The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-04-01

|
MED that at an election called by the legal Ter
ritorial Legislature the people of Kansas had
| by large majority, repudiated the Lecompton
Constitution. To force that instrument upon
them, then, would be to rob them Of the right
| of selfgovernment. The Lecompton Constitu-
ton recognized the right of property in slaves
i as being higher than any constitutional sane
tion-a doctrine condemned alike by the people
of Kansas and of his own State. That this
| Constitution should be forced upon the people
of Kansas by the votes of men styling them.
selves New York Democrats, would be singu-
lar and pitiful spectacle. BE trusted there
would be no doughfaces found in New York
for such purpose.
| Mr.. Clark, of New York, said the following
questions presented themselves to his mind:
First, had her proceedings been perfectly reg
ular2 second, had she the requisite population,
and had that population the stability and order
to justify her admission? third, was her appli-
cation the will of the people speaking in voice
which could not be misunderstood? and, fourth,
had the Constitution been made by that people,
and were the State officers now in existence
elected by that people, and entitled to discharge
| their executive duties? BE maintained the at
| frmative of the first two, and the negative OF
| the remaining questions. he was unwilling 70
establish precedent by the admission OF that
Constitution. 1t was said that the people were
| applying for admission whilst they protested
| against admission under that Constitution. To
which of these voices would they hearken.
He distrusted her possession of the requisite
population he was not satisfied that her pro.
ceeaings were sufficiently regular, nor did he
think that the application was that of the PEG
pie of Kansas. Notwithstanding that, he should
vote for her admission, provided the people Of
hovo tn ham hn OH
to form, without wrong or violence, the institu.
tons under which they desired to live.
Mr.. Kilgore, of Indiana, defended the Repub.
lcan party against the charge of Abolitionism.
He was not an Abclitionist, but q Free State
man, preferring the prosperity and progress Of
the free States to the opposite condition OF
| things in the slave States. He denounced the
Kansas policy of the Administration and the
whole Lecompton affair in the most unqualified
terms He was in favor of giving the Terri
tories to the poor men of the North and the
South, and not to overgrown corporations like
the slave interest.
Mr.. Stewart, of Maryland, defended the Ls-
compton Constitution against the charges OF
fraud, AID contended that it was legally and reg
ularly before Congress. 1t was not necessary
that State should have any Constitution at all,
| when admitted Southern men ought to be
permitted to carry their servants, not only into
the Territories, but into the free States. He
defended the Supreme Court and the bred Scott
decision, and denounced the propsgsndism of
the North, which would overturn laws, consti-
tations, and judicial decisions, for the sake Of
establishing agrarianism.
Thursday, March 25, 1853.
SENATE
Resolutions of the State of Maine-Mr. Fes.
sender presented the resolutions passed by the
Legislature of Maine, which he asked might be
read, and they were read.
Mr.. Mason thought that the rules of the Sen
ate required that all documents presented should
be in respectful language. he found no fault
with the Senator from Maine, as his duty perhaps
required him to present them but the resolu-
tons were not couched in such language as the
Senate ought to receive. They charged indi.
recty, if not directly, per6dy in Congress, false
hood in the President, and infamy in the Ju
dietary. He was aware that it was the duty of
the Senate to receive communications from
sovereign States of this Confederacy, though at
the same time taking it for granted that in these
communications they would respect themselves
sufficiently to use appropriate language.
Mr.. Fessenden felt no desire to escape the re-
sponsibility of presenting those resolutions
under the plea of duty, but would 60 further,
and say that he not only approved of them, but
endorsed every sentiment they contained. In
speaking of perfdy," they did not allude to
the present Cor gress, but to that which had re-
pealed the Missouri Compromise, and he had
yet to learn what rules of the Senate could pre-.
vent them from being received, because they
might reflect upon past Congress. He Mr..
F. had made a like charge on the floor of the
Senate, and would repeat it on all proper coca.
sons; be had always considered the repeal Of
the Missouri Compromise as a breach of plight
ed faith, and had so stigmatized it.
The charge against the Judiciary referred to
that of Kansas, and not to the Supreme Court
of the United States. He repeated that the Ju
dietary of Kansas was corrupt, and disgraced
the ermine which it wore. As to the other
charge of falsity upon the part of the President,
he had yet to learn what rules of the body pre-.
cluded the reception of resolutions from sover-
eign State, because its language might not be
considered very courteous to that fupctionary.
Mr. F. had made the same charge in his speech
against the message of the President, which
contained commentaries that were known not
to be true when they were made and if duty
called on him to speak against officers of the
Government, they would not be spared by him,
however high they might stand, as in his opin-
ion the higher they stood the greater the breach
of propriety.
The resolutions were laid on the table, and
ordered to be printed.
Minnesota.-The Senate then proceeded to
the consideration of the special order, being the
bill for the admission of the State of Minnesota
into the Union.
Mr.. Mason moved an amendment to the bill,
the effect of which was to limit her representa-.
ton to one member of the House on which q
long debate ensued, in which Messrs. Mason,
Oeolittle, Toombs, Bigler, Polk, Douglas, Hun.
ter, Gwin, Brown, Johnson of Tennessee, and
others, participated when, without taking any
question,
ceeded to the consideration of Executive bust
ness; and, after some considerable time spent
therein, the doors were opened, and the Senate
| adjourned to Monday.
HOUSE.
Debate on Kansas.-On motion of Mr.. Ste
phens, of Georgia, the House went into Com
mittee of the Whole, (Mr. Bocock, of Virginia,
| in the chair,) and nominally resumed the con-
| sideration of the deficiency bill.
Mr.. Talbot, of KY, being entitled to the floor,
| yielded it to
Mr.. Peyton, of KY, who made q speech in
| favor of the admission of Kansas under the
| Lecompton Constitution. He contended that
| there was no fairness in excluding Southern
| men and Southern institutions from the Terri
tories, reviewed the progress of events in Kan.
sas, and argued that the Lecompton Constitu-
ton was regular and legal. The Slavery ques.
ton was the real issue.
Mr.. Grow, of Pennsylvania, opposed Lecomp-
ton. He would not contend for the necessity
of an enabling act, believing in the right of q
Territory to petition the General Government
for admission. A State Government once es-
| tablished by Congress could not be superseded,