature Of Kansas called
q convention 10 frame a State constitution.
This convention framed what Is known as the
Lecampton constitution, aud applied for ad-
mission. Whatever vitality this constitution
has was derived primarily from the Territorial
Legislature. ] consider that the Territorial
Legislature had no power to originate an au-
thoritstiye State organization. Certain pro-
visions in the Kansas Nebraska bill have been
supposed to confer this power. The words Of
tie said act bearing on this point are as fol-
lows: The Territorial Legislature shall have
power over all rightful subjects Of legislation
consistent with the constitution and said act,
and the people are LEFT perfectly free to form
shd regulate their domestic institutions 10 their
own way, subject, however, to the Constitution
Of The United States" These provisions do
not, in my opinion, operate as an enabling act,
and do not, therefore, authorize the people Of
Kansas 10 set up a state government in subVer-
sion Of the Territorial government. These
provisions are to be construed in suboFdination
to the scope aad purpose Of the Kansas and
Nebraska bill That bill was bill for Ter
ritOrial government, and all the powers con-
feTred BY it are conferred subject to this idea
that is TO say, the Kansas aud Nebraska bill
confers certain powers Of self-governmsut, but
they are all to be taken subject to the eontinu-
snce Of the Territorial government, and with
that view. No power Is conferred under that
act to displacs the Territorial government and
set I'D a new government. Further, if the Ter
ritorial authorities Of Kansas could substitute
a State Government, what was the necessity Of
the enabling act which was recommended by
President Pierce in 1856, sndTep0rted from the
Committee on Territories to the Senate and
why the enabling act known as the IOom5s
bill, which passed the Senate, and was sus-
tanned 10 the House by the Democratic party
It would seem, from these facts, that the Ex-
ecUtive, the Senate, and nearly one half Of the
House Of Representatives, considered an en-
abling act necessary or, in other words, that
the Territorial Legislature did not have power
10 set Up State government absolutely. If
the Kansas Nebraska bill is lot an enabling
act, it is very evident the Territorial Legisla-
tars could not, eE proFri1 UigOTe, move eOncla-
sively in the matter. ne correct doctrine np-
on this point was announced BY Mr.. Butisr,
Attorney General Of the United States, in the
Arkansas case, when the Territorial Begisla-
.ure originated proceedings for State organi-
the inhabitants Of a Territory
lad no right to do auy act designed or calcula-
ed to subvert or supersede the existing Terri
-0rial government, without the previous con
sent Of Congress, though they might peaceably
eli ID
With a written constitution, as part Of their
petition, for authority to form a 5 ate govern
rect, provided such measures were IN sub0Tdi-
lation to the Territorial government, and IN
,ntiTe subseTViency to the power Of Congress
o adopt or disregard their application. Ac
,0Tding TO these principles, then, the proceed
ngs which have taken place IN Kansas iB ref
,Tence to State organization, have not, and
,snnOt of themselves, constitute Kansas per
iect State. She is now only State potential,
lot State imperative, State that may be,
bot a State that must be. What Kansas has
lone amounts TO nothing more, in effect, than
petition for admission IL true Congress can
waive objections to the iTregulsTiiy OF the pro-
ceeaings, aad consent to the admission OF Kan
sas. The proceedings may be sufficiently bind
ing upon the people Of Kansas. but they are
not Of complete validity unless sssented to
5y US. Kansas is not, therefore, STATE out
side Of the Union. She is only Territory
asking admission under proceedings for State
binding uPoa her, bat not upon
us.
It NAV b said that the people Of Territory
have a right to admission as State into the
Union. / admit this TO be true to certain eX-
tent but it is a right which cannot be urged
to the injury Of the existing States. In the
case Of Kansas it has been thought the claim
for admission was strengthened BY the prOyi-
sions Of the treaty acquiring Louisiana, as
follows:
81 The inhabitants Of the eeded Territory
shall be incorporated 10 the Union Of the United
states, and admitted as soon as possible, ac-
cording to the principles Of the Federal Con
stitution, to the enjoyment Of all the rights,
advantages, and immunities Of citizens Of the
United Ststes.D
Bot do not consider the claim Of the people
Of Kansas Territory to admission in any degree
Strengthened by this treaty, any more than such
claim was Strengthened by the ordinance OF
I7s7, in references to The Territories formed
north Of the Ohio river; because the claim Of
the people Of Territory to admission, result
ing independently Of al treaties OF ordinances
from the geHius OF our institutions, is 40 strong
as il can Be not to be Imperative, but subordi-
nate to the well-beiug OF the existing States,
according to the Judgment Of Congress Justly
exercised. Or, to vary the form. Of stating
this proposition, no treaty or ordnance can
compel Congress TO admit State which il
considers ought not to be admitted but no
Congress could rightfullY refuse TO admit a
State TO whose admission there was no just ex-
eeption.
For example. no Congress could rightfuliy
object 70 the admission Of 4 slave State simply
as such. Under the notifications, then, above
stated. a Territory has right TO admission
but this right canBol arise, supPosing the case
Is eptiona bic upon all other grounds, IN
til the Territory has a population equal to the
ratio Of representation that it 10 says ninety
three thousand four-snd-twenty. The Consti-
tuition Of the United States authorizes Congress
TO determine the ratio Of representation, with
a provision that each State shall have at least
one member When Congress has determined
that ratio, it is the same thing, in effect, as Il
the constitution had establised It; for, being
done BY virtue Of the power conferred 10 tie
Constitution, il is t5s same thing as II con-
tanned In the Constitution. In other wol }, the
ratio Of representation, rs determined BY Con
gress, becomes the constitutional ratio Of rep
rssentation. The people Of Territory have
no just cause Of complaint for non admission
until they possess a population equal to the
ratio Of representation; for they cannot claim
more than equality with the people Of th'
STATES; in other words, they cannot claim q
representative ia the House OF Representa-
tiVes, which is one Of the incidents Of sdmis
sion, until their population entities them to j
according to the existing rule. Congress, II u
true. NAV waive the rule, ana admit a STAT
with defcispt population; but il is an exer
else of power which should be made with grea
prudence. have thus far considered the righ
Of Territory to admission. To complete th
view Of the subject, it is necessary 20 regard
in another sspect-the power OF Congress :
rsfsrenee TO the Territories, and the admissiO
Of new States.
From the origin Of the government to tn
present day, the power Of Congress 10 cover
he Territories by some form OF territorial gov
erument has been universally eoncedes- IL
not necessary, for our present purposes I " -
onirs az 70 the source Of this power in the cor
stitution, its existence being matter Of ger
eraI consent. This doctrine necessarily reP'
dates what is called squatter sovereignty' 40
| implies that no government ignoring TOE so'
D 60 rarrn II